Black People Are Racist Too!

[Dyakovo]

You DO know the history behind BET, right?

BET started out as a block on Nickelodeon, not unlike how TeenNick used to be or how Adult Swim currently is for Cartoon Network. Why did it exist? The same reason TeenNick and Adult Swim existed as programming blocks: to make money. To gather a specific group of people, people who perhaps wouldn't have watched the channel, the channel dedicated an entire block. There's no fancy reason for it other than to attract people to make money.

Screaming and shouting, "Y IS THERE A CHANNEL FOR BLACKS!?!" is as silly as shouting, "Y IS THERE A CHANNEL FOR TEENS!?!?!" It has everything to do with money. Creating a "White Entertainment Channel" would be redundant as fuck and likely wouldn't be worth the effort, because as Fris said, most channels mostly target the white demographic. Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

>most channels target the white demographic

Now that, that is complete and utter horseshit. News networks like ABC and NBC target everyone. Now, unless you're generalizing everyone as white then your statement is wrong. In fact, I'd love for you to prove that most channels target the white demographic.

ABC and NBC aren't news networks.
Also, to the complaints that there is no white entertainment channel...
Yes, there is. It's called CMT.

[Mavorpen]

>most channels target the white demographic

Now that, that is complete and utter horseshit. News networks like ABC and NBC target everyone. Now, unless you're generalizing everyone as white then your statement is wrong. In fact, I'd love for you to prove that most channels target the white demographic.

You're absolutely right. That claim is horseshit. It's a good thing I didn't say that. What I ACTUALLY said is

[...]Creating a "White Entertainment Channel" would be redundant as fuck and likely wouldn't be worth the effort, because as Fris said, most channels mostly target the white demographic. Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

I'm not sure if you intentionally ignored that "mostly" so that you could continue whining over nothing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't even buy the notion of "white" or "black" channels. BET is owned by a white individual. The channel is open for white people to view it. It isn't restricted to ONLY black people. ANYONE can view it. It's simply TARGETED to black people. The channel reaches 90 million households, whereas there were only 44.5 million blacks in 2012. There's clearly plenty of people who aren't white watching the channel.

[Viritica]

>most channels target the white demographic

Now that, that is complete and utter horseshit. News networks like ABC and NBC target everyone. Now, unless you're generalizing everyone as white then your statement is wrong. In fact, I'd love for you to prove that most channels target the white demographic.

You're absolutely right. That claim is horseshit. It's a good thing I didn't say that. What I ACTUALLY said is

[...]Creating a "White Entertainment Channel" would be redundant as fuck and likely wouldn't be worth the effort, because as Fris said, most channels mostly target the white demographic. Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

I'm not sure if you intentionally ignored that "mostly" so that you could continue whining over nothing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't even buy the notion of "white" or "black" channels. BET is owned by a white individual. The channel is open for white people to view it. It isn't restricted to ONLY black people. ANYONE can view it. It's simply TARGETED to black people. The channel reaches 90 million households, whereas there were only 44.5 million blacks in 2012. There's clearly plenty of people who aren't white watching the channel.

Okay, since you wanna dodge my demands for a source just so you can bitch all day I'll rephrase the statement... provide me with proof that most channels mostly target the white demographic.

Please, I'm all ears.

[Geilinor]

>most channels target the white demographic

Now that, that is complete and utter horseshit. News networks like ABC and NBC target everyone. Now, unless you're generalizing everyone as white then your statement is wrong. In fact, I'd love for you to prove that most channels target the white demographic.

You're absolutely right. That claim is horseshit. It's a good thing I didn't say that. What I ACTUALLY said is

[...]Creating a "White Entertainment Channel" would be redundant as fuck and likely wouldn't be worth the effort, because as Fris said, most channels mostly target the white demographic. Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

I'm not sure if you intentionally ignored that "mostly" so that you could continue whining over nothing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't even buy the notion of "white" or "black" channels. BET is owned by a white individual. The channel is open for white people to view it. It isn't restricted to ONLY black people. ANYONE can view it. It's simply TARGETED to black people. The channel reaches 90 million households, whereas there were only 44.5 million blacks in 2012. There's clearly plenty of people who aren't white watching the channel.

