226
submitted 1 year ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] crystal@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

The wording implies that the heads of big media groups being white has (significant) impact on "the media [...] choosing ratings over democracy".

Corporations choosing profits above moral considerations is a significant component of capitalism. If a CEO chooses moral over profits they're a terrible CEO and will be replaced immediately.

So the author is taking a core component of capitalism (choosing profits over morals) and claims that it only exists because of the colour of skin of people in higher-up positions.

That's racist.

They take something negative (choosing profits) and blame it on people with a certain attribute (white skin), while that attribute has nothing to do with the negative.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

No. That's what you're making it about. What major media/news organization in the is not "white" owned/controlled. You're accusing them of being racist for pointing out that the lions share is controlled by groups that would classically be considered "white".

And no, morals are not incompatible with capitalism. If it were there wouldn't be all these religious exceptions etc. Morals are incompatible with authoritarianism like fascism.

[-] crystal@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

What's the point of pointing out that a lot of media is controlled by white people?

"Haha random fun fact did you know that the CEO's skin is pretty bright?" Why not talk about the CEO's hair colour? Because the point is not a random fun fact, the point is racism.

morals are not incompatible with capitalism

I never claimed they were. You can limit capitalism by enforcing morals through laws. But that's not a part of capitalism. It is a limit imposed on the natural imorality that comes with capitalism.

(By the way: I'm not anti capitalism, even if my tone may make it seem that way. I'm just focusing on this perhaps negative component of capitalism because it's relevant to the topic.)

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Pointing out racial disparities is not racism. No matter how much you perform your outrage. Saying that only white people are fit to really be CEOs would be racist. Pointing out that oddly most CEOs are white is not racist. Oh and by the way just to scare you with a boogeyman, CRT!

Oh and you literally said that if a CEO put morals over profits that they would be a bad CEO and replaced. Basically implying that morals are incompatible with capitalism.

By the way I am anti-capitalism in large scope. And I'm also against whiny little concern trolls.

[-] crystal@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pointing out racial disparities is not racism.

Depends on the context. Just like the "jewish-controlled media" (when talking about e.g. the new yorker) would have an implication, the "white-controlled media" has an implication, too.

This information can be presented independently, but you have to wonder why this disconnceted information is brought in multiple times in just the opening of the article.

a boogeyman, CRT!

I'm not American. Private slave ownership never existed in my country. (The term "race" when referring to a group of humans, however, is very ill-regarded.)

[-] Dark_Blade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So-called ‘reverse racism’ (ie just normal racism) has become shockingly acceptable in online discourse. To me, it’s just absurd how the same people who’d be outraged at black stereotypes will turn around and say ‘lol white girls fuck dogs’.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Kiddo I am a white male. Take your reverse racism and shove it. I can be racist against myself if I want to. And yet you still cannot explain the disparity in much of American society without pointing to the factual and enduring racism and racial bias that exists in it to this day.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I see. So you're trying to misrepresent, and worse gaslight someone else about something you have no personal experience with and no very little about. Good to know.

[-] crystal@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

What do I have no personal experience with? Slavery? Or Americans? Or white-controlled media? Or racism?

What personal experience would you say I'd need so I could make the claim that "the jewish-controlled media is trying to sway people away from democracy" is a problematic statement?

(By the way good job moving away from the topic and moving to baseless attacks against me.)

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
226 points (84.0% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5398 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS