George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Saturnine Pariah
- Start date
Hatred??? Um, no. Why would I waste a perfectly good emotion like hatred on this drivel of a sideshow? Hating the protagonist in what amounts to a soap-opera reality TV show is asinine. I did find it interesting how this didn't make the news: Black man shoots and kills unarmed White CHILD for the crime of 'looking scary'. Similar to Zimmerman, Roderick Scott was acquitted.
My views on the role of the State in society are based on sound evidence. Incidentally, I don't 'hate' the role of the State either. I acknowledge it. This doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it or pretend it isn't exactly what it is and always has been.
This is one long ad hominem. Words like cynical, calculated, dishonor, uninformed, smart, disgrace... none of these make a valid argument. You have yet to present an argument.
When I say the State is the only legal institution that can institute force against an innocent person, this is exactly what I mean. It's really that simple. If you disagree with my statement, then make a counter argument.
I don't need to appeal to National identity/Citizenship. I don't need to appeal to God or Uncle Sam. I don't need to ad hominem. I don't need to appeal to emotion "what of the homeless", what of the children". I don't need to use jingles like "For the Good of the Nation" or "Good of Society". The simple fact is the State is the ONLY group of humans that can, and does, initiate force against innocent people. It's an extremely dangerous organization.
I have one question for you:
If the Federal Government can create as much currency as is needed to pay for all the public services you support. Those like: schools, roads, medicine, hospital care, fire fighters, police, ambulances, subways, universities, research, housing for homeless children, food for the starving, vaccinations - and do so 100% debt free, at the same levels as now so that inflation is the same: why don't we?
- Why not do that?
- If our Government can create it's own money, why have income tax at all?
I'll await your await your answer.
Addendums:
#1
FACT: POTUS Obama is building a new $2 billion dollar storage facility for the NSA to store OUR recorded conversations, SMS's, emails, blog-posts, and etc.... this will eventually happen. Vote for whomever you like - there is nothing you can say or do that's going to prevent either this facility, or another just like it, from recording each and every electronic communication all Americans "Citizens" do. I'll make a prediction, in time all of our private information will be shared with quazi-private institutions like the Federal Reserve and the TBTF banks that make up the Federal Reserve and they will use this to further enrich themselves at our expense. And the State will tell us it's for our own good. They'll put on a little Right vs Left show. And it will be done.
You can mark my words on this one.
FACT: Obama has used the legal entity called The State, to prosecute more whistle-blowers (courage citizens risking their lives to inform us of what the government is doing to us) than ANY OTHER president in history COMBINED. Do you find this surprising? Did you think Obama was this type of 'Leader' when he was elected with all those promises of Hope and Change? I'm quite curious. Out of one side of Obama's mouth says he thinks this is a discussion we need to have. The other side says he'll place sanctions against us so-called 'Free' Citizens from trading with any country that defies the US GOVERNMENT.
FACT: Those TBTF Banks that were supposed to be gone by now - are still here. Fascism is defined as a combination of State-and-Corporate institutions. So, we have the most dangerous institution, The State, combined with the most powerful corporations. Just wonderful. Again, you can vote for whomever you wish, this is not going to change - ever. Do you understand that? I don't care who you choose to vote for, I promise you, it won't make one iota's worth of difference in this regard.
FACT: Language shapes thought. You can not think without language. When you read the word "Kangaroo" you can not prevent that idea from entering your consciousness.
AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'
See, whistle-blower sounds courageous, leaker OTOH sounds like a loner - someone potentially not trustworthy. It's no coincidence Obama's spokeswoman referred to Snowden, repeatedly, as a leaker. Over and over she repeated the title: Leaker. Snowden the Leaker. Obama will have him tossed into a rape-cage quicker than you can say 'Whistle-blower'.
FACT: The government will reach it's 'debt ceiling' again, in the next few months - watch how this time we move right on past it with little, if any, debate. The USPO needs to come up with $5.6 billion of legally mandated prefunding of retiree health benefits - - in 4 days. This isn't going to happen. The Highway Trust Fund has about 14 months to come up with $50 billion. Again, isn't going to happen. The Disability Trust Fund supplies 11 million citizens with monthly checks and faces a 25% cut in benefits starting in October 2014 - or also runs out of money, which it will. This is the fifth year the government has run without a budget.
Under the current monetary system, the federal government is bankrupt.
FACT: Money only exists in our consciousness, and similar to the word kangaroo, you really can't help but think of something you were taught; as soon as you hear the word.
You can say I'm naive or I dishonor myself or I'm uninformed or I disgrace myself, however: those words do not change any of these facts.