Like FOX News. It's targeted to conservatives but some people who disagree with the channel still watch it for various reasons.

[Mavorpen]

Okay, since you wanna dodge my demands for a source just so you can bitch all day I'll rephrase the statement... provide me with proof that most channels mostly target the white demographic.

Please, I'm all ears.

"Bitch" about what? I haven't "bitched" about anything. The only thing I've said is that there's no logical reason to complain about BET's existence. It started out as a block for a niche group and then became a channel that continued to target said group. I couldn't care less if it actually existed; I don't watch it.

[Viritica]

Okay, since you wanna dodge my demands for a source just so you can bitch all day I'll rephrase the statement... provide me with proof that most channels mostly target the white demographic.

Please, I'm all ears.

"Bitch" about what? I haven't "bitched" about anything. The only thing I've said is that there's no logical reason to complain about BET's existence. It started out as a block for a niche group and then became a channel that continued to target said group. I couldn't care less if it actually existed; I don't watch it.

So you have no proof? Okay. We're done here.

I don't care about the BET's existence either. I just find it absurd that some people think that every demographic needs their own channel.

[Jordsindia]

Blacks can't let go of the past, so they keep reminding whites about how much they suck and shove all their pride in their faces.

[Mavorpen]

So you have no proof? Okay. We're done here.

I really, really don't care if you don't comprehend basic business practices. It's REALLY not difficult to grasp the concept that a channel would mostly target the country's largest demographic in order to ensure higher profits. Regardless, we DO have evidence that there is a rather stark disproportion when it comes to representation in some programs. That representation demonstrates how much said program wants to target a certain demographic.

I don't care about the BET's existence either. I just find it absurd that some people think that every demographic needs their own channel.

No one thinks this. BET isn't even the only channel that mostly targets blacks or minorities in general.

[Viritica]

So you have no proof? Okay. We're done here.

I really, really don't care if you don't comprehend basic business practices. It's REALLY not difficult to grasp the concept that a channel would mostly target the country's largest demographic in order to ensure higher profits. Regardless, we DO have evidence that there is a rather stark disproportion when it comes to representation in some programs. That representation demonstrates how much said program wants to target a certain demographic.

I don't care about the BET's existence either. I just find it absurd that some people think that every demographic needs their own channel.

No one thinks this. BET isn't even the only channel that mostly targets blacks or minorities in general.

I wasn't debating whether or not it would be profitable. Frisivisia wanted to claim that blacks need their own news channel because evidently we're still in the Civil Rights Movement and Jim Crow laws are alive and well. I begged to differ.

MediaMatters =/= reliable source. In fact, media matters is a staunchly progressive organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive[1] media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media".[2] Set up as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock.[3] Eric E. Burns served as MMfA's president until 2011.[4]

[Liriena]

Please, don't try to 'tu quoque' that sort of bullshit in my presence.

Please, don't try and act like you're superior to everyone else by saying that nobody should try something in your presence.

Nice strawman coming from the sweetie who implicitly called anyone who disagreed with him an idiot.

[Liriena]

Nigga u went full retard.jpg

Indeed.

And now you are an accomplice to flaming. Congratulations.

[Liriena]

Blacks can't let go of the past, so they keep reminding whites about how much they suck and shove all their pride in their faces.

Nice generalization you've got there. Can I have a Diet Coke with it?

[Kxcd]

>most channels target the white demographic

Now that, that is complete and utter horseshit. News networks like ABC and NBC target everyone. Now, unless you're generalizing everyone as white then your statement is wrong. In fact, I'd love for you to prove that most channels target the white demographic.

ABC and NBC aren't news networks.
Also, to the complaints that there is no white entertainment channel...
Yes, there is. It's called CMT.

My mom watches that sometimes. She likes country music.
(she's an old, senile black woman who screams at me a lot.)

[Mavorpen]

I wasn't debating whether or not it would be profitable. Frisivisia wanted to claim that blacks need their own news channel because evidently we're still in the Civil Rights Movement and Jim Crow laws are alive and well. I begged to differ.

