PDA

View Full Version : Civil Rights Leaders Demand Apology From Daniele Watts For Using Race Card



Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 02:33 PM
Civil Rights leaders are demanding an apology from Daniele Watts (pictured right) after her recent detainment, the New York Daily News reports.

RELATED: Actress Detained By LAPD Refuses To Apologize

Witnesses called police September 14th, alleging Watts was engaged in a lewd act with celebrity chef husband Brian Lucas (pictured) in their car in Los Angeles. When an officer arrived to investigate, Watts went into a tirade about how she was detained because she was making out with her White husband.

However, TMZ released pictures showing Watts straddling Lucas soon after, lending credence to witnesses’ claims. One witness who spoke with TMZ said Watts’ breasts were exposed and she was grinding atop her husband.

This “evidence” is why leaders are demanding an apology.

“Civil rights leaders in Los Angeles are demanding that she apologize to the officers and community because when she made the allegations of racial profiling, which we take extremely seriously, we were in the forefront of speaking up for her,” said Najee Ali, president of Project Islamic Hope.

Watts’ actions took attention away from real racial issues, according to renowned media critic Earl Ofari Hutchinson.

“I was one that was very outspoken about it,” Hutchinson, who initially supported Watts, recently told reporters. “We take racial profiling very seriously. It’s not a play thing. It’s not trivial.”

The leaders may have to wait a while. Watts has refused to apologize for the incident. She also maintains that she didn’t have to present the officer with ID.

“It is a constitutional right that we do not have to present ID to any member of law enforcement unless we are being charged with a crime,” the actress said in a recent statement via publicist.

http://newsone.com/3053817/civil-rights-leaders-demand-apology-from-daniele-watts-for-using-race-card/

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 02:39 PM
WJ5 is gonna LOVE this, as well as anyone who keeps asking "Where are the civil rights leaders whenever THIS happens, or THAT happens."

I almost applaud these guys. ALMOST. I think that what they're doing is a necessary thing, but notice that it's a NewsOne article - so very few non-blacks are even going to know about it. Also, consider the fact that - in the end - they're doing this in hopes that legitimate complaints of racism are viewed with more credibility... or seeking validation from those who've already written them off. Not only will it not work, but this is pretty submissive behavior - which doesn't help their situation.

TJMAC77SP
09-25-2014, 05:03 PM
WJ5 is gonna LOVE this, as well as anyone who keeps asking "Where are the civil rights leaders whenever THIS happens, or THAT happens."

I almost applaud these guys. ALMOST. I think that what they're doing is a necessary thing, but notice that it's a NewsOne article - so very few non-blacks are even going to know about it. Also, consider the fact that - in the end - they're doing this in hopes that legitimate complaints of racism are viewed with more credibility... or seeking validation from those who've already written them off. Not only will it not work, but this is pretty submissive behavior - which doesn't help their situation.

I actually do applaud the reaction of the civil rights group because I think they are fighting the cry-wolf syndrome (which is a natural reaction if a racial aspect is attached to a story when all the facts are as yet unknown; other than the race(s) of the individual(s) involved).

I am confused by your expanded remarks though. Who is engaging in 'submissive behavior' and how so? Also, are you blaming the news outlet because other news outlets which reach the black community won't carry the story?

I also think the actress should go back to school and take some actual classes.

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 05:29 PM
I actually do applaud the reaction of the civil rights group because I think they are fighting the cry-wolf syndrome (which is a natural reaction if a racial aspect is attached to a story when all the facts are as yet unknown; other than the race(s) of the individual(s) involved).

I am confused by your expanded remarks though. Who is engaging in 'submissive behavior' and how so?

The civil rights groups. It's difficult for me to explain, but let me give you another example of this type of behavior:

Recently, I've noticed that there are young black people now defending Al Sharpton; but I think that this is reactionary to what's been going on lately: every time I'm on facebook and I see a news channel featuring an article on a crime where the perpetrator is black and shows the mugshot, the FIRST comment mentioning race is someone suggesting that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is going to get involved.

