A “controversial tweet”

Here’s a screenshot from the Yahoo news page I took today:


As most of y’all probably already know, the victim who was beaten for wearing a Trump hat is white, while his assailants are black. His mother noticed this, and tweeted:

I am sitting in the hospital with my 14 year old kid because he was just jumped by 8 black kids on the school bus, I guess that’s what happens when a kid wears a #Trump hat to school… And who’s the violent ones again? Earlier today they poured milk all over his head.

The anonymous Yahoo journalist describes these tweets as “racially charged — and controversial.”

Yes, we know that in the Temple of Cultural Marxism, it’s “controversial, and “racially charged” to point out black aggression against whites.

In the very next story, we’re told that a “black woman faces prison because of a Jim Crow-era plan.” The plan was to (allegedly) disenfranchise black voters by preventing felons from voting.

We can debate whether such laws were created with pure intentions, but the fact remains that people of all races can be felons. It just so happens that blacks are far more likely to actually BE felons. If it’s “racist” to punish felons, then (by the same reasoning) it’s also “racist” to enforce laws against rape and murder; blacks are always more likely, than whites or Asians, to be ensnared by such laws.

Many on the left are fond of claiming (falsely) that whites are more likely to be child-abusers. Does this mean that, according to them, laws against child-abuse should be scrapped – since they (supposedly) impact whites more than others? Should child-abuser felons be allowed to vote?

As it stands now, regardless of the original intentions, the law is colorblind. It applies to everybody equally, regardless of race, age or gender.

If it’s “controversial” and “racially charged” to point out the racial angle in the first story, how much more so to racialize the second story – which should not even be a “story.”

In addition, notice that the first headline does not say, “white boy attacked by blacks.” No, race is only mentioned when the “victim” is not white.

Since the author of Sincerity.net will inevitably comment that the above behavior is REQUIRED by the corporate media, I might as well get it out of the way and quote him here:

PresseKodex12.1, root of the universal gag order

REPORTS ON CRIMES When reporting crimes, it is not permissible to refer to the suspect‘s religious, ethnic or other minority membership unless this information can be justified as being relevant to the readers‘ understanding of the incident. In particular, it must be borne in mind that such references could stir up prejudices against minorities. [GUIDELINE 12.1. by the German Press Council 3]

Read more at the source above.
This entry was posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence, examples of propaganda and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A “controversial tweet”

  1. Hello, this is my first time on your blog. That yahoo article, and others like it, about the boy allegedly beaten up solely for wearing a pro Trump hat has been proven false, with public statements from the educational department and Sheriff’s Office. This does not mean that the kids did not have a previous verbal altercation that resulted in fighting (as seen in video evidence) – it is simply not political. In fact, the Sheriff’s Office statement specifically states that misinformation has been spread and they have charged the minors with 1st deg. mis. battery.
    I am pointing this out because the mother and lawyer are both AT BEST disingenuous in their continuous social media outreach for public support/validation.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Yes, I saw that in the beginning. But what makes their tweet “controversial” is not that it claimed the attack was political, but that it pointed out it was black kids who attacked the white kid. That’s what makes it “racially charged.” The Trump hat claim is secondary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *