Buckeyes Riot Burn Destroy Property, Not A Thug In Sight

[Turtle]

Turtle wrote--'Yes, I already know you want to give one group a pass, and not the other group, and you'll find your reasons for doing so. That's how bias works.'

It's not about giving one group 'a pass'. It's about objectively looking at the two incidents and pointing out the obvious differences.

<beating head against wall a few times> Obvious differences are obvious and don't need to be pointed out. Pointing them out is in and of itself a bias when doing so is to make one group look worse than another by using different characterizations and language for doing the same activity.

No one in here is saying that the Ohio State rioters, who broke the law shouldn't be prosecuted. So no, they aren't getting a pass.

There are many way to give someone a pass other than in being prosecuted. One way is to opine that "Setting on fire an old,stinky, booze stained couch from some frat house. Not really that newsworthy." because it minimizes the activity of arson, and deliberately implies that only old, stinky booze-stained couches were set on fire.

 

[muttly]

Turtle wrote--
'You're better off just saying how you feel, that when blacks riot it's really, really bad, and when whites riot it ain't that big a deal, and you believe there is no bias in the press reporting of it all'

Because that wouldn't be accurate to say that. You really don't have any basis for coming to that conclusion either. I didn't draw distinctions with regard to race. At least twice now you have made comments like this. I'm beginning to believe it has a devious nature to it.

 

[muttly]

Turtle wrote--
'Obvious differences are obvious and don't need to be pointed out. Pointing them out is in and of itself a bias when doing so is to make one group look worse than another by using different characterizations and language for doing the same activity.'

It wasn't obvious to you. Hence the reason for pointing out the differences. You wanted them to be reported exactly the same, yet there were some major differences between the two riots

 

[Turtle]

Turtle wrote--
'You're better off just saying how you feel, that when blacks riot it's really, really bad, and when whites riot it ain't that big a deal, and you believe there is no bias in the press reporting of it all'

Because that wouldn't be accurate to say that. You really don't have any basis for coming to that conclusion either. I didn't draw distinctions with regard to race. At least twice now you have made comments like this. I'm beginning to believe it has a devious nature to it.

I really do have a basis for coming to that conclusion. The totality of your posts provides the basis for coming to that conclusion, but a couple of things in particular stand out, like the types of things you voice the most objection to and the reasons for your objections, and certain phrases and allegations that are like totally racist used to deflect any notion that you are, in fact, racist. No, you didn't draw distinctions with regard to race. That would be highly overtly racist to do that. That's something that is only done in protected company.

But lest I am being unfair, let me ask you this: Do you see any disparate racial bias in the press reporting of the OSU riots and the Ferguson riots?

 

[muttly]

<beating head against wall a few times> Obvious differences are obvious and don't need to be pointed out. Pointing them out is in and of itself a bias when doing so is to make one group look worse than another by using different characterizations and language for doing the same activity.

There are many way to give someone a pass other than in being prosecuted. One way is to opine that "Setting on fire an old,stinky, booze stained couch from some frat house. Not really that newsworthy." because it minimizes the activity of arson, and deliberately implies that only old, stinky booze-stained couches were set on fire.

At West Virginia University, the tradition demands setting couches on fire [?], and how much attention does that get from the media? It's like it's ok to go nuts, if it's in the context of a game, because "feelings run high".

I was responding to Cheri's post and her lamenting the lack of news coverage from this apparent tradition.
I said it's not THAT 'newsworthy'. I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. Burning a couch or couches in a street should still make the news, but it isn't something of major significance to make national news IMO. They should still be prosecuted for the law breaking. The stinky boozed stain couch comment is an obvious reference to the fact that it is a college town. I mean,dude.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle wrote--
'Obvious differences are obvious and don't need to be pointed out. Pointing them out is in and of itself a bias when doing so is to make one group look worse than another by using different characterizations and language for doing the same activity.'

It wasn't obvious to you.

Actually it was. Very.

Hence the reason for pointing out the differences.

Except the differences weren't pointed out for my benefit, they were pointed out as justification for for the bias.

You wanted them to be reported exactly the same, yet there were some major differences between the two riots

I really don't think I said at all that I wanted them to be reported exactly the same. In fact I'm quite positive I did not. I know that I did not because I don't even think it. I simply want them to be reported factually and dispassionately without bias. Hence the reason for starting the thread.

 

[Turtle]

At West Virginia University, the tradition demands setting couches on fire [?], and how much attention does that get from the media? It's like it's ok to go nuts, if it's in the context of a game, because "feelings run high".