For well over 20 years, black people have been trying to say that they do not support Al Sharpton, agree with Al Sharpton, and believe that he's a media attention whore.

But... the comments like the one above keep coming.

The reason I believe that young people now defending him are reactionary is because... I think that people have stated time and again that they're not supporters of Al Sharpton until they're blue in the face, and it just doesn't matter. It falls on deaf ears. Furthermore, while it may be true that they don't support Al Sharpton - by constantly reminding them that they don't support Al Sharpton, they were seeking approval from people who already judged them in the first place.

I can't help but feel that these civil rights leaders are doing something similar.


Also, are you blaming the news outlet because other news outlets which reach the black community won't carry the story?

No, I'm saying that what they're trying to do - i.e., get all of America to see that civil rights leaders are against (mis)use of the "race card" - is going to fail, BECAUSE this story is only on news outlets for the black community. In other words, the only whites who will see this story are the ones who read NewsOne. It's nobody's fault if the story isn't big enough to make it to more mainstream outlets; I'm just saying that this isn't likely to make the impact that they wanted.

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 06:04 PM
No, I'm saying that what they're trying to do - i.e., get all of America to see that civil rights leaders are against (mis)use of the "race card" - is going to fail, BECAUSE this story is only on news outlets for the black community. I hope you are wrong. I think this sort of action, if made "national", would go a long way to get many whites from throwing out the Al Sharpton comments. Unfortunately, as you said, it doesn't make national media unless it's a story which can be looked on in a negative light.

Just as with the recent feminism speech by Emma Watson, which was done in a way as to not alienate anyone (except for the small minority who are always going to oppose), more publicity for civil rights groups coming across as accepting of everyone instead of "anti" anyone, it's the only way I can see real progress being made.

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 06:08 PM
Civil rights leaders won't support Daniele Watts because her husband is white. It is obvious that the civil rights leaders consider Daniele Watts to be a traitor to the black race because she married a white guy. The cops who harassed her are probably racial bigots who didn't like seeing a black woman getting frisky with a white guy.

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 06:13 PM
"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." ~Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty is trying to mislead us (again).

TJMAC77SP
09-25-2014, 06:14 PM
The civil rights groups. It's difficult for me to explain, but let me give you another example of this type of behavior:

Recently, I've noticed that there are young black people now defending Al Sharpton; but I think that this is reactionary to what's been going on lately: every time I'm on facebook and I see a news channel featuring an article on a crime where the perpetrator is black and shows the mugshot, the FIRST comment mentioning race is someone suggesting that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is going to get involved.

For well over 20 years, black people have been trying to say that they do not support Al Sharpton, agree with Al Sharpton, and believe that he's a media attention whore.

But... the comments like the one above keep coming.

The reason I believe that young people now defending him are reactionary is because... I think that people have stated time and again that they're not supporters of Al Sharpton until they're blue in the face, and it just doesn't matter. It falls on deaf ears. Furthermore, while it may be true that they don't support Al Sharpton - by constantly reminding them that they don't support Al Sharpton, they were seeking approval from people who already judged them in the first place.

I can't help but feel that these civil rights leaders are doing something similar.



No, I'm saying that what they're trying to do - i.e., get all of America to see that civil rights leaders are against (mis)use of the "race card" - is going to fail, BECAUSE this story is only on news outlets for the black community. In other words, the only whites who will see this story are the ones who read NewsOne. It's nobody's fault if the story isn't big enough to make it to more mainstream outlets; I'm just saying that this isn't likely to make the impact that they wanted.

Ahhh, I see. I understand about where the story appears. I am not sure I agree that it won't do any good if only black people see the story but I do understand what you are saying.

I have to say that I can't ever, ever recall seeing a story where a black person denigrates either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 06:19 PM
Civil rights leaders won't support Daniele Watts because her husband is white. It is obvious that the civil rights leaders consider Daniele Watts to be a traitor to the black race because she married a white guy. The cops who harassed her are probably racial bigots who didn't like seeing a black woman getting frisky with a white guy.

All those black athletes with white wives that civil rights leaders have supported, and you bring THIS up?

