The language you used above [Since he is black, the national mews may not cover it. But if the driver had been white, it would be a racist attack] is racist language. Your intent is not material; your words are.liberty wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:13 pmDon’t you feel sad when a God falls From power? Of course, he may not be convicted. I will be interested in seeing what the defense will be. Hopefully, we will know the outcome. Since he is black, the national mews may not cover it. But if the driver had been white, it would be a racist attack.
The national "mews" has been all over this story from the start. No one is in any doubt of the perpetrator's skin tone. His was a not a racist attack - it was reckless, careless, homicidally dangerous driving. His race and the race of the dead woman is irrelevant to the event and to the reporting. The dog's ethnicity may be important but I doubt it.
Had the driver been white, it would still not be a "racist attack". Your intent (above) is not to have a debate, with evidence, of a bias in reporting. It is to spill more word-soup revealing your pathological need to use the words "black" and "white" in a negative and irrational manner. As usual.
Regarding attacks on Asian-Americans in California, how odd that you offer a story from the media to show that the media doesn't report the story. But, nice try at deflecting attention from your whistling.
Which given the "mews" I suppose may be intended for cats rather than dogs?