I was responding to Cheri's post and her lamenting the lack of news coverage from this apparent tradition.
I said it's not THAT 'newsworthy'. I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. Burning a couch or couches in a street should still make the news, but it isn't something of major significance to make national news IMO. They should still be prosecuted for the law breaking. The stinky boozed stain couch comment is an obvious reference to the fact that it is a college town. I mean,dude.

Thanks, but I really and truly have been paying attention.

 

[muttly]

I really do have a basis for coming to that conclusion. The totality of your posts provides the basis for coming to that conclusion, but a couple of things in particular stand out, like the types of things you voice the most objection to and the reasons for your objections, and certain phrases and allegations that are like totally racist used to deflect any notion that you are, in fact, racist. No, you didn't draw distinctions with regard to race. That would be highly overtly racist to do that. That's something that is only done in protected company.

But lest I am being unfair, let me ask you this: Do you see any disparate racial bias in the press reporting of the OSU riots and the Ferguson riots?

Please be more specific because you are totally off the mark. You threw the word racist out there . Be prepared to back it up. 'The totality of your posts' is some lame answer .

The disparate racial bias ? No
Again, there are some different circumstances with regard to property damage. Looting vs no looting.
Multiple cars burned and overturned vs no cars burned or overturned.
Whatever differences in reporting is in regards to the disparity with the damage.

 

[Turtle]

Please be more specific because you are totally off the mark. You threw the word racist out there . Be prepared to back it up. 'The totality of your posts' is some lame answer .

The disparate racial bias ? No

I don't have to be more specific. You just confirmed it with that answer. And the one below. People the world over can see the racial bias in the differences in the reporting, and you can't. The conclusion is, you are have the same bias, or you really and truly can't understand what you read. You pick.

Again, there are some different circumstances with regard to property damage. Looting vs no looting.
Multiple cars burned and overturned vs no cars burned or overturned.
Whatever differences in reporting is in regards to the disparity with the damage.

No, the disparity in damage is not the only differences in the reporting. There are half a half a dozen (that means 3) distinct different disparities in the reporting, only one of which is the damage done. Sheesh.

 

[muttly]

Actually it was. Very.

Except the differences weren't pointed out for my benefit, they were pointed out as justification for for the bias.

I really don't think I said at all that I wanted them to be reported exactly the same. In fact I'm quite positive I did not. I know that I did not because I don't even think it. I simply want them to be reported factually and dispassionately without bias. Hence the reason for starting the thread.

You drew a distinction the way the press reports riots involving mostly blacks, and riots involving mostly whites, and lamented that your list of words and phrases wouldn't be used equally with the two riots. You even referred to the Ferguson demonstrations . You erroneously used words like animals and thugs to describe the disparity in coverage. The word THUG is even in the title of this thread. Here is the problem. Those words won't be in news reports from news organizations for EITHER riot. The OP is a phony premise. As your OP title says 'Not A Thug in sight'. You'll be hard pressed to see the word animal and thug in sight of a news report from a news organization.

 

[muttly]

I don't have to be more specific. You just confirmed it with that answer. And the one below. People the world over can see the racial bias in the differences in the reporting, and you can't. The conclusion is, you are have the same bias, or you really and truly can't understand what you read. You pick.

No, the disparity in damage is not the only differences in the reporting. There are half a half a dozen (that means 3) distinct different disparities in the reporting, only one of which is the damage done. Sheesh.

It doesn't in any way confirm it. But nice try. But in your mind everyone is racist. So that is your affliction.

 

[muttly]

Turtle, you don't even remember what you write. You contradict yourself in the same thread and provide information that is erroneous. How is that Columbus Dispatch link about the car fires and overturned vehicle from this riot coming along?

 

[muttly]

Celebrating a win versus complaining about an injustice. And yet, extreme jubilation and extreme frustration both yield the same result.

Turtle said--
' I never said the two riots yielded the same results. I noted that they did not yield the same results, actually.'

The riots didn't yield the same result because there was a large disparity in the type of crime and the damage that was done.

 

[Turtle]

You drew a distinction the way the press reports riots involving mostly blacks, and riots involving mostly whites, and lamented that your list of words and phrases wouldn't be used equally with the two riots. You even referred to the Ferguson demonstrations .

I didn't lament that at all. I've already told you why I used those words, twice, so there's no point in telling you again. You'll either continue to ignore what I say, or you can't understand it.

You erroneously used words like animals and thugs to describe the disparity in coverage. The word THUG is even in the title of this thread. Here is the problem. Those words won't be in news reports from news organizations for EITHER riot. The OP is a phony premise. As your OP title says 'Not A Thug in sight'. You'll be hard pressed to see the word animal and thug in sight of a news report from a news organization.

