#IfTheyGunnedMeDown

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for playmynutz
#1 Posted by playmynutz (6786 posts) -

HyperAllergic News Article

Based on my internet activity; I would be labeled a Latino, psycho, drug addict (I am drug free) instead of an undergraduate, full time worker.

I am tired of the division between lifestyle. A person is either a poor drug addict or a working 'square.'

I don't do drugs no more (don't ask what kind of drugs) but I am sure their are pictures of me high as hell on the internet that would be used on the news if I died. I work full time and am enrolled in an university. Did it all under the influence in the past so no one can tell me drugs ruined my life or I'm just an ignorant addict.

Again, let me reiterate that I do not use drugs at all including alcohol and cigarettes. I am not advocating drug use. Just stating if I died, yeah then I am another druggie killed, like Trayvon Martin or Micheal Brown.

My kind, my association, are illegal ghetto drunk drug addict construction workers who could never do right. No doubt if I got gunned down, I would be another statistic; a gang banging Latino kid off the streets.

How would you be remembered?

Avatar image for thebest31406
#2 Posted by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

Isn't tweet movement all about indicting propagandistic news media for using less-than-noble pics to assassinate the victim's character? Personally, I have a couple of pics of me drinking alcoholic beverages and throwing up signs (west coast, ATL, etc...). I'm sure the Ministry of Propaganda could find some use with those.

Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
#3 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9272 posts) -

I always wondered what they'd use if I got killed or something.

They always pick the absolute worst picture.

Avatar image for thebest31406
#4 Posted by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@-TheSecondSign- said:

I always wondered what they'd use if I got killed or something.

They always pick the absolute worst picture.

US cable news is quite insidious with their reporting. That's why I never watch em.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#5 Posted by MrGeezer (58143 posts) -

While I see the person's point, a couple of things need to be pointed out.

1) It's one thing if they show a years-old pic of you flashing a gang symbol on facebook, but the image of you as a thug will be entirely warranted if you're captured on video robbing a store that same day.

2) People post those kinds of pictures in order to make a statement about who they are. Whether it's an accurate statement or they're just posers or they're just goofing off, people make those gangsta style pics because they want someone else to look at it and say, "man, that's totally gangsta." So, regardless of how accurate that picture of you may be, it's sort of hard to fault people for coming to an unsavory conclusion about you when that's the message you were trying to send. Maybe you should just take better care to avoid presenting yourself in a negative fashion.

Avatar image for thebest31406
#6 Edited by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

While I see the person's point, a couple of things need to be pointed out.

1) It's one thing if they show a years-old pic of you flashing a gang symbol on facebook, but the image of you as a thug will be entirely warranted if you're captured on video robbing a store that same day.

2) People post those kinds of pictures in order to make a statement about who they are. Whether it's an accurate statement or they're just posers or they're just goofing off, people make those gangsta style pics because they want someone else to look at it and say, "man, that's totally gangsta." So, regardless of how accurate that picture of you may be, it's sort of hard to fault people for coming to an unsavory conclusion about you when that's the message you were trying to send. Maybe you should just take better care to avoid presenting yourself in a negative fashion.

Folks express themselves as they please. They're not obliged to present themselves in a fashion that is compliant with the standards of strangers - especially if those strangers happen to be "journalists" within a "news organization."

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#7 Posted by MrGeezer (58143 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@MrGeezer said:

While I see the person's point, a couple of things need to be pointed out.

1) It's one thing if they show a years-old pic of you flashing a gang symbol on facebook, but the image of you as a thug will be entirely warranted if you're captured on video robbing a store that same day.

2) People post those kinds of pictures in order to make a statement about who they are. Whether it's an accurate statement or they're just posers or they're just goofing off, people make those gangsta style pics because they want someone else to look at it and say, "man, that's totally gangsta." So, regardless of how accurate that picture of you may be, it's sort of hard to fault people for coming to an unsavory conclusion about you when that's the message you were trying to send. Maybe you should just take better care to avoid presenting yourself in a negative fashion.