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, THIS is exactly why I think that the efforts of the civil rights groups are wasted. And I've already said this.

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 06:23 PM
All those black athletes with white wives that civil rights leaders have supported, and you bring THIS up?

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, THIS is exactly why I think that the efforts of the civil rights groups are wasted. And I've already said this.

He is the type that is never going to change, no matter what. It's a small, very vocal group that needs to be ignored while focusing on everyone else. All civil rights leaders need to come across, vocally, with coverage in the national media, as supportive of everyone's rights, not just those of minorities. Once that happens (if the media ever allows it) then, as I said before, I really believe there can be an intelligent dialogue that opens a lot more minds.

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 06:28 PM
All those black athletes with white wives that civil rights leaders have supported, and you bring THIS up?

The black male civil rights leaders have no problem with all those black athletes with white wives, but those same black male civil rights leaders can't stand to see an attractive black woman with a white guy.

Of note: Black women usually do have a problem with all those black athletes with white wives.

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 06:38 PM
The black male civil rights leaders have no problem with all those black athletes with white wives, but those same black male civil rights leaders can't stand to see an attractive black woman with a white guy.

Of note: Black women usually do have a problem with all those black athletes with white wives.

Looks to me like you're always going to find something in order to say that those civil rights groups have ulterior motives.

If anyone wants to know "where are civil rights leaders when a black person does THIS, or a black person does THAT" - here's your answer as to why they probably don't even bother.

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 06:41 PM
He is the type that is never going to change, no matter what. It's a small, very vocal group that needs to be ignored while focusing on everyone else. All civil rights leaders need to come across, vocally, with coverage in the national media, as supportive of everyone's rights, not just those of minorities. Once that happens (if the media ever allows it) then, as I said before, I really believe there can be an intelligent dialogue that opens a lot more minds.

I hope this is the case.

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 06:52 PM
Just as with the recent feminism speech by Emma Watson, which was done in a way as to not alienate anyone (except for the small minority who are always going to oppose), more publicity for civil rights groups coming across as accepting of everyone instead of "anti" anyone, it's the only way I can see real progress being made.

And here's the counter-point:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/emma-watson-leads-the-retreat-for-un-feminism/

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 06:59 PM
And here's the counter-point:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/emma-watson-leads-the-retreat-for-un-feminism/

If you are using this article as a counter to what I said then you have issues. Any article that says "This is what she said...however...this is what she meant" is ridiculous. Take a look at her comments. Based on her words alone, and not the comments of the article, she says that feminists need to quit being man-haters. They need to realize that the only way for gender equality to happen is to include men in the conversation. She is exactly right. She is pushing for gender equality, not a female gender favoritism, as the more outspoken feminists in the past have.

But if you want to take it as something else then go for it. There is already no doubt about your view of women.

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 07:00 PM
Oh shit, he's into the MRM. I should have known...

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 07:03 PM
Oh shit, he's into the MRM. I should have known...What's MRM?

Rusty Jones
09-25-2014, 07:06 PM
What's MRM?

Men's Rights Movement. The website he linked to is run by Paul Elam, the founder of MRM.

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 07:23 PM
she says that feminists need to quit being man-haters.

She never said that the man-hating has to stop, just the perception of feminism as such.

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 07:26 PM
Men's Rights Movement. The website he linked to is run by Paul Elam, the founder of MRM.

Here's a link to the website: http://www.avoiceformen.com/

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 07:28 PM
"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." ~Paul Ryan


Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty is still trying to mislead us. @ Rusty: Why are you trying to mislead us?

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 07:48 PM
Men's Rights Movement. The website he linked to is run by Paul Elam, the founder of MRM.Gotcha.....

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 07:50 PM
She never said that the man-hating has to stop, just the perception of feminism as such.Right, and she's saying that they need to change that perception. How else do you do it other than to stop man-hating?

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 08:02 PM
Right, and she's saying that they need to change that perception. How else do you do it other than to stop man-hating?


They mislead us with a bunch of BS.

For example, look at RJ's signature line. RJ has some BS in his signature line that is designed to give us a perception about Paul Ryan that is not accurate. Feminists, liberals and RJ all believe that the ends justify the means. Dishonesty is their tool, and they are willing to use dishonesty in order to promote their agenda.