I didn't erroneously use those words, I used them specifically because they have appeared in the past in the reporting of black riots. And the construct of "news organizations" is one of your own making. I never used that term in the OP, and instead intentionally used the term "national reports" which covers many outlets beyond the traditional news media. Then again, you would have had to understand what you read to know that.

 

[Turtle]

It doesn't in any way confirm it. But nice try. But in your mind everyone is racist. So that is your affliction.

Sorry, you can deny and try to distance yourself all you want from your own words, but it is absolutely confirmed, in every way. You don't see any disparate racial bias between the reporting of the OSU and Ferguson riots. There are three primary differences between the two events: the number of participants, the amount of damage done, and the color of the participants. You went to great lengths to justify why the press coverage is different, using two of those reasons, while deftly ignoring the third. There's only one reason to do that. Plus, the reasons you cite aren't the cause of the difference in tone and tenor of the language and phrasings used by the press, because those reasons do not warrant such disparities in the writing. On top of that, you ignorantly leveled the charge of race-baiting, where race-baiting doesn't exist. There's only one reason to do that, too.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle, you don't even remember what you write.

Incorrect. I choose my words carefully, for specific reasons, and therefore remember them quite well.

You contradict yourself in the same thread and provide information that is erroneous.

You've already tried and failed once at that one. I did neither. Do you think if you keep repeating the unsubstantiated charge that it'll magically become true?

How is that Columbus Dispatch link about the car fires and overturned vehicle from this riot coming along?

It's not coming at all. I already told you that I'm not going to give it to you.

 

[Turtle]

Celebrating a win versus complaining about an injustice. And yet, extreme jubilation and extreme frustration both yield the same result.

Turtle said--
' I never said the two riots yielded the same results. I noted that they did not yield the same results, actually.

So, you're feverishly combing through the thread looking for something, anything, that you can point to and go, "See! See! You contradicted yourself! Nya nya nya!" Except, all you've done is given another stellar example of how you don't understand what you read, but you think you do, but you don't.

You've quoted my reply to Dave where I noted that extreme jubilation and extreme frustration both yield the same result, and you have paired that with what you actually believe to be a statement where I contradicted myself where I said that I never said the two riots yielded the same result.

Obviously, you believe "extreme jubilation" and "extreme frustration" are both synonyms for "riots." So you think I actually said in effect, "The riots and the riots both yielded the same result."

The extreme jubilation and the extreme frustration both yielded the same result, namely, they both yield riots. So it's the two extreme emotions that yielded the same results, not the riots that yielded the same result.


I can't keep having to explain stuff this basic to you. This is grade school level English writing... vocabulary, syntax and grammar. It's very simple written communication, it's not complicated or complex in any way, the words are plain, easy to understand, and convey simple concepts and straightforward meanings. Yet you fail, utterly, time and time again to understand it. It's astonishing, and it wears me out. You don't understand what you read, yet you think you do, and even after it's pointed out that you don't understand it, and why you don't understand it, you're still convinced that you understand it.

You tell your dog, "I want you to go to the fridge, open it up, grab me a beer, and bring it to me. Do you understand?"

Dog goes, "Arf, yeah, yeah, yeah. Got it!"

You say, "OK, go get me a beer."

Dog gets up and immediately walks over to the corner of the living room, squats and takes a dump, and says, "BAM! Nailed it! What's next?"

That's what it's like trying to have a conversation with you, someone who doesn't know, and doesn't know that they don't know, and are absolutely positive they know. I just can't do it.

 

[muttly]

Sorry, you can deny and try to distance yourself all you want from your own words, but it is absolutely confirmed, in every way. You don't see any disparate racial bias between the reporting of the OSU and Ferguson riots. There are three primary differences between the two events: the number of participants, the amount of damage done, and the color of the participants. You went to great lengths to justify why the press coverage is different, using two of those reasons, while deftly ignoring the third. There's only one reason to do that. Plus, the reasons you cite aren't the cause of the difference in tone and tenor of the language and phrasings used by the press, because those reasons do not warrant such disparities in the writing. On top of that, you ignorantly leveled the charge of race-baiting, where race-baiting doesn't exist. There's only one reason to do that, too.

I didn't think you had any specifics. Just some cowardly contrived accusation because someone refutes your flawed premise. And that makes them a racist? Nope. Such a lazy brain you have.
Race baiting wasn't ignorantly leveled. It's the truth. Leveled against someone who thinks everyone is a racist . That is what you see, so in your view why not try to race bait them with an ignorant thread. Anyone who disagrees just call them a racist and race bait them again. Pathetic.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't think there is any question that anyone anywhere wouldn't consider looting and burning businesses to be acts of protest. No one questioned that. But you implied that all of them, each and every person out there was of the same mindset, painting with as broad a brush as possible, and only in the above paragraph begrudgingly (and disingenuously) allow for the possibility that "maybe" "a few" protesters (and even included protesters in quotes to indicate they weren't protesters, but something else) that didn't loot and pillage. You honestly believe that every person out there was there specifically to burn, loot and pillage. And that's fine.

