Polls show that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are tied in the presidential race, even though the latter has said he would suspend parts of the Constitution and construct an all-powerful executive branch with him as the head
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
So that fact offends you to acknowledge? Or are you actually claiming that it isn’t a fact even though it is?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)