Folks express themselves as they please. They're not obliged to present themselves in a fashion that is compliant with the standards of strangers - especially if those strangers happen to be "journalists" within a "news organization."

And they are free to present themselves however they please. I'm just saying that it's pretty stupid to act like a clown and then wonder why you're not being taken seriously. If you don't want to be unfairly judged for the image of yourself that you presented online, then you probably shouldn't be putting an unfavorable image of yourself online.

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#8 Posted by Buckhannah (715 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

Folks express themselves as they please. They're not obliged to present themselves in a fashion that is compliant with the standards of strangers - especially if those strangers happen to be "journalists" within a "news organization."

Then when they choose to express themselves as looking, acting, and dressing like violent criminals, they lose the right to be offended when they are stereotyped as violent criminals.

Avatar image for thebest31406
#9 Posted by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@Buckhannah said:

@thebest31406 said:

Folks express themselves as they please. They're not obliged to present themselves in a fashion that is compliant with the standards of strangers - especially if those strangers happen to be "journalists" within a "news organization."

Then when they choose to express themselves as looking, acting, and dressing like violent criminals, they lose the right to be offended when they are stereotyped as violent criminals.

Tell the guys at stormfront I said hey.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#10 Edited by MrGeezer (58143 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@Buckhannah said:

@thebest31406 said:

Folks express themselves as they please. They're not obliged to present themselves in a fashion that is compliant with the standards of strangers - especially if those strangers happen to be "journalists" within a "news organization."

Then when they choose to express themselves as looking, acting, and dressing like violent criminals, they lose the right to be offended when they are stereotyped as violent criminals.

Tell the guys at stormfront I said hey.

This should be a lesson for people to be a lot more careful about how they present themselves. People pretend that their online behavior doesn't matter, but look at how many people have lost their jobs over shit that they put on social media. And once it's out there, it doesn't go away.

You can talk all you want about how a news organization shouldn't put any stock in such pictures, but that's beside the point. The point is that this is what they do, and it's not an accident. It's a deliberate effort to drum up controversy in order to profit over tragedy, and they're gonna keep on doing it as long as the public keeps buying into it. I can argue that no one should rob my house, but if I let a convicted robber into my home and then get robbed, then I should have taken better efforts to protect myself. No matter how wrong what the person did is, what was I supposed to expect? This is what he does.

The stuff that you put online is not unimportant, the image that you project towards the rest of the world absolutely matters, and it's past time for people to stop being so naive about this stuff. The rest of the world will not hesitate to use this kind of stuff against you if they feel it's in their best interests. And if you're not willing to accept the risks then you shouldn't be putting this kind of stuff online.

Avatar image for thebest31406
#11 Edited by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@thebest31406 said:

@MrGeezer said:

While I see the person's point, a couple of things need to be pointed out.

1) It's one thing if they show a years-old pic of you flashing a gang symbol on facebook, but the image of you as a thug will be entirely warranted if you're captured on video robbing a store that same day.

2) People post those kinds of pictures in order to make a statement about who they are. Whether it's an accurate statement or they're just posers or they're just goofing off, people make those gangsta style pics because they want someone else to look at it and say, "man, that's totally gangsta." So, regardless of how accurate that picture of you may be, it's sort of hard to fault people for coming to an unsavory conclusion about you when that's the message you were trying to send. Maybe you should just take better care to avoid presenting yourself in a negative fashion.

Folks express themselves as they please. They're not obliged to present themselves in a fashion that is compliant with the standards of strangers - especially if those strangers happen to be "journalists" within a "news organization."

And they are free to present themselves however they please. I'm just saying that it's pretty stupid to act like a clown and then wonder why you're not being taken seriously. If you don't want to be unfairly judged for the image of yourself that you presented online, then you probably shouldn't be putting an unfavorable image of yourself online.