Really? I didn't see anything resembling that in his posts. He said that BET exists because they target a niche group. You're reading too much into what he said.

MediaMatters =/= reliable source. In fact, media matters is a staunchly progressive organization.

...Okay? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? This has utterly nothing to do with "progressivism." This is honestly a worthless complaint, especially since other research confirm this disproportionate representation.

http://pcasacas.org/SiPC/32.2/Monk-Turn ... ackson.pdf

[Jocabia]

"Bitch" about what? I haven't "bitched" about anything. The only thing I've said is that there's no logical reason to complain about BET's existence. It started out as a block for a niche group and then became a channel that continued to target said group. I couldn't care less if it actually existed; I don't watch it.

So you have no proof? Okay. We're done here.

I don't care about the BET's existence either. I just find it absurd that some people think that every demographic needs their own channel.

What is your evidence that racism is over? Please cite an unbiased source like you've requested of others. Rise to your own standard.

[Viritica]

I wasn't debating whether or not it would be profitable. Frisivisia wanted to claim that blacks need their own news channel because evidently we're still in the Civil Rights Movement and Jim Crow laws are alive and well. I begged to differ.

Really? I didn't see anything resembling that in his posts. He said that BET exists because they target a niche group. You're reading too much into what he said.

MediaMatters =/= reliable source. In fact, media matters is a staunchly progressive organization.

...Okay? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? This has utterly nothing to do with "progressivism." This is honestly a worthless complaint, especially since other research confirm this disproportionate representation.

http://pcasacas.org/SiPC/32.2/Monk-Turn ... ackson.pdf

Then I really don't think you read back far enough.

And really? Do I have to hold your hand through everything? Considering that you must be new to NSG, information from a biased source isn't considered to be reliable. You provided me with research from MediaMatters as a source. MediaMatters is a biased source, therefore it is unreliable.

Now, what does it matter what demographics a show has? If one show is representative of an entire channel, then whatever channel Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns airs on must target blacks.

[Viritica]

So you have no proof? Okay. We're done here.

I don't care about the BET's existence either. I just find it absurd that some people think that every demographic needs their own channel.

What is your evidence that racism is over? Please cite an unbiased source like you've requested of others. Rise to your own standard.

Considering that I never claimed racism was over I really don't see your point.

[Jocabia]

What is your evidence that racism is over? Please cite an unbiased source like you've requested of others. Rise to your own standard.

Considering that I never claimed racism was over I really don't see your point.

Oh. I see. So it's not helpful when people take something you say, exaggerate it and then ask you to prove it. Huh. Who knew?

Now, you keep claiming that various attempts by black people to take back pride in their race are not appropriate because we're not in the Jim Crow south, so I do suppose you can support that, yes? Can you show that white people are not still disproportionately and institutionally more powerful in the US, just as they were in the Jim Crow south and during the civil rights era? Can you show that those problems do not still exist?

Please give an unbiased source that would pass your requirements.

[Mavorpen]

Then I really don't think you read back far enough.

You can give me specific quotes, can't you?

And really? Do I have to hold your hand through everything? Considering that you must be new to NSG, information from a biased source isn't considered to be reliable. You provided me with research from MediaMatters as a source. MediaMatters is a biased source, therefore it is unreliable.

No, that isn't actually how it works here. All sources have bias. We recognize this. When you provide a source, you weigh how much bias that said source is likely to show concerning the specific subject at hand. MediaMatters being "progressive" is irrelevant to the current subject. For example, it isn't as though they ONLY researched conservative programs. They even noted that MSNBC underrepresented minorities, and even was at the top for underrepresentation when it came to gender.

Now, what does it matter what demographics a show has? If one show is representative of an entire channel, then whatever channel Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns heirs on must target blacks.

Too bad the source I just provided doesn't just cover "one show." Also, I'm now very skeptical as to whether you've been paying attention at all. To suggest that I believe that one show represents an entire channel means that you've ALREADY forgotten about what I said concerning programming blocks. Clearly, your straw man isn't true. BET, Adult Swim, and Teen Nick are all examples that I used previously. If you're going to straw man, do it in a less obvious manner.

