That's right...the North American white boy uses all the parts.

Right up until the last comma I took your comment a completely different way. I thought you meant that if ZImmerman had killed a White boy in self defense, then something totally different would have happened.
1)The media would never have gotten involved.
2) Zimmerman would have been arrested on the site, charged with murder and unless the kid was a tattooed, white trash, white supremacist, gang member, Zimmerman would be in jail.
But you would never have known about it as there would be no cause to stand in the pulpit, no social ire that the Media could try to raise. They would ignore the whole situation, exactly how they would have ignored it if Zimmerman had been Black.
Seems that unfortunately the guy in the video is correct when he says that, "The life of a black man only has value when it is taken by a white man".

To that point it seems that Chicago is perfectly happy to let the violence in their city continue unchecked and unanswered. It seems that what is happening in Chicago barely get's any national media play. Certainly plays into the theory that the media is liberally biased and is trying to protect Rahm Emmanuel and President Obama from any backlash. Especially since they all seemed to project that Rahm could eventually run for President back when he won the mayoral race.

I got yelled at by a black person for saying something like this. He was right though: I'm just a stupid American white boy. My grandpappy was dumb, my daddy been dumb and so I am done dumber than dumb. Ignorant actually.

But I don't worship no GOD, so at least I got that goin for me. Hell. I got that going for me.

But if there is no hell then it don't matter anyhow We're all biological machines without a destiny, just flapping our various flaps; the constant filibuster on happiness.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Blacking-Up-White-boys-Identity-and-Hip-Hop

Blacking Up - White boys, Identity and Hip Hop has been added as a related post - related requested by chingalera.

Not really....If ya wanna critique, these folks are way too white...seeing them perform does little justice to their efforts filmed or otherwise embodied in recorded tracks on YT with a wannabe clever album cover...To Me, they strain at sucking and are incurably Caucasian....That coming form a white boy, that makes and loves music....these dweebs' sound make my skin crawl for an escape hatch away from hipsters...:)

And since you love em so much, i guess i need to copy this review to one of their sifted viddies (probably pimped by you or another incurable white person with no ear for talent) straining for attention....Yeah. Pretty much recoil from their sound and vibe altogether, they embarrass their creed and associative alliance with blood kin, wish they'd stop trying !

I'm not quite sure if smartphone designers have planned this vertical format. Take a video camera for example. You wouldn't hold it vertical to shoot a video, would you? I think you would prefer the horizontal format.

The reaseon why some people shoot videos vertical with their phones is because the common smartphone is designed to be used and held vertically. The landscape view is "just" an addon.

In my opinion there is and always will be a difference in taking a picture or shooting a video in a vertical format. A vertical video just feels wrong. Maybe youtube will fit their players to vertical formats, but I don't see that in the next three or four years.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^ypsilon:
Vertical Video Syndrome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bt9zSfinwFA
#!
But the kid is cool

Adaptation applies to video formats, doesn't it?
The vertical format is essentially a portrait view, which although is not typical to video, is acceptable for still frames. Why? Because of accepted status quo introduced by standards required for viewing and filming because of the costs of the analog systems used to create film/video. i.e. A time when you couldn't turn your television, projection systems, or computer monitors sideways -- something that a lot more people are doing nowadays; I have a vertical monitor at work and I've seen a few massive vertical monitors used for business menus or marques. We've been due a new acceptable format for YEARS. I believe this new, viable format is the portrait view that smartphones have opened, but it's the uninitiated and unbiased that will accept this format, not us old fogies.
Now, you can go ahead and list off reasons for preferring landscape view, especially citing the typical field of view for human sight, but it doesn't invalidate the choice, considering the media was created with a camera phone, which is designed with these options in mind. Camera phone is a sub-medium, which offers it additional standards, one of which is portrait view. If the subject choice is a human, we stand vertical, so portrait really is best suited for capturing human form. (Also, caputring a BJ is best done in portrait, but that's just my perverted opinion.)
Quick, someone invent a triangle camera!

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^ypsilon:
Vertical Video Syndrome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bt9zSfinwFA
#!
But the kid is cool

Adaptation applies to video formats, doesn't it?
The vertical format is essentially a portrait view, which although is not typical to video, is acceptable for still frames. Why? Because of accepted status quo introduced by standards required for viewing and filming because of the costs of the analog systems used to create film/video. i.e. A time when you couldn't turn your television, projection systems, or computer monitors sideways -- something that a lot more people are doing nowadays; I have a vertical monitor at work and I've seen a few massive vertical monitors used for business menus or marques. We've been due a new acceptable format for YEARS. I believe this new, viable format is the portrait view that smartphones have opened, but it's the uninitiated and unbiased that will accept this format, not us old fogies.
Now, you can go ahead and list off reasons for preferring landscape view, especially citing the typical field of view for human sight, but it doesn't invalidate the choice, considering the media was created with a camera phone, which is designed with these options in mind. Camera phone is a sub-medium, which offers it additional standards, one of which is portrait view. If the subject choice is a human, we stand vertical, so portrait really is best suited for capturing human form. (Also, caputring a BJ is best done in portrait, but that's just my perverted opinion.)
Quick, someone invent a triangle camera!


