Quoted for uber-mega-fucking truth. I don't usually listen to former Grand Dragons pulling random uncited statistics out of their ass to determine my decisions.



The media has and always will cherry-pick the stories it covers. Does black racism get a free pass in the media? Yes. Is that justified? Not really. On the other hand, who the fuck cares? So what if there's not a lot of national attention on it? In the high days of Jim Crow, people (some of whom are still alive and still free and unpunished today) could kill blacks or even white civil rights activists and get off scott free. We're not talking here about an issue where blacks killed some whites and the jury gave them a pass, or the sheriff patted them on the back and laughed about it, as would've happened were races reversed forty years ago. They're still facing the maximum charges, it's simply not on the news. So? Who does that hurt? There's another good reason it's not on the news, and the reason why David Duke probably wishes it was; the fear that it would push people towards violent "reprisal" against blacks in general. If the media is more cautious about reporting black hate crimes against whites than the reverse, let's remember that whites outnumber blacks in this country around 3 to 1. Ultimately, only one party here has any significant danger of being "wiped out" or any other nonsense through violence.

Conversely, we could talk about how many thousands of people go missing in the United States every year, but whenever it's a pretty white girl it's all over the national news. Or bullshit like this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1435953.story