And that's wrong. You're misinterpreting and spinning what I said with no knowledge of what my mindset was when I made the post. "Begrudgingly" and "disingenuously" are two adverbs that you've inserted without any basis in fact, just to support your assertion. The two riots are being discussed as events, with the common knowledge that neither crowd (or mob) can realistically be broken down into subgroups that might have different motivations for being there.

Yes, I know, that's what "scale" means. And you apparently believe the scale and intent is important enough to determine whether rioters get a pass or not. But the introduction of "intent" into it is in and of itself a bias, when you attribute the intent of a minority to the intent of the majority in one instance, and completely fail to mention intent at all in another instance.

Intent has everything to do with the consequences of the two riots being discussed. You're right - there was no mention of intent regarding the OSU riot because there was none regarding the destruction of buildings and looting of businesses.

Like I said, the only real differences between the two are the scale of the riots, the color of the majority of the participants, and the events that provoked the riots.

Yep - kind of like the difference in scale between the Six-Day War and World War II. But after all, they were both wars. You stated in post #28 that these were identical happenings, but the facts don't support that assertion at all. In fact, a lot of the damage inflicted in Ferguson could be defined as domestic terrorism because threats of these actions were made in advance, in an attempt to influence the grand jury that was in deliberations. Reporting the differences in the riots - including the differences in the amounts of damages done isn't bias.

It's a little late to be speaking of damage now. You had that opportunity in-context and ignored it completely, yet made it a point to talk about it regarding Ferguson.

Wrong again. I questioned in post #11 whether or not there had been damages reported at OSU, and apparently there had been none at that point. I also mentioned in post #24 that in either case the crowds should have dispersed when ordered to do so by the police, and again mentioned no reports of property damage. Evaluating the differences in damages, injuries and number of arrests is not bias - it's simply stating the obvious difference in scale between the two riots, and that one was far more serious than the other.

The differences between the two riots are very important to you, and in your paragraph describing the differences you showed just how important those difference are, by demonizing one group by showing how evil they are, and virtually canonizing the other group by dismissing them as harmless and innocent.

That's half right - the differences are important not only to me, but also to anyone concerned with the facts surrounding the two events. One involved millions of dollars in damages and hundreds of arrests. The other so far has shown damages to a goal post, a padlock and some scorched dumpsters. Yet you want them to be treated as nearly identical instances. The OSU rioters are by no means "harmless and innocent" but should shoplifters be given the same punishment as bank robbers? This is purely a case of apples and oranges, and the two events really shouldn't even be compared to one another.

 

[muttly]

So, you're feverishly combing through the thread looking for something, anything, that you can point to and go, "See! See! You contradicted yourself! Nya nya nya!" Except, all you've done is given another stellar example of how you don't understand what you read, but you think you do, but you don't.

You've quoted my reply to Dave where I noted that extreme jubilation and extreme frustration both yield the same result, and you have paired that with what you actually believe to be a statement where I contradicted myself where I said that I never said the two riots yielded the same result.

Obviously, you believe "extreme jubilation" and "extreme frustration" are both synonyms for "riots." So you think I actually said in effect, "The riots and the riots both yielded the same result."

The extreme jubilation and the extreme frustration both yielded the same result, namely, they both yield riots. So it's the two extreme emotions that yielded the same results, not the riots that yielded the same result.


I can't keep having to explain stuff this basic to you. This is grade school level English writing... vocabulary, syntax and grammar. It's very simple written communication, it's not complicated or complex in any way, the words are plain, easy to understand, and convey simple concepts and straightforward meanings. Yet you fail, utterly, time and time again to understand it. It's astonishing, and it wears me out. You don't understand what you read, yet you think you do, and even after it's pointed out that you don't understand it, and why you don't understand it, you're still convinced that you understand it.

You tell your dog, "I want you to go to the fridge, open it up, grab me a beer, and bring it to me. Do you understand?"

Dog goes, "Arf, yeah, yeah, yeah. Got it!"

You say, "OK, go get me a beer."

Dog gets up and immediately walks over to the corner of the living room, squats and takes a dump, and says, "BAM! Nailed it! What's next?"

That's what it's like trying to have a conversation with you, someone who doesn't know, and doesn't know that they don't know, and are absolutely positive they know. I just can't do it.

SAME results? Except by all accounts they weren't the same results. Yes they were riots, but by any measure they weren't the same.