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 08:11 PM
They mislead us with a bunch of BS.

For example, look at RJ's signature line. RJ has some BS in his signature line that is designed to give us a perception about Paul Ryan that is not accurate. Feminists, liberals and RJ all believe that the ends justify the means. Dishonesty is their tool, and they are willing to use dishonesty in order to promote their agenda.

Everyone misleads with a bunch of BS, if it fits their agenda. You are no different. Your inference about the link you posted are a great example. Even though what she says is there in black and white, you are assuming what she meant, then using it as part of your argument.

I'd also challenge you to find an example of conservatives who don't mislead with their statements. I'd like you to give an example of women haters who don't mislead with their statement. Sound bites are nothing more than a quick headline to garner attention. All sides use it. You implying that it's only one side doing it is just as misleading.

Can I make a tin-foil hat for you?

USN - Retired
09-25-2014, 08:18 PM
Everyone misleads with a bunch of BS, if it fits their agenda. You are no different. Your inference about the link you posted are a great example. Even though what she says is there in black and white, you are assuming what she meant, then using it as part of your argument.

I'd also challenge you to find an example of conservatives who don't mislead with their statements. I'd like you to give an example of women haters who don't mislead with their statement. Sound bites are nothing more than a quick headline to garner attention. All sides use it. You implying that it's only one side doing it is just as misleading.

Can I make a tin-foil hat for you?

Oh my gosh! So much anger.

I'm just asking you to keep an open mind and look at everything objectively. Perhaps I am asking for too much.

sandsjames
09-25-2014, 08:51 PM
Oh my gosh! So much anger. I sounded angry? Ok...


I'm just asking you to keep an open mind and look at everything objectively. Perhaps I am asking for too much. Open mind? Really? That's your go-to on this one? I think I'm more open minded accepting her statement at face value, when I am normally am anti-feminist movement, than to do as you and immediately discount her intentions as well meaning.

Rusty Jones
09-26-2014, 09:53 AM
Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty is still trying to mislead us. @ Rusty: Why are you trying to mislead us?

I'm just keeping the quote there for you, since you like it so much.

USN - Retired
09-26-2014, 04:37 PM
I'm just keeping the quote there for you, since you like it so much.

I hope that you also like my responses to your misleading quote. And you didn't answer my question: Why are you trying to mislead us?

Rusty Jones
09-26-2014, 04:38 PM
I hope that you also like my responses to your misleading quote. And you didn't answer my question: Why are you trying to mislead us?

Replace "us" with "me." No one here really gives a fuck, but you.

USN - Retired
09-26-2014, 04:43 PM
Replace "us" with "me." No one here really gives a fuck, but you.

And you STILL didn't answer my question: Why are you trying to mislead us?

TJMAC77SP
09-26-2014, 04:45 PM
Replace "us" with "me." No one here really gives a fuck, but you.

Well, I don't lose sleep over these misquotes..............there have been a bunch of them over the years on MTF but I am curious as to why you posted it to begin with. I can only imagine you don't like Paul Ryan, which I understand but why not just be honest and outline why you don't like him with legitimate reasons. Why rely on misquotes and basic untruths?

It smacks of "they will eliminate Medicare (and Social Security) as we know it". Bullshit scaremongering. But, I digress.

sandsjames
09-26-2014, 04:56 PM
Well, I don't lose sleep over these misquotes..............there have been a bunch of them over the years on MTF but I am curious as to why you posted it to begin with. I can only imagine you don't like Paul Ryan, which I understand but why not just be honest and outline why you don't like him with legitimate reasons. Why rely on misquotes and basic untruths?

It smacks of "they will eliminate Medicare (and Social Security) as we know it". Bullshit scaremongering. But, I digress.

It's a simple answer. America is a sound bite country. Sound bites determine who gets elected. Sound bites determine who we like and who we don't like. The majority of people don't have the attention span to read an entire article...they are only capable of coming to a conclusion based on a headline. I've done it...you've done it...we've all done it.

