White Girl Bleed A Lot

[Mike S]

Here's a summer reading suggestion for those still obsessing over the Trayvon Martin killing by white/Hispanic George Zimmerman, a "white" on black crime,which is portrayed by the media as the most vile and ubiquitous crime in America.



“White Girl Bleed A Lot”, by Colin Flaherty - http://www.udaof.com/?p=588

We certainly have been having an awful lot of trouble from “Flash Mobs” in recent years. The media tells us that Flash Mobs are groups of bored, disaffected teens with too much time on their hands. In his book White Girl Bleed A Lot, Colin Flaherty, a Washington Post award-winning reporter, sets the record straight as to who, exactly, are committing these very large, very public, and very widespread attacks.

Or, at least, he tries his level best to set the record straight … given that the media and governmental establishments seem hellbent on suppressing the record.

The uncomfortable fact about these Flash Mobs – as far as mainstream journalism is concerned - is that they are composed almost exclusively of blacks. Teens, youths, loiterers … you’ve read the euphemisms. And the victims are almost exclusively whites, Asians and gays. An alarming number of victims are white women; Flaherty emphasizes that these Flash Mobs target those who seem the most vulnerable, those least able and/or willing to fight back.

Flaherty takes an interesting approach to reporting this phenomenon: After getting the sterilized, politically-correct verbiage from print and electronic media – which never reports the race of the attackers – Flaherty then references videos of these incidents from Internet sources like You Tube and uploaded security cam footage. The attackers are “teens”? True enough in many cases; but overwhelmingly, black teens.

His argument is hardly that blacks are some inherently evil species of subhuman orcs; Flaherty is nobody’s racist. His reportage merely contrasts the bromides offered by most media sources with what is actually occurring, as perceived by victims, witnesses and the unblinking eye of the camera. That said, his book begs the question, “What the Hell is wrong in the black community?” While this question is politely implied throughout the book, the question, “What the Hell is wrong with the pussy-footing media?” is overt. Flaherty’s genius is in suggesting a relationship between media myopia and black misbehavior – that media sanctimony about huge numbers of blacks engaging in what seems to be racial attacks against whites actually encourage this grotesque feature of life in these not-so-United States.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Just more filth that people try to use to justify racial prejudice.

That woman on the statue of justice is blindfolded for a reason. Nobody (except those with very low IQ's or morals) cares what race the offenders or victims are. Anyone who pretends otherwise is trying to pursue an agenda that requires a priori acceptance of racial bias to justify itself.

 

[handy]

This confuses me... I never heard of a "Flash Mob" being anything other than a large, seemingly spontaneous group of people engaging in a pointless, if fun, activity in a public place. My daughter participated in one at our local fair when, at 1:00 precisely, a bunch of kids in the food court area started dancing to "Party Rocking"... most of the folks were amused.

I've not heard of black "flash mob" attacks...

 

[Mike S]

Just more filth that people try to use to justify racial prejudice.

That woman on the statue of justice is blindfolded for a reason. Nobody (except those with very low IQ's or morals) cares what race the offenders or victims are. Anyone who pretends otherwise is trying to pursue an agenda that requires a priori acceptance of racial bias to justify itself.

Perhaps your "more filth that people try to use to justify racial prejudice" should be directed to those who continue to use the Trayvon Martin case for race baiting. If you want to discuss crime in America, look at the larger context, not isolated incidents that fit your agenda.

 

[Mike S]

This confuses me... I never heard of a "Flash Mob" being anything other than a large, seemingly spontaneous group of people engaging in a pointless, if fun, activity in a public place. My daughter participated in one at our local fair when, at 1:00 precisely, a bunch of kids in the food court area started dancing to "Party Rocking"... most of the folks were amused.

I've not heard of black "flash mob" attacks...

Ask yourself why.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

This confuses me... I never heard of a "Flash Mob" being anything other than a large, seemingly spontaneous group of people engaging in a pointless, if fun, activity in a public place. My daughter participated in one at our local fair when, at 1:00 precisely, a bunch of kids in the food court area started dancing to "Party Rocking"... most of the folks were amused.

I've not heard of black "flash mob" attacks...

There's two different events that use similar terms.

A flash mob is a spontaneous (although usually pre-planned) event, usually whimsical or for publicity, entertainment etc. Such as everyone meeting at the mall food court at precisely 12:30pm and standing frozen like a statue for 10 minutes, then proceeding on as if nothing happened. They're usually harmless and good fun.

