you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rubberbiscuit 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

They do not put "the man"'s race in the article, not once. Not anywhere. the only thing that gives it away, other than it being sort of obvious, is they did include a picture and its a blackie. If this had been a crazy white man, all white people would be guilty of the crime, and this even in the NY Post which is not near as bad as most "news".

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's the right way to do it. His race isn't relevant unless it emerges his attack was racially motivated. That the mainstream identitatian media would certainly lead with 'white man...' headlines, were this nutter white, doesn't make it right to do the same in reverse. That's what critical theory commissars want.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is not what the critical race theory commissars want because they literally control the narrative and get exactly what they want. Which is clearly to use identitarianism as a weapon against white people exclusively. It is the correct response to point out thier hypocrisy at every turn.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd see a distinction between doing what they do and calling out their hypocrisy. They want everybody to be divided. The worst possible outcome for them would be people seeing other other as human beings, not as representatives of identity groups.