IMHO it's not that it's portrait, it's that everything is geared to landscape. This video has more black space than content, why? Why isn't the YouTube embed portrait?

>> ^ypsilon:

Vertical Video Syndrome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bt9zSfinwFA
#!
But the kid is cool


Adaptation applies to video formats, doesn't it?

The vertical format is essentially a portrait view, which although is not typical to video, is acceptable for still frames. Why? Because of accepted status quo introduced by standards required for viewing and filming because of the costs of the analog systems used to create film/video. i.e. A time when you couldn't turn your television, projection systems, or computer monitors sideways -- something that a lot more people are doing nowadays; I have a vertical monitor at work and I've seen a few massive vertical monitors used for business menus or marques. We've been due a new acceptable format for YEARS. I believe this new, viable format is the portrait view that smartphones have opened, but it's the uninitiated and unbiased that will accept this format, not us old fogies.

Now, you can go ahead and list off reasons for preferring landscape view, especially citing the typical field of view for human sight, but it doesn't invalidate the choice, considering the media was created with a camera phone, which is designed with these options in mind. Camera phone is a sub-medium, which offers it additional standards, one of which is portrait view. If the subject choice is a human, we stand vertical, so portrait really is best suited for capturing human form. (Also, caputring a BJ is best done in portrait, but that's just my perverted opinion.)

Quick, someone invent a triangle camera!

>> ^chingalera:

There's very little good dub, rap, hip-hop anymore~
One of the most endeeeearing qualities being the propensity of ghetto-ass stoner white-boys to adopt some pseudo-Brooklyn accent and brag about how bad-ass they are~Bleeegh!



There's a lot of good rap and hip-hop these days.

They're not putting on any accents, they're from Chicago. That's how they sound.

And braggadocio in rap? How unusual!

There's very little good dub, rap, hip-hop anymore~

One of the most endeeeearing qualities being the propensity of ghetto-ass stoner white-boys to adopt some pseudo-Brooklyn accent and brag about how bad-ass they are~Bleeegh!

She'd be worried that she's black and confused about her race?>> ^raverman:

Classic comedy reusing a standard anti-homosexual trope
Don't think so?
Imagine she just kissed a black boy and needs to make out a white boy so she doesn't feel dirty or confused any more.
Still not inferring a negative stereotype?

Classic comedy reusing a standard anti-homosexual trope

Don't think so?

Imagine she just kissed a black boy and needs to make out a white boy so she doesn't feel dirty or confused any more.

Still not inferring a negative stereotype?

This crime has nothing to do with race. Put a black man in the same situation, and the same would happen.

1. He wasn't targeted because he was white. He was targeted because he was drunk, alone and unable to defend himself. The same thing would have happened to a black dude in an equivalent situation, except then you wouldn't care.

2. As I pointed out in a similar video, that's Baltimore. Black people are robbed, beaten, and killed in that violent city every fucking day. There are enough of these disgusting videos online to show that these thugs will attack anyone of any demographic.

3. Apparently you don't realize that white people commit crimes too. Every day. Sometimes in groups (called "gangs"). And some of those crimes target black people. The instances where a gang or a group of drunk, rowdy white boys attack a black victim are not all national news. >> ^chilaxe:

If a black person was targeted by not a lone white criminal but an entire white mob for this because of their ethnicity, it'd be national news.
Videosift always supports that because racism, and in particular group hate crimes, are seen as representing larger cultural and practical realities.
There'd be no comments that it should be downplayed by the media and restricted to sites like WorldStarHipHop.
>> ^longde:
Of course not. Why would I say that a bunch of white thugs robbing Urkel represented white culture? Also, I have encountered enough criminals of all colors to know that a mugging -even an extravagant one- isn't a political statement. >> ^chilaxe:
>> ^longde:
I don't necessarily have anything against the video; frankly though it fits better on WorldStarHipHop than videosift. I downvoted for your tags, which imply that criminals somehow comprise the culture of some group, which shall remain nameless. And your description, which attempts to make a criminal act political.
If the cultural groups in this video were reversed, wouldn't you take the opposite position on those points?

Wait, I am confused... Obama is black, and usually presumed guilty before innocent as a black man first. We agree on that 100% I assume...but the proper way to word your argument would have been, "when a black man is shot and killed by a Hispanic, you are here insisting the Hispanic guy is innocent until proven guilty."

If we say Zimmerman is for the most part white, then Obama is white too, and that's just retarded... We know society goes by racial clumping and that shit is not going to change any time soon. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard "White Hispanic" in my life--when the Media wants to stir up shit for dollar's sake.

If it had been Zimmerman shot by a KKK member, who thinks the fucking paper would label it a white-on-white crime? Who on the sift would label it as such?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media% 20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.
Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.
That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.