>>Out of curiosity Jos, if a person from say, Alabama (casting no aspersions on Albamans), said Black people are lazy, shiftless and have a criminal mentality; would you say then that this person is not a racist, he is merely repeating what he has been taught?
>
>Interesting that you choose black people for your example rather than, say, whites. But in any case your example is so completely out of the ball park I hardly know how to reply. His statement that Jews control the media is not in itself a defamatory remark whereas your example clearly is. If Jews do control the world media then I would say thats quite an accomplishment that Jewish people can be proud of. Whether it is true or not is debatable of course.
>
I chose blacks because that is a typical racist stereotype that I'm sure somebody read or was taught and repeated.

You can take anything of context, but context does matter regardless how you try to disassociate it from the words. Metin was telling us that Jews control the media in order to make a point. The point being that you can't believe what you read in the so called Jewish press. His implication is that the media is pro Israel because it is controlled by Jews. The implication in that is that it is deliberate lies.

>
>>Merely repeating what one has been taught does not excuse inflammatory, and yes, racist remarks.
>
>I didnt say he was taught it. He explained that he had read it and offered to state the source.

And you feel that reading something and taking it as gospel, is somehow different from being taught it?

Metin has read lots of stuff. He chooses to believe and repeat the one thing he read that is inflammatory and he chooses to dismiss the rest as obviously Jewish controlled propaganda. This is not racism?

Context again. You can try all you want to remove the context from the words, but I repeat, context does matter.

>>The world media is owned by Jews, Jewish media is biased, Jews this, Jews that.
>
>Well it wasnt any "Jews this, Jews that" posturing. Please stick with the specific statement which concerned who controls the world media. It's really a simple statement and one which Alex deftly countered with obvious examples like CNN and Rupert Murdoch.

Are you suggesting that the only statement he has made about Jews is that one?

>>Sorry, but that does sound racist to me, and putting it all down to, "well, that's what he's been taught" just doesn't make it for me.
>
>I'm glad for you but no one said it was what he had been taught. You really need to argue what was written and not all the other stuff.
>
>
>>I have been ignoring it until now because you simply cannot change a mind so mired in it's own 'rightness' by telling him to read things that he is sure are just more Jewish propaganda. Jews own the media, right?
>
>It takes, of course, two to tango. As much you are apparently not able to change his mind (because of his "rightness") he is apparently not able to change yours either (because ...?).

When one reads a multitude of things and chooses only to believe and repeat the one single thing he read that reaffirms his belief without regard to all of the other things, then yes, I see that as being 'mired'.