Wanting to be taken seriously by the masses when taken foolish pics is unreasonable. However, I do expect a serious news outlet to cease using such imagery as a means to suggest a person's identity. You already have the crime in question, anything more is just propaganda. It would be like a news outlet showing a pic of a woman flashing her boobs after she's been raped. Such a tactic would suggest that "she probably had it coming", which of course, lessens the burden on the rape offender.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#12 Posted by MrGeezer (58143 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

Wanting to be taken seriously by the masses when taken foolish pics is unreasonable. However, I do expect a serious news outlet to cease using such imagery as a means to suggest a person's identity. You already have the crime in question, anything more is just propaganda. It would be like a news outlet showing a pic of a woman flashing her boobs after she's been raped. It suggests that "she probably had it coming", which of course, lessens the burden on the rape offender.

Most people who are into that gangsta style culture are decent folks who are just having a bit of fun. But there are absolutely folks who present themselves that way because they ARE being serious. They're real pieces of shit and that's why they present themselves that way. Never mind the masses, how am I supposed to take that presentation when I don't know the person? How's a prospective employer supposed to take it? How's the pretty girl that you're trying to woo supposed to take it? Image matters. If it didn't, then those pictures never would have been posted in the first place.

And if you really expect the news media to stop doing this, then you have a warped view of the news media's actual role in society.

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#13 Edited by Buckhannah (715 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

Tell the guys at stormfront I said hey.

Cute. I'll remember this the next time a conservative forumer/commenter tells me to go back to moveon.org in a debate on the ill effects of mixing politics and religion or social issues like women's reproductive rights/same-sex marriage rights. You guys are starting to confuse me!

Avatar image for thebest31406
#14 Posted by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@thebest31406 said:

Wanting to be taken seriously by the masses when taken foolish pics is unreasonable. However, I do expect a serious news outlet to cease using such imagery as a means to suggest a person's identity. You already have the crime in question, anything more is just propaganda. It would be like a news outlet showing a pic of a woman flashing her boobs after she's been raped. It suggests that "she probably had it coming", which of course, lessens the burden on the rape offender.

Most people who are into that gangsta style culture are decent folks who are just having a bit of fun. But there are absolutely folks who present themselves that way because they ARE being serious. They're real pieces of shit and that's why they present themselves that way. Never mind the masses, how am I supposed to take that presentation when I don't know the person? How's a prospective employer supposed to take it? How's the pretty girl that you're trying to woo supposed to take it? Image matters. If it didn't, then those pictures never would have been posted in the first place.

And if you really expect the news media to stop doing this, then you have a warped view of the news media's actual role in society.

The pretty girl, the guy across the street, you and any another civilian are free to interpret it however you like. As a civilian, that's your business; though, I'd wager that part of this knee jerk reaction you and others may have to this style is due to the US media's current interpretation of thuggery. Whatever the case, journalists are to be held to a higher standard by being objective informers and not as propagandists that make allusions to one's person or character based on imagery - that's texbook propaganda. Just because it's standard doesn't make it any less insidious. I know that cable news operate as PR but if the people would demand a different standard, things can change...they always do.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#15 Edited by MrGeezer (58143 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

The pretty girl, the guy across the street, you and any another civilian are free to interpret it however you like. As a civilian, that's your business; though, I'd wager that part of this knee jerk reaction you and others may have to this style is due to the US media's current interpretation of thuggery. Whatever the case, journalists are to be held to a higher standard by being objective informers and not as propagandists that make allusions to one's person or character based on imagery - that's texbook propaganda. Just because it's standard doesn't make it any less insidious. I know that cable news operate as PR but if the people would demand a different standard, things can change...they always do.

Except that it's not just "our business", it's the business of the people who are presenting themselves that way. That's precisely what he was complaining about, the fact it IS a problem for him.