[Atomosea]

Funny, but I'm not totally sure if that link is allowed. No worries, I'm not reporting it.

I checked before posting, it's not banned.

I find it funny that people actually believe this stuff, it's such nonsense.

HEY! I'll have you know my grandparents died in the White Genocide! Exactly ten minutes after Obama was elected and the government immediately collapsed, the NAACP burned down their local Klan headquarters while they were passing out shoes and food to poor little white children!

*sobbing* They died in a camp in Detroit.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I checked before posting, it's not banned.

I find it funny that people actually believe this stuff, it's such nonsense.

HEY! I'll have you know my grandparents died in the White Genocide! Exactly ten minutes after Obama was elected and the government immediately collapsed, the NAACP burned down their local Klan headquarters while they were passing out shoes and food to poor little white children!

*sobbing* They died in a camp in Detroit.

I don't know what your problem is. I got a great job on one of the gun confiscation squads.

[Viritica]

Then I really don't think you read back far enough.

You can give me specific quotes, can't you?

And really? Do I have to hold your hand through everything? Considering that you must be new to NSG, information from a biased source isn't considered to be reliable. You provided me with research from MediaMatters as a source. MediaMatters is a biased source, therefore it is unreliable.

No, that isn't actually how it works here. All sources have bias. We recognize this. When you provide a source, you weigh how much bias that said source is likely to show concerning the specific subject at hand. MediaMatters being "progressive" is irrelevant to the current subject. For example, it isn't as though they ONLY researched conservative programs. They even noted that MSNBC underrepresented minorities, and even was at the top for underrepresentation when it came to gender.

Now, what does it matter what demographics a show has? If one show is representative of an entire channel, then whatever channel Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns heirs on must target blacks.

Too bad the source I just provided doesn't just cover "one show." Also, I'm now very skeptical as to whether you've been paying attention at all. To suggest that I believe that one show represents an entire channel means that you've ALREADY forgotten about what I said concerning programming blocks. Clearly, your straw man isn't true. BET, Adult Swim, and Teen Nick are all examples that I used previously. If you're going to straw man, do it in a less obvious manner.

Yes, I can. But then again, I'm extremely lazy. Go back and find them yourself.

And oh, you're one of those those people who will endlessly complain when someone else provides a biased source but then claim that all sources are biased when they attack the sources you provide. Yeah, no. Sorry, but not all sources are biased. Some sources are actually fair, but if you provide me with a biased source then I reserve the right to dismiss it at a whim.

Now then, what is your point? Plenty of shows have actors from a minority. Just because certain shows don't have huge numbers of black or Hispanic people doesn't mean that those shows specifically target white people.

[Jocabia]

Then I really don't think you read back far enough.

You can give me specific quotes, can't you?

And really? Do I have to hold your hand through everything? Considering that you must be new to NSG, information from a biased source isn't considered to be reliable. You provided me with research from MediaMatters as a source. MediaMatters is a biased source, therefore it is unreliable.

No, that isn't actually how it works here. All sources have bias. We recognize this. When you provide a source, you weigh how much bias that said source is likely to show concerning the specific subject at hand. MediaMatters being "progressive" is irrelevant to the current subject. For example, it isn't as though they ONLY researched conservative programs. They even noted that MSNBC underrepresented minorities, and even was at the top for underrepresentation when it came to gender.

Now, what does it matter what demographics a show has? If one show is representative of an entire channel, then whatever channel Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns heirs on must target blacks.

Too bad the source I just provided doesn't just cover "one show." Also, I'm now very skeptical as to whether you've been paying attention at all. To suggest that I believe that one show represents an entire channel means that you've ALREADY forgotten about what I said concerning programming blocks. Clearly, your straw man isn't true. BET, Adult Swim, and Teen Nick are all examples that I used previously. If you're going to straw man, do it in a less obvious manner.

Thank you for explaining that. Viritica has brought this up before, usually to experienced posters. Bias in sources is like biases in sciences or law. It's necessary to be aware of it and examine if it affects the study or judgement. If it's not related then it doesn't matter.

