THERE IS NO RACIAL BIAS IN THE VICK COVERAGE. THE OUTRAGE IS NOT BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. IT'S BECAUSE AMERICANS LOVE THEIR FRIGGIN' PETS. THE EXCESSIVE COVERAGE IS BECAUSE HE'S A STAR. IS LINDSEY LOHAN'S COVERAGE RACIST? HOW ABOUT BRITNEY'S?
Sorry. Just had to get that out! All I've heard all week from Sharpton and Dyson is that because Vick is black, for one reason or another, he should be handled with kid gloves. This is supreme bullshit of the first order.
If they really wanted to help Vick instead of their own agenda, they could have argued that animals should not be covered by law and there is no basis in the constitution for their protection, or that there is an unfair bias in the law towards domesticated pets as opposed to veal, lab rats, cockroaches, and minks. One could argue that pets are property and should be subject to the owner's will. Torturing earthworms you buy at a baitshop isn't a crime. Why can't you get a dogfighting license like you do for hunting deer and fishing? After all, dogs get euthanized on a daily basis in this country anyway, right?
But no, it's not his fault because he's black. The authorities and the media are picking on him because they have a black bias. Not a celebrity bias, a black bias. It's not that he he gets paid a disgusting amount of money to throw a ball around and then acts like a neanderthal , heavans no! It's because he's black. That's it Al, keep infantalizing your people so they will stay dependent on you. "Heck of a job, Brownie!".
All I know is, if all that Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Dyson say is correct, there must be a drunk white chick bias too!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Shove It Al!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
There are two problems with bringing up Britney and Lindsey.
First, there's not nearly the amount of outrage against them than there is against Vick. Is that because they're white? I doubt it, but I'm just saying that if you're going to bring someone into the discussion to say "look at this white person being treated with outrage; see we're not racist" - then you'd better make sure that it's the same level of outrage. And with those two, it is not. Otherwise, it just supports those arguing against you. People are entertained by their antics. Some are outraged, but not nearly as many. Most people just think they're pathetic and laugh at them, even enjoy when they get in trouble. Often, the outrage isn't about their actions, but rather about their getting away with their actions. I assure you, as pathetic as it is, I've read more coverage about those two than I should.
Second, you're talking about apples and oranges here. To compare wacko crazy artics of starlets and their alcoholism with Vick's dog fighting only say "see, race has nothing to do with it; actions of white people result in outrage too" is to completely dismiss this difference. If we were talking about Vick being an alcoholic, then this argument has such merit. Or, better yet, if Vick was caught with crack just as Lindsey was caught with cocaine, then you've got an even better test of racism (or lack thereof). By the way, you do know that Lindsey has gotten off pretty much with very little penalty? That's not the case for Vick. So again, if you're going to bring in white people and say the outrage is the same, thus there is no racism, it would help if you're talking about penalties that are essentially the same. Of course we don't know the end result, but it looks like Vick is getting a harsher penalty than the alcoholic drug addict that was chasing someone while drunk.
They really said that? Since I am far too lazy to look it up, a link to both Sharpton and Dyson saying that Vick should be treated with kid gloves because he is black would help.
I can't speak about Dyson or Shapton specifically, but I can speak of those that are not villifying Vick (I won't say defending, because some are claiming racism against Vick but still not supporting his actions). Many of them are doing what you said - that there's an unfair bias towards domesticated pets as opposed to others - not so much lab rats, but deer. Some are arguing that there is no real distinction between hunting and dogfighting; that the distinctions are insignificant. But the reason for this is because hunting is largely a white sport (so the argument goes). They're just taking what you say one step further. Some would agree with what you're saying when you say "why can't you get a dogfighting license like you do for hunting deer and fishing?" So why can't you? Many of those you are arguing against would say that it is because hunting is a white sport.
I'm not sure what you meant at the end, but I can tell you people do love their drunk white chicks.
Post a Comment