As far as the news goes, "a different standard" will happen when the current standard stops selling. Rather than expecting the news media to stop running these kinds of stories, you'd be better off trying to convince people to stop reading and watching these kinds of stories. And see how well that goes for you, because the sad fact is that people LOVE this kind of shit.

Avatar image for thebest31406
#16 Edited by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@thebest31406 said:

The pretty girl, the guy across the street, you and any another civilian are free to interpret it however you like. As a civilian, that's your business; though, I'd wager that part of this knee jerk reaction you and others may have to this style is due to the US media's current interpretation of thuggery. Whatever the case, journalists are to be held to a higher standard by being objective informers and not as propagandists that make allusions to one's person or character based on imagery - that's texbook propaganda. Just because it's standard doesn't make it any less insidious. I know that cable news operate as PR but if the people would demand a different standard, things can change...they always do.

Except that it's not just "our business", it's the business of the people who are presenting themselves that way. That's precisely what he was complaining about, the fact it IS a problem for him.

As far as the news goes, "a different standard" will happen when the current standard stops selling. Rather than expecting the news media to stop running these kinds of stories, you'd be better off trying to convince people to stop reading and watching these kinds of stories. And see how well that goes for you, because the sad fact is that people LOVE this kind of shit.

It's a problem for them just as it would be a problem for anyone that doesn't acquiesce to the contrived standards imposed by the dominate minority. The indictment doesn't fall upon those that don't abide by the standard, however. Those who wish to take foolish or childish photos shouldn't desist posing simply because I don't like it. What makes me, you or anyone else the arbiter of what is proper or decent?

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#17 Posted by MrGeezer (58143 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

It's a problem for them just as it would be a problem for anyone that doesn't acquiesce to the contrived standards imposed by the dominate minority. The indictment doesn't fall upon those that don't abide by the standard, however. Those who wish to take foolish or childish photos shouldn't desist posing simply because I don't like it. What makes me, you or anyone else the arbiter of what is proper or decent?

Free will. My freedom to associate with who I please means that I won't associate with people who carry themselves in a given way. "Proper" or "decent" has nothing to do with it, I have the right to discriminate against them on those grounds just because I feel like it. This then means that acting foolish or childish can very well have consequences. Act however you want (within the bounds of the law), I don't care. But if the way you act is gonna carry consequences, then you'd be a fool to not take them into account. That's just a simple assessment of risks vs rewards. If you think that the benefits of acting childish or foolish outweigh the risks, then by all means keep acting childish or foolish. But in the event that acting childish or foolish does come back and bite you in the ass, don't act like it's society's fault for not being tolerant of your childishness or foolishness. **** that. I have just as much right to look down on childish/foolish people as they have the right to act childish and foolish in the first place.

Avatar image for thebest31406
#18 Posted by thebest31406 (3775 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@thebest31406 said:

It's a problem for them just as it would be a problem for anyone that doesn't acquiesce to the contrived standards imposed by the dominate minority. The indictment doesn't fall upon those that don't abide by the standard, however. Those who wish to take foolish or childish photos shouldn't desist posing simply because I don't like it. What makes me, you or anyone else the arbiter of what is proper or decent?

Free will. My freedom to associate with who I please means that I won't associate with people who carry themselves in a given way. "Proper" or "decent" has nothing to do with it, I have the right to discriminate against them on those grounds just because I feel like it. This then means that acting foolish or childish can very well have consequences. Act however you want (within the bounds of the law), I don't care. But if the way you act is gonna carry consequences, then you'd be a fool to not take them into account. That's just a simple assessment of risks vs rewards. If you think that the benefits of acting childish or foolish outweigh the risks, then by all means keep acting childish or foolish. But in the event that acting childish or foolish does come back and bite you in the ass, don't act like it's society's fault for not being tolerant of your childishness or foolishness. **** that. I have just as much right to look down on childish/foolish people as they have the right to act childish and foolish in the first place.

As I mentioned, you and other individuals are free to discriminate against anyone for any reason. My main grievance was with the "news media."