Last edited:
That's not what happened.michael said:
And the first time you posted that, people did you the courtesy of explaining to you why you cannot draw the parallels you attempted then and now - the differences in actual, physical event, are many and basic and directly relevant; they are also pretty simple, one would assume anyone of ordinary intelligence and literacy would have no problem recognizing them when presented with a list. But you insist on parroting bilgewater from webbigots.
So we are now entitled to consider the question of motive, your motives. You have been consistently blind to the racial bigotry common and influential in American life, consistently ready with all manner of excuses and revisions of history and denials of circumstance - not only here, but in past discussions of labor history and public education and economic policy and governmental influence generally - and in this thread, for example, your misinformed attempts to slander Trayvon Martin's childhood have no visible motive other than racial bigotry on your part. They have nothing to do with Zimmerman's behavior or guilt - he didn't even know the kid.
So is that the identity you seek?
the plethora of comments and many of them are just gutter-low. Notice there is no blaming the one who bears the most responsiblity, the adult zimmerman against an unarmed kid nor his track record even as an adult nor his judgement. they are blaming the parents and using the kids juvenile problems as justification for him being killed. it's just disgusting.
so, i hope this shit of a human being has a kid who if ever walks in the rain gets killed just for being out and not locked up or perhaps if this asshole has a daughter gets raped for not being locked up in the house. i guess every child who has any problems or acts up or experiments with drugs/alcohol etc deserves to be stalked and killed according to so many. what's more frightening and disgusting is reading comments from people who are anonymous and really getting to see the naked truth about what people really think, believe and defend.
iceaura and Tiassa,
You know, you two really do deserve one anther.
Here's some facts:
Fact: I didn't say the two events are 'identical' I said the media's treatment of the two were in stark contrast to one anther. The first was about a so-called Black man killing an unarmed white child, this was a media non-event. The second was about a so called white/Hispanic man killing unarmed black child - a media circus. You can quibble about the finer details of the stories - if that's your prerogative.
Fact: Most whites who die of a gunshot, are the one doing the shooting. Most black men who are shot - are shot by another black man. It's pretty obvious how this relates to the News Story.
Fact: Most whites and blacks hit their children as a form of 'discipline'. Children who are hit learn that violence is a means of dealing with people for various reasons. I think it's obvious where this fact fits into the News Story.
Fact: Race does not exist. It's a mental construct. Hispanic is a culture by the way. I think it's pretty obvious where this fits into the News Media's narrative.
As for your ad hominem, attacking the person, isn't the same as making an logical argument - so, you can feel smug, but it's no different than a 8 year old saying something childish and walking away feeling they've made a point of some sort. It's literally, exactly same.
You know, you two really do deserve one anther.
Here's some facts:
Fact: I didn't say the two events are 'identical' I said the media's treatment of the two were in stark contrast to one anther. The first was about a so-called Black man killing an unarmed white child, this was a media non-event. The second was about a so called white/Hispanic man killing unarmed black child - a media circus. You can quibble about the finer details of the stories - if that's your prerogative.
Fact: Most whites who die of a gunshot, are the one doing the shooting. Most black men who are shot - are shot by another black man. It's pretty obvious how this relates to the News Story.
Fact: Most whites and blacks hit their children as a form of 'discipline'. Children who are hit learn that violence is a means of dealing with people for various reasons. I think it's obvious where this fact fits into the News Story.
Fact: Race does not exist. It's a mental construct. Hispanic is a culture by the way. I think it's pretty obvious where this fits into the News Media's narrative.
As for your ad hominem, attacking the person, isn't the same as making an logical argument - so, you can feel smug, but it's no different than a 8 year old saying something childish and walking away feeling they've made a point of some sort. It's literally, exactly same.
One thug less. Good for society.
(Something, Something, Burt Ward)
You really want to go there? Very well.
Oh, poor effing you.
Actually, what's really sad about that whine is that it's irrelevant. As Iceaura noted:
You're not actually responding to those points people posted, but, rather, simply insisting on your original argument as if those points never existed. It's one thing to disagree with another's argument, but it is purely dishonest to continue stamping your feet like a child and insisting on your original point.
As an ethical point, you should probably drop this pathetic argument until you can figure out the basic difference between right and wrong. It really is undignified.
As a substantive point, however, you still haven't explained what makes your example relevant. Well, at least, not according to the facts. We're aware you're under some delusion that these cases are somehow similar, but you really need to make the factual connection clear. One way of dealing with that substantive point would be to address the substantive differences people have repeatedly noted instead of just bawling and posting a flood of irrelevant, ranting excrement.