TJMAC77SP
09-26-2014, 05:04 PM
It's a simple answer. America is a sound bite country. Sound bites determine who gets elected. Sound bites determine who we like and who we don't like. The majority of people don't have the attention span to read an entire article...they are only capable of coming to a conclusion based on a headline. I've done it...you've done it...we've all done it.

Well, I won't claim to have never done that but I endeavor very hard not to and spend quite a bit of effort here on the MTF shining a light on what I consider to be intellectual laziness at best and downright dishonesty at worst.

We shouldn't settle for just reading the headline and we shouldn't just let people use headlines and misquotes without shining that light on them.

To quote Rainmaker...........nomsayin?

sandsjames
09-26-2014, 05:14 PM
Well, I won't claim to have never done that but I endeavor very hard not to and spend quite a bit of effort here on the MTF shining a light on what I consider to be intellectual laziness at best and downright dishonesty at worst.

We shouldn't settle for just reading the headline and we shouldn't just let people use headlines and misquotes without shining that light on them.

To quote Rainmaker...........nomsayin?

Of course we shouldn't. And there are some who don't. Unfortunately, apart from the minority of people who are interested in having an open discussion to talk about these topics, our country is past the point of making an effort. It's the quick answer they want. It's the microwave meal, the Tom-Tom for the vacation.

When most people have a question, they Google it. They don't go past the first page of responses and they are highly likely to click on the link that is framed in a way that is inviting to their way of thinking. Of course they are going to get pulled more to either the right or left when this is the case.

I'd really be curious to know what percentage of American's actually read a newspaper or watch a new channel on a regular basis that isn't already in line with their beliefs. It's not how it should be done but, unfortunately, it's the reality.

TJMAC77SP
09-26-2014, 05:40 PM
Of course we shouldn't. And there are some who don't. Unfortunately, apart from the minority of people who are interested in having an open discussion to talk about these topics, our country is past the point of making an effort. It's the quick answer they want. It's the microwave meal, the Tom-Tom for the vacation.

When most people have a question, they Google it. They don't go past the first page of responses and they are highly likely to click on the link that is framed in a way that is inviting to their way of thinking. Of course they are going to get pulled more to either the right or left when this is the case.

I'd really be curious to know what percentage of American's actually read a newspaper or watch a new channel on a regular basis that isn't already in line with their beliefs. It's not how it should be done but, unfortunately, it's the reality.

Sadly true. This is akin to the 47% Romney spoke of. He knew there was nothing he could say or do to change their minds (and there was a similar percentage Obama could have spoken to as well).

I used to see this in my dad. He was a union guy and so of course hated Bush with a vengeance. He said to me once, "you know what your President has done now?" He was always 'my' President. Anyway when I said I didn't know he stated that Bush had eliminated all overtime pay. I tried to point out that while not knowing a single detail of what he was talking about I found it incredulous that any politician would even attempt that, never mind be able to. Turned out he had read the headline of an article in his union magazine.

When I got home, I did some research. Turns out that the Dept of Labor had reclassified four jobs as management and therefore not qualified for overtime. All four jobs were indeed management and the term was even in the job descriptions. It was a long overdue minor correction in labor classifications.

THAT became..........."All overtime has been eliminated"

Then, before the 2012 election my mother told me that although she like Romney (she lives in MA) she didn't think she was going to vote for him because he "didn't seem to know what the average citizen was going through" and "he was going to eliminate Medicare and Social Security".

sandsjames
09-26-2014, 05:58 PM
Then, before the 2012 election my mother told me that although she like Romney (she lives in MA) she didn't think she was going to vote for him because he "didn't seem to know what the average citizen was going through" and "he was going to eliminate Medicare and Social Security".

My sister believed that by the end of Obama's term(s) this country would be under Sharia Law. My uncle swears that Obama is allowing terrorists into the country for some future plot to take over. There are crazies everywhere, they will hear what they want and read/watch what they already believe.

It's scary to think that a Presidential candidate only needs about 6% of the vote to win the election, as the other 94% isn't going to change their mind, no matter what.