well you can always deplore the masses for what it's worth.Sort of enables it to call it a "typical response" and withhold any real judgment on it, doesn't it?
well you can always deplore the masses for what it's worth.Sort of enables it to call it a "typical response" and withhold any real judgment on it, doesn't it?
Not ignoring it, it's what I'm complaining about. And it's dishonest and unethical for journalists to do it, wouldn't you agree?
It refers to getting more outraged over the post terrorism backlash than the terrorism itself.
It refers to getting more outraged over the post terrorism backlash than the terrorism itself.
well you can always deplore the masses for what it's worth.
I sort of agree, but don't really fault journalists at this point. It's part of the lexicon.
Then it must not be hard to understand why conservatives see it as bias? And it must not be hard to understand why people would begin to ignore assertions of racism when the people calling it out don't even know what it means and instead conflate other forms of bigotry. All it proves to me is the journalist is an ignorant person.
Then it must not be hard to understand why conservatives see it as bias? And it must not be hard to understand why people would begin to ignore assertions of racism when the people calling it out don't even know what it means and instead conflate other forms of bigotry. All it proves to me is the journalist is an ignorant person.