Leaderboard

Troy I don't think they're trying to mislead people, I think they're TRYING to inform people. But the question I have is, exactly WHO is their audience that they're trying to reach? Given that I'm not the smartest person in the world and my ability to comprehend that article is limited....from MY perspective too much of the article is redundant and seems use graphs and statistics and multiple paragraphs to explain the same basic points over and over again. Certainly this article wasn't written for the average person to understand because it's far too complex and scientifically detailed. Which explains why it was found in a scientific publication. However the question then becomes...... Does an audience smart enough to understand this article and has a mind analytical enough to follow it all the way through really NEED to be told over and over again in great detail...as this article does....that they should be careful and not believe everything they read or hear on social media????? Another problem I have with the article is it's suggeting that all conspiracy theories are "misinformation". It lumps conspiracy NEWS, conspiracy RUMORS, and conspiracy THEORIES all in the same category as if all three terms mean the same thing. So in a sense it does seem as if they are attempting to persuade people not so much with "facts" but how they're wording certain things.

Sara Well even if you WERE sucking up to me, I don't think "sucking up" or "kissing ass" is necessarily a bad thing....lol. I wouldn't mind "sucking up" to Cynique, you, or Troy....if I thought I could get something of value out of it like money or massive promoting or a good position in some firm. Part of thinking outside of the box is putting me ego and pride to the side when it comes to seeking to achieve certain objectives. I could have been in a cussing match with somebody last night and wouldn't think twice about coming to them the next morning apologizing and trying to make up with them if they hold the key to my success for a given goal. CD Ok, I see what you're saying now....... But again, I'm not accusing Black actresses who play loud obnoxious ghetto types of CREATING the perception.....I'm accusing them of PERPETUATING it. They didn't start the fire but they're keeping it going. Similar to how the people alive today didn't start America's economic system. It was started centuries ago, but people today are playing their respective roles in keeping it rolling along. That's how the perceptions of Black inferiority work. Black people who have accepted this belief and their roles in it keep it going. Ofcourse the mode or stereotype of the vulgar obnoxious Black woman who tended not to be as "gentle" or "refined" as the White woman has existed for decades....centuries probably. But actresses like Leslie come along and accept roles that keep this negative perception going; usually with an excuse of trying to "make a living" or "get their foot in the door". Black actors and actresses in Hollywood tend not to be as versatile as their White counterparts and are more likely to be TYPECASTED into certain roles that the public expects to see them in because of their phenotype. Vighn Rhames is a good example of what I'm talking about. You'll never see that brother play a professor or doctor because the "public" doesn't expect a Black man who looks like that to be intelligent enough to pass it off. As Cynique said, we (or I rather) have beat up on Leslie enough.....no need to stomp her out. But we shouldn't underestimate the power and influence a woman who has weekly role on a major network like NBC has over: 1. Young Black females who naturally absorb images they see of other Black females in the media and get their cues on how to behave from them. 2. White people who religiously watch SNL and who may already have ideas of Black dysfunctionality raging in their minds and now the skits being perform....while not having INITIATED those racist ideas....certainly fuels them.