How Long Must We Accommodate the "Disability" Known as Racism?
GeoffP said:
That sounds fine, but your response was a non-response ....
.... Ding ding. First the topic, then the excuse.
Well, then, Geoff, let's try this again:
"Yet almost alone among all the posters on this thread, you have concerned yourself with the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, rather than the facts of the case."
Given that the facts of this case reflect, and are predictable according to, the history of the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, why are you asking such a racist question?
Oh, right.
Or would you like it a little more straightforward?
You don't get to be a self-righteous prig when you're being dishonest.
How's that?
Would you like another version of the accurate response?
What the fuck does that idiotic question mean?
Sure, I tried to answer, but apparently, this is like so many of your issues; it's not intended to be answered, but just to stir the pot.
I mean, we've long known that your marriage to reality is tenuous and loveless, but if you want people to continue accommodating your apparent disability, don't use it as a weapon. Kind of like those kids when I was in junior high who thought mental retardation was a fraud that their schoolmates were conducting in order to get special, luxurious treatment. Having a cousin with Down's syndrome, I always resented that sort of idiocy.
But I thank you for giving me insight to what those kids were saying. If nothing else, that tangential, semiprecious flake is one positive thing that comes from Florida's murder-advocacy laws. Sure, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but it certainly has given me some insight into bigotry. Thank you.
Tiassa, there are societal differences in the findings of guilt in SYG according to the race of victim and perpetrator. There are societal and racial aspects of crime in general, along many axes.
Perhaps you might advise as to the significance you see in reminding people of the obvious that is already included in the record. I would suggest that if you wish to be taken in any credible context, you ought to start dealing with reality instead of tilting windmills.
That you would defend the racism of self-defense outcomes is beyond suggestive or indicative; it's conclusive.
My question is whether Zimmerman is really the sacrifice you're looking for.
Look, I know we only left y'all a nigger, but at least he shot y'all a nigger.
Zimmerman isn't the sacrificial lamb here, Geoff. The sacrifical lamb is dead, and exactly according to design.
Look, you have the right to be as racist as you want to be, but you don't have the right to demand respect for your racism. Or, well, technically, you have the First Amendment right to vocalize that demand, but people aren't obliged to pretend you're decent.
That you consider Zimmerman the sacrificial victim is not suggestive, or even indicative. It is conclusive.
Sweet: details. Neither you nor I know whether he acted properly or not.
Your dishonesty is not suggestive, or even indicative. It is conclusive evidence of your racism.
Now, pay attention to this part:
George Zimmerman was told by emergency responders to not pursue Trayvon Martin. He chose to pursue him anyway.
Neither you nor I know whether he acted properly or not, when we have specific evidence of his impropriety?
That you would make this excuse is not suggestive, or even indicative. It is conclusive.
That might be fair, but accusations that Zimmerman was on a "[bad racial word] hunt" are unsupported, and probably unsupportable, and probably wrong.
Yep, 'cause those fucking coons always get away with it. And like his lawyer said:
If George Zimmerman had been black, he never would have been arrested.
That's the game they played, and it worked. But, like your racism, the dishonesty shown by Zimmerman, his family and friends, and his attorney Mark O'Mara, is not suggesteive or indicative; it is conclusive.
A wonderful stance: now prove Zimmerman's intent. What's that? We don't know it? Done.
His intent was to stop an innocent black male from committing the crime that innocent black males are always guilty of.
When Zimmerman defied instruction from emergency responders in order to pursue a confrontation, he chose to pursue a confrontation. He did so carrying a gun that he knew he would use if he needed to.
His intent? His intent was to pursue a "suspect", in direct defiance of instruction from emergency response, and with the backup of his firearm.
All he had to do was not deliberately pursue a confrontation.
Why do you think his supporters were going around to the media telling conflicting stories that George allegedly told them that would erase from the chronology the fact that he pursued Trayvon Martin?
is Zimmerman the goat you're looking for?
Zimmerman is not a scapegoat.
So let us get this straight:
George Zimmerman is not the victim here.
And it astounds me how low racists will go in order to try to change that fact. Perhaps most astounding is not gutter altitude of their intellectual and moral faculties, but the idea that they expect other people to buy it.
Your attempt to portray George Zimmerman as the victim is, on balance in consideration of the evidence you've offered, neither suggestive or indicative of your overt racism, but, rather, conclusive.
You're arguing for his guilt on social grounds, and you do so throughout your post.
No, Geoff. I suppose it's kind of a tough difference for racists to understand, but I'm arguing
for his guilt on the evidence available to us, and
against the verdict on the basis of the observable crime-and-punishment data in our society.
• • •
Michael said:
Anyone can play this game. Had Trayvon not used drugs he wouldn't have been kicked out of school and thus none of this would have come to pass. Had Zimmerman not pulled over to get gasoline earlier he'd have been 15 minutes later and none of this would have come to pass. And etc...
It is nearly astounding to me how desperate some people are to justify the unjustified killing of a black man.
Think of it this way: The fact that people close to Zimmerman were going in front of the press and telling conflicting stories that they attributed to George is irrelevant to the murder trial. That is, they could not put his brother on the stand, and ask him to affirm that George told him the story about Trayvon Martin appearing out of nowhere when George was just innocently sitting in his truck talking on the phone and danced circles around him, yelling incoherently. Or the bit from one of his surrogates about how he just got out of his truck to read the street sign, since he didn't actually know where he was in his own damn neighborhood, and was viciously blindsided. Neither of these accounts supports the evidence on the 911 call.
Now you want to go with butterflies in Brazil and storms in Africa? By your standard, the fact that Trayvon Martin was ever born is a testament to his culpability.
Talk about desperate.
It should be noted a child could be trapped in a burning building, and you the only person who can save them, and emergency response will say wait for a police officer to come. You could be on a raft 5 minutes from going over a waterfall and the emergency response will say wait for a police officer to come. Basically, no matter what you do, where you are, what's happening - the answer will be the same: Wait for a police officer. Seriously, you could be taking a dump, have a log jammed in place, call 911 and the emergency response will be: Sir, do not attempt to dislodge the jam, a police officer is on the way to assist you.
Uh huh. The police are going to tell you to simply sit there and die.
Please substantiate that ludicrously extraordinary circumstance.
Like I said, the desperation is nearly astounding. I say nearly, though, because after so many repetitions over the years, the effect no longer wears off; one is no longer surprised by the human depravity some folks are just desperate to show off.