>>>.
>>>>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'.
>>>
>>>Which is different from the rest of humanity how?
>>
>>If I read 10 articles that say one thing and one article that says the opposite, my tendency is not to dismiss the 10 articles as propaganda while accepting only the one article. I don't think I'm alone in that.
>
>Thats good. But you don't know what he has read or not or what research he may have done, or not.

He has said more than once that he reads all sorts of stuff. He apparently decided that since the media is controlled by Jews and masons (based on only one thing he read as far as I can tell), it is therefore not credible.

>
>
>>I'd still like to know how you define racism though. If context doesn't matter, and only the words do, then again I ask, how do you recognise racism?
>
>I didn't say context doesn't matter. You need to stop adding stuff to peoples conversations. Racism is normally associated with the idea that one race is inferior or superior to other races based on race alone.

As far as I recall, you repeated his words and said that those words were not in themselves, racist (paraphrasing, of course). I thought that seemed to dismiss context. If I misinterpreted that, then ok.

>
>Saying that the world media is owned by Jews would be a compliment to Jewish business acumen and certainly not that they are inferior. Then saying that because of this the media is favourably biased towards Jews would simply be a natural and even expected conclusion of the claimed condition in the first place. This claim is not so difficult to debate or argue without any need to accuse the claimant of racism.

Once again, it depends on context. No, I agree the words themselves mean little, but in the context that it is an argument as to why the media is not credible, it sounds racist to me.

>
>All media is owned by someone and that media is biased to at least some degree in favour of those owners political, religious, or whatever beliefs. So what? If I say I dont read or believe newpaper X because it leans republican or democrat or whatever so what? It might be the truth. Or it may be wrong in which case perhaps someone explain why I am mistaken. But the claim that paper X or all papers or all media is this or that way inclined is not racism. It's an opinion which may or may not reflect reality.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Saying that the regular media is not a believable source because it is controlled by Jews sounds like he is saying that Jewish people cannot be honest. That sounds racist to me.