I would trust Fox News to report on the color of the the first lady's dress. Maybe. Apparently, he expects if someone posted a picture from Fox News of the First lady we'd all claim that doesn't prove she wore that dress.

[Mavorpen]

You can give me specific quotes, can't you?

No, that isn't actually how it works here. All sources have bias. We recognize this. When you provide a source, you weigh how much bias that said source is likely to show concerning the specific subject at hand. MediaMatters being "progressive" is irrelevant to the current subject. For example, it isn't as though they ONLY researched conservative programs. They even noted that MSNBC underrepresented minorities, and even was at the top for underrepresentation when it came to gender.

Too bad the source I just provided doesn't just cover "one show." Also, I'm now very skeptical as to whether you've been paying attention at all. To suggest that I believe that one show represents an entire channel means that you've ALREADY forgotten about what I said concerning programming blocks. Clearly, your straw man isn't true. BET, Adult Swim, and Teen Nick are all examples that I used previously. If you're going to straw man, do it in a less obvious manner.

Yes, I can. But then again, I'm extremely lazy. Go back and find them yourself.

And oh, you're one of those those people who will endlessly complain when someone else provides a biased source but then claim that all sources are biased when they attack the sources you provide. Yeah, no. Sorry, but not all sources are biased. Some sources are actually fair, but if you provide me with a biased source then I reserve the right to dismiss it at a whim.

Now then, what is your point? Plenty of shows have actors from a minority. Just because certain shows don't have huge numbers of black or Hispanic doesn't mean that those shows specifically target white people.

Alright, I'll just assume they do not exist.

I only complain about sources that have a bias relevant to the subject. Citing a creationist blog when claiming evolution isn't true? That bias is relevant. Also, yes every source has bias. A bias is a tendency to show preference or prejudice for something over another. Every source is going to have a preference and display that preferences consciously or not. Of course you have the "right" to dismiss it at a whim. I never said you're not allowed to. I can't physically stop you.

There you go again pretending I said something I didn't. I do not believe they "specifically target white people." I said that they mostly do. And yes, having a presence of a disproportionate amount of whites on your channel does in fact indicate that you mostly target whites. People tend to identify and understand people of their own race in media more so than people of another race. Now obviously this isn't ALL intentional. Having a majority white presence on the show isn't inherently bad. The problem arises when unconscious prejudices lead to a worrying underrepresentation that is disproportionate to the general population.

[Jocabia]

You can give me specific quotes, can't you?

No, that isn't actually how it works here. All sources have bias. We recognize this. When you provide a source, you weigh how much bias that said source is likely to show concerning the specific subject at hand. MediaMatters being "progressive" is irrelevant to the current subject. For example, it isn't as though they ONLY researched conservative programs. They even noted that MSNBC underrepresented minorities, and even was at the top for underrepresentation when it came to gender.

Too bad the source I just provided doesn't just cover "one show." Also, I'm now very skeptical as to whether you've been paying attention at all. To suggest that I believe that one show represents an entire channel means that you've ALREADY forgotten about what I said concerning programming blocks. Clearly, your straw man isn't true. BET, Adult Swim, and Teen Nick are all examples that I used previously. If you're going to straw man, do it in a less obvious manner.

Yes, I can. But then again, I'm extremely lazy. Go back and find them yourself.

And oh, you're one of those those people who will endlessly complain when someone else provides a biased source but then claim that all sources are biased when they attack the sources you provide. Yeah, no. Sorry, but not all sources are biased. Some sources are actually fair, but if you provide me with a biased source then I reserve the right to dismiss it at a whim.

Now then, what is your point? Plenty of shows have actors from a minority. Just because certain shows don't have huge numbers of black or Hispanic people doesn't mean that those shows specifically target white people.

So you can't actually address the source. Gotcha. That's called concession.

Her sources (several) beat your sources (none). You admit your too lazy to source your arguments and then complain in every single thread that people don't give you enough sources.

Can you provide a source that most channels do not do what Mav claims? Because when it's "never provides a source" versus "a source that has a bias that has no relationship to the topic", the latter wins. Can you provide any evidence at all?