The mob described here is often known as a "swarming", where a number of people commit a crime (assault someone, rob people, or run into a store and loot the place) using their numbers as a weapon/shield, knowing a single victim can't fight them all off or stop them, and using perceived anonymity of a crowd to argue for diffused responsibility. It's cowardly, reckless, and in no way unique to any racial group.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Ask yourself why.

... because it's the event that is significant, not the skin color of the people involved.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Perhaps your "more filth that people try to use to justify racial prejudice" should be directed to those who continue to use the Trayvon Martin case for race baiting. If you want to discuss crime in America, look at the larger context, not isolated incidents that fit your agenda.

... and people wonder why I'm humiliated to admit I'm a Christian.

Nobody is race baiting that case except idiots who want to sir up controversy and can't understand the issues involved. The issue in that case is the limits of self defense, which will be examined in light of the disputed actions of the participants. Race has absolutely no standing on anything.

 

[handy]

There's two different events that use similar terms.

A flash mob is a spontaneous (although usually pre-planned) event, usually whimsical or for publicity, entertainment etc. Such as everyone meeting at the mall food court at precisely 12:30pm and standing frozen like a statue for 10 minutes, then proceeding on as if nothing happened. They're usually harmless and good fun.

The mob described here is often known as a "swarming", where a number of people commit a crime (assault someone, rob people, or run into a store and loot the place) using their numbers as a weapon/shield, knowing a single victim can't fight them all off or stop them, and using perceived anonymity of a crowd to argue for diffused responsibility. It's cowardly, reckless, and in no way unique to any racial group.

Ah... sometimes I can be a bit behind the times... probably comes from not having a TV...

I do however had kids who like the sort of video cops shows like on truTV... and have seen this... You're right, I've seen groups of punks pouring into shops, convenience stores, fast food places, overwhelming the staff and grabbing whatever they can... and I've seen the common denominator be youth, not race.

 

[Mike S]

... and people wonder why I'm humiliated to admit I'm a Christian.

I don't wonder, nor do I really care. It's irrelevant to reality.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I don't wonder, nor do I really care. It's irrelevant to reality.

So are your disgusting racial opinions

 

[Mike S]

So are your disgusting racial opinions

What are my racial opinions?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

What are my racial opinions?

Your promotion of the article belies your opinions quite clearly, yet you've tacitly cut and pasted the article as a proxy for your beliefs, rather than stating them outright. As such, you establish a fallback position that you "never said that, you just posted an article". This fails for a variety of reasons, most significantly because you keep hinting in your followup posts that there's some significant link between violent crime and race.

I'm always game to engage in a battle of wits with racists; sadly they are all too often unarmed.

 

[Mike S]

Your promotion of the article belies your opinions quite clearly, yet you've tacitly cut and pasted the article as a proxy for your beliefs, rather than stating them outright. As such, you establish a fallback position that you "never said that, you just posted an article". This fails for a variety of reasons, most significantly because you keep hinting in your followup posts that there's some significant link between violent crime and race.

I'm always game to engage in a battle of wits with racists; sadly they are all too often unarmed.

Dont flatter yourself.

You clearly know nothing about me, have never read my posts, and didn't even bother to read the OP. If you had read it, you wouldn't have missed:

His argument is hardly that blacks are some inherently evil species of subhuman orcs; Flaherty is nobody’s racist. His reportage merely contrasts the bromides offered by most media sources with what is actually occurring, as perceived by victims, witnesses and the unblinking eye of the camera. That said, his book begs the question, “What the Hell is wrong in the black community?†While this question is politely implied throughout the book, the question, “What the Hell is wrong with the pussy-footing media?†is overt. Flaherty’s genius is in suggesting a relationship between media myopia and black misbehavior – that media sanctimony about huge numbers of blacks engaging in what seems to be racial attacks against whites actually encourage this grotesque feature of life in these not-so-United States.


The issue is not racism, it's biased media reporting. No wonder you're humiliated to admit you're Christian, you can't think things through, you only jump to your pre-concieved stereotypes.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Dont flatter yourself.

You clearly know nothing about me, have never read my posts, and didn't even bother to read the OP. If you had read it, you wouldn't have missed:

His argument is hardly that blacks are some inherently evil species of subhuman orcs; Flaherty is nobody’s racist. His reportage merely contrasts the bromides offered by most media sources with what is actually occurring, as perceived by victims, witnesses and the unblinking eye of the camera. That said, his book begs the question, “What the Hell is wrong in the black community?†While this question is politely implied throughout the book, the question, “What the Hell is wrong with the pussy-footing media?†is overt. Flaherty’s genius is in suggesting a relationship between media myopia and black misbehavior – that media sanctimony about huge numbers of blacks engaging in what seems to be racial attacks against whites actually encourage this grotesque feature of life in these not-so-United States.


