Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

Post Reply New Topic

Both, though it's the latter that's on display in this thread.

Why then is it ok to criticize white people as a group?

if i were POC and another POC told me he was fine with white dudes taking away my right to vote and voting to make police brutalists unaccountable, i would put distance between me and that SOB to avoid having one of us in jail and the other in the hospital.

I disagree with most of what I hear white people say, at least on line. Their being white doesn't give them any more credibility or moral authority from my perspective.

Because it's alright to be self critical of your own group. And that includes one's own religion, class, etc., as well as race.

As a whole, I would say it isn't. I am a strong advocate for qualifying adjectives to make it clear you know you are speaking only of a subset.

A few generalizations are inherently true, like when I hear a black person say "white people don't get it." Well, duh, how can any of us? We don't have the shared experience. People should be cautious, however, in assuming that any generalization ever applies; the times you can accurately make one are extremely rare.

I'm bolding the dog story because my first thought upon hearing the Elder news story was "duh, is there anyone who does not know minority candidates face these kinds of attacks constantly?" Mainstream "liberal" news doesn't highlight them because (a) they happen too often and (b) when it does, it gets accused of race baiting. Liberals KNOW these things are a fact of life for POC. It is conservative media that has been wanting to pretend they aren't. A lot of people have spent a lot of time being in denial of the realities here.

The Elder story, however, didn't seem to start as a story about concern for a racist attack on Elder. It still hasn't. Conservative news IMMEDIATELY jumped into wondering why mainstream liberal news wasn't all over it. They have seemed much more interested in finding a "bias" angle in the story, and playing a stereotype angle, than in expressing any real concern about the fact a conservative candidate endured a racist attack. The idea that racist attacks occur goes against the conservative narrative that POC have it difficult in this country.

I long ago learned to be suspicious about any story that tries to make who cares about what, and who covers what, more of the story than what actually happened. Took me a few rounds to see it, but that is what we have here. Everything else has been a side note.

I do not believe this has EVER been about the fact that Elder was attacked. Race has been nothing but a tool to push a different story.

What happened to Elder was a dog biting a human, not a human biting the dog, but since conservative media has long claimed dogs don't bite humans, instead of acknowledging that yes it seems dogs do bite humans, they ran with asking why it wasn't bigger news to everyone else, and used that angle to push their own agenda.

Smollet's dishonestly and the way social media drove the news on it, and the dishonesty of conservatives with the Elder story, both disappoint me. Stereotypes probably do play role in what gets advanced, holding onto them is a sad fact of human nature, but the agenda of the media source seems to be the bigger driver lately.

You may need to revise your sources, then - This did in fact commence as a report on Mr Elder:
https://ground.news/article/democrats-unleash-bigoted-attack-on-larry-elder_bb7545
(The site has a timeline showing which media company published a story, and when, along with the ability to jump to the specific stoy.)



Again, here is one of the first "right wing" news sources to report on it:

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/larry-elder-attacked-people-throwing-eggs-him-los-angeles

This article, as per timeline in the ground.news site, was posted shortly after the story first broke.



It was actually many hours after the event, not "imediately", and was the result of there being minimal coverage of the story from the "left-wing" media - see if you can find any mention of the attack on the CNN website, even today, for example...



Again, either you picked up on the story late, or your news sources are poorly selected - this was picked up as an attack\racist attack on Mr Elder from the start by "right-wing" media, and only morphed into questioning "left-wing" media once it became apparent they had no interest in covering the story.

A similar thing occurred in Canada, where the current Prime Minister, running for re-election, had items thrown at him, which became news, whereas the day previously (from memory) items were thrown at the leader of one of the opposition parties, and the "left-wing" media (for the most part) ignored it.

I’ll concede I likely have the timeline wrong, but it still comes back to the intentional naïveté of believing this is a human biting a dog story, and not the reverse. Plus, if moving from A to B happens faster than a normal person checks the news, it may as well have been immediate. My news sources are fine, but I do have a job and a work deadline, and that means checking my news sources has to be done at breaks.

I’ve heard the frequent charge that other media would have been all over it if he had been liberal. I don’t think there is a single ounce of proof to back that up. It’s a useless argument when you realize that to liberals this is a dog biting a human story, not the opposite.

I should stop there but I’m in a prickly mood. I see Elder as an inconsequential pundit turned politician who only has a chance of becoming governor because of a quirky recall system in this state. He is polling only 20% of the vote, and that is for line 2 of an “if 1 wins, proceed to 2” situation. How often does news of what happens to such candidates make national, much less international, news? It is so bizarre to me that someone in Australia even knows his name. Can you name any of the other celebrities, students, businessmen, homemakers, you-tube stars and other sundry candidates on the ballot?

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Sep 2021, 8:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I voted "No" on the recall ballot, and did not even bother to read the names that came after.  it is a GOP power-grab, that is all -- as long a Newsom gets the boot, the Repugnicans will be happy no matter who replaces him; and if he stays in office, you can be sure that they will cry "Rigged" and try to have yet another honest election overturned.

Effing policians!

Interesting that you should mention "rigged" elections, not long after this was published:

Source: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/san-fernando-valley-residents-have-trouble-casting-recall-ballots/

Wake me up when they find proof. There are far more accusations like this than proof. They also usually forget to mention that in such disputes voters can cast provisional ballots. The county will go back to the paper and the signatures on file and get it fixed. There are plenty of guardrails. Elections have been audited to death in recent years and they never find anything that could change an election result, or come anywhere close. Worries of fraud are used to gain support to make voting more difficult, where the actual goal is to suppress the votes of those they don't want voting.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Sep 2021, 10:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Had you read the linked article, you'd be aware that casting provisional ballots was noted (there wasn't much in the article, and I had to truncate it to prevent copyright issues regarding how much was quoted). The message the article was conveying is that there is no way to know what caused the voter to be listed as having already voted (user error marking name of person who had voted, postal vote received and accepted without checking signature, software error, etc.), and so no way to know if it is an isolated issue, or something more structured behind it (given multiple people in the area reported this).

If the person (and those others discussed) had not gone to vote, would this have been picked up (could a person potentially vote twice because the wrong name was registered\a fraudulent vote be recorded because another person had returned postal ballot and user, by not voting in person was unable to "correct" this\etc.), or could votes be potentially counted which should not have been placed (or, had the same thing occurred somewhere with compulsary voting - not an issue in the U.S.A. - , could a person have been fined because their having voted was not registered - and another voter also be fined for voting multiple times)...

There doesn't need to be a malicious reason for the person being listed as having voted when they hadn't, but it is the sort of occurence\irregularity for which the cause should be investigated - Imagine if a number of residents in an "African American" area had this occur: Would it be written off as "they can cast a provisional ballot and it will be fixed up", or would claims of an attempt to disenfranchise the voters be made instead?

Oh really?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... oll-finds/

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -president

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... 020-448604

Exact type of claim = that someone had already voted under their name

Claims that an election is illegitimate can occur for a variety of reasons, some that I have more respect for than others, but the concept of people voting as someone else is a Republican talking point.

You forget that I try to be precise.

You're playing semantics here, I don't think it matters much that Democrats and Republicans claim that the other side is cheating with different methods when they both frequently claim that elections won by the other side are illegitimate. There's still a significant amount of overlap, Trumpsters talking about rigged voting machines in 2020 are echoing 2004 Democrats, some of whom are still convinced that W stole Ohio in that election through that mechanism (I know because I know some of them).