Racism at its most refined is still racism. And, frankly, yours isn't particularly refined.
Sure, you're dismissive about the details; the only one that matters to you is apparently skin color.
Of course you think it's pretty obvious; that's the expected claim when you can't otherwise explain your point.
So why don't you tell us how all those other shootings apply here.
Otherwise, it's just more irrelevance on your part that only reinforces your appearance of racism.
Again, establish the relevance instead of just insisting. Show that this isn't about race by actually focusing on something other than race.
Again, the relevance of this point is not inherent; you need to actually put some effort into explaining it instead of hiding behind fallacy. That is, as usual, the authority of your argument is nothing more than your say-so.
However, I would note one point in specific, and that is a consistent failure of those who would remind that race is an artificial construct. In the preface to The Devil, historian Jeffrey Burton Russell notes:
Now, this can actually be applied in two ways here. As one of them—the facts of the case versus what the gaps in the story represent—is actually what's been going on for over fifteen months, we can leave that process to itself.
But in a larger sense, you are demonstrating the consistent failure of those who would remind that race is an artificial construct.
So is the state.
So is the nuclear family.
So is the very idea of money itself.
And so, when we get down to it, are human and civil rights.
Where the artificial construct argument hops the rails is that those who would remind us of the point always isolate the abstract and ignore the real. That is, the artificial construct has real effects in the world, and those real effects are something people seem to forget when wagging their finger and reminding us that race is an artificial construct. Liberals long for the day when bigotries about race, sex, religion, and other superficial issues can be folded into general classism, because that's when we get to start making real human progress. But as long as politics and law continue to exploit the artificial construct, the construct cannot be dismissed for its artifice. There are real effects here.
Meanwhile, you cannot erase the artificial construct from the discourse when you're leaning so heavily on it.
The problem with this complaint is that it ignores facts. You have had multiple opportunities to address the problems with your claim about media response to two different stories. You have refused to do so, and simply insisted on your superficial, race-based argument.
There is a difference between argument ad hominem and pointing out observable fact. Ad hominem would be to point to your opinions about the federal reserve and say it disqualifies you from having an opinion about abortion.
However, when you observably and demonstratively insist on insulting people with dishonesty and a reliance on your presumption of inherent intllecutal superiority, people aren't crossing into ad hom by reminding that the irrelevant arguments are nothing more than distractions and offer nothing to the general discussion.
I mean, it really is pretty stupid:
Here's the problem: Your self-aggrandization actually contradicts the record you've left. Your appeal to the Roderick Scott case is exactly an appeal to emotion.
Pointing out the apparent dishonesty of making such a contradictory claim is not ad hom. Unless, of course, you are going to assert that reality itself is a fallacy.
See, we actually agree that money is an artificial construct. However, you seem more than willing to respect this artificial construct insofar as I sincerely doubt you would obtain a car by simply walking down to the dealership and taking it without paying.
Just like you're more than willing to respect the artificial construct of race by reducing your argument about the killing of Trayvon Martin to racial issues, e.g., your unsupported push of the Roderick Scott case.
However, perhaps the more important point to make is that you do yourself no credit when you switch topics in order to drag yet another thread down into your tinfoil hatred of the United States and its people.
Indeed, it was almost predictable that when confronted with your gullibility, you would turn back to the usual conspiracy theories.
But, to be clear:
Most of my social circle isn't the sort of news junkie I am. Indeed, they will acknowledge that world events within the human endeavor is my version of following sports news, celebrity gossip, soap operas, or the latest JJ Abrams television series. And you can say what you want about the volume and quality of information I attend; that's actually beside my point right now.
See, the Zimmerman rescue story made the morning news insofar as about five people I know heard it, and all of them hedged the same way I did, and nobody actually came out and said it. Sure, they were thinking it, but they knew better than to say it.
And that's actually why I introduced the Texas incident.
See, while people found that whole rescue suspicious, or dubious, or whatever, they let it go. Even I still give Zimmerman a certain benefit of the doubt. But, in truth, that benefit was reduced by his publicity stunt in Texas.
And the thing is that these people, who identify diversely as liberals or various kinds of independents (even the Republican voters around me won't identify as Republicans right now; they're just "independents" pushing the GOP platform), let it go. They either knew that the point would arise on its own, or else didn't really care one way or another because they simply want justice to arrive so this damn story can go away.
And, to be certain, the point arose. Here comes our know-it-all, overtly-conspiratorial-"shadow"-stats-are-sound-evidence, better-than-the-sