Colonel_Reb said:
Futuregohan, you are misinterpreting and adding your own ideas to my words, and then using them in the form of a question. If you can't accept what I say at face value without trying to make me into someone you can use for your own reasons, then just say so. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
No, that isn't what I'm doing. I'm simply looking at what you're saying, attempting to interpret it, and then asking your opinion of my interpretation.
It's called the Socratic Method, just my own attempt at it.
What you've said so far is simply questionable to me, so I simply ask a question, and as you answer, I analyze and continue to pose another question from there.
It's not just a common method of debate, but it's also a proven one.
Colonel_Reb said:
It seems you are ignoring the answers I gave you and are asking basically the same questions again. My answers are still the same.
That's exactly the problem.
I've not ignored any of the answers you gave me. i've taken them, and countered them directly with my own questioning.
For example, in a previous post, you said: "My opinion is that a media portrayal can be pro-white without putting whites in a superior position over blacks or any other race. For instance, a commercial that has a white family doing things together in it would be great, and those do exist, but they are increasingly rare."
Alright, that's great. But I pose this question:
" Any commercial showing white people absolutely must not have a white person in any situation that is disadvantageous. That role should be reserved for other races. Whites should never have to portray dopey or lazy, or ordinary clueless people, as that would be anti white.
You are saying that only minorities should play these roles, and that depicting whites in these roles is somehow racist and unrealistic as whites are "the baddest mothers on the planet", and thus should never portray such characters...correct?"
If your argument is rock solid(which it might be, we do not know), you shouldn't have a problem really answering as to whether or not I am right. So: do you believe that it is anti white to put a white in any position that is disadvantageous?
It's great about the white family and all. But what happens in other commercial with different plots? Should they show any white in a disadvantageous position?
Simply putting forth the same answer every time in face of such a question does not really do much for your argument, at least not in this particular case.
And I'll also pose you one more question: what happens if all of the actors in a commercial are white(as is most often the case)? What happens if one of them must portray a clueless or dopey guy?
Is such a situation only considered anti white when there is a non white in a more advantageous position present? Because if that were the case, then these commercials would certainly not be the majority of all commercials(given the fact that non whites are not universally portrayed in every single commecial).
Colonel_Reb said:
The thing we disagree on, rather that how the media influences society, is the extent of the media's influence on people, as evidenced by your posts.
You said earlier that you "might have been missing something." I think your perspective allows you to miss a lot of things like that. Jimmy Chitwood is right, it happens almost all the time. If you can't see it, then there is nothing I can do about it. You'll have to start paying more attention to it while thinking about it from our perspective.
I suppose I can attempt to.
Until then, however, I can still ask questions pertaining to your theory using my own interpretations and my own experience. I'm a teenager, I know that we watch at least as much TV as you guys do