The issue is not racism, it's biased media reporting. No wonder you're humiliated to admit you're Christian, you can't think things through, you only jump to your pre-concieved stereotypes.

So the theory you're espousing is that we need to question what's wrong with the "black community" because you perceive the media has ganged up to under-report "black" crime for some sinister motive?

You might want to revise this a bit, because three or four better explanations come readily to mind.

 

[Mike S]

So the theory you're espousing is that we need to question what's wrong with the "black community" because you perceive the media has ganged up to under-report "black" crime for some sinister motive?

You might want to revise this a bit, because three or four better explanations come readily to mind.

Again you're wrong. You're batting a thousand, and no, better explanations do not come to mind. You apparaently don't have a clue. You could just ask me what my point is, but instead you immediatley jump right to condemnations.

My point is that we need to recognize the biased way media reports these incidents and look at the reality, by going to actual crime data reported to the FBI and see the larger context, as the author has done. Having the media over-report white on black crime, and under-report black on white crime serves only a specific racial agenda: that America continues to be a hopelessly racist society. The media do it because it provides sensational stories and raises their media market share, but we have an entire race-baiting industry built around this reporting. It is counter-productive if we actually want honest discussion of race relations.

 

[D4Christ]

Having the media over-report white on black crime, and under-report black on white crime serve only a specific racial agenda:

Really???? Which news stations do you watch...I'm just curious, not trying to get into a back and forth with ya. I have this habit of mine since I was in my teens. I listen as the crimes are committed on tv and take a mental note of how the media almost always reports the race of black crimes but rarely announces the race when a white person committs a crime. If I was a bettin' woman I'd be rich because I am rarely wrong.

That's how I knew Jeffrey Dahmer was white. Here he is eating people and the major news networks never said he was white or showed his picture in the first few days. But if it was a black man...they would have said, "A black male...." They would have posted his picture, talked to his momma and interviewed his neighbors.

I'm just saying...the articles observations cuts both ways.

Blessings,
Dee

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Again you're wrong. You're batting a thousand, and no, better explanations do not come to your mid. You don't have a clue.

My point is that we need to recognize the biased way media reports these incidents and look at the reality, by oing to actual crime data reported to the FBI and see the larger context as the author has done. Having the media over-report white on black crime, and under-report black on white crime serve only a specific racial agenda: that America continues to be a hopelessly racist society. The media do it because it provides sensational stories and raises their media market share, but we have an entire race-baiting industry built around this reporting. It is counter-productive if we actually want honest discussion of race relations.

Baloney. I called it in my initial response. You're using circular reasoning that requires an a priori assumption that racism exists, to explain that therefore the media is promoting sensationalized racial material. Your position requires the assumption that black-on-white crime is much more prevalent than the media admits; you cannot concede that point yet you have no evidence to back it up. Hence you gloss over it initially, and when challenged you resort to aggression and personal attacks.

In the end, the issue you're complaining about is itself irrelevant. Even if we allow that the media were misrepresenting the crime ratios, it has no practical significance on real life. Crime continues whether we perceive it or not.

So why am I bothering to argue with you? Because you're using fear and racial stereotypes to justify whatever point you're trying to make. You don't actually care how often black people are victims compared to criminals (you can and probably will argue this point, but your stated logic make it clear. Still, go ahead). You're just using that perception to slam the media for your own purposes.

 

[Mike]

Watch to tenor of our comments please. We can have differing opinions without lashing out.

 

[Mike S]

Baloney. I called it in my initial response. You're using circular reasoning that requires an a priori assumption that racism exists, to explain that therefore the media is promoting sensationalized racial material. Your position requires the assumption that black-on-white crime is much more prevalent than the media admits; you cannot concede that point yet you have no evidence to back it up. Hence you gloss over it initially, and when challenged you resort to aggression and personal attacks.

You come across as very poorly informed. You should try checking actual statistics before making your comments. And before you make any assumptions about who the victims where, actually read the report. Black victims are overwhelmingly killed by black offenders.

BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics:​

​

​

​

Homicide Trends in the U.S. -​

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf


Page 11 of 183

The demographic characteristics of homicide victims and offenders differ from the general population
​

Based on data for the years 1976-2005 -
​

​

​

* Blacks are disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than those for whites. The offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher the rates for whites.
​

* ​

​

​

​

Males represent 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rates for males were 3 times higher than the rates for females. The offending rates for maleswere 8 times higher than the rates for females.
​

​

​

* Approximately one-third of murder victims and almost half the offenders are under the age of 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaks in the 18-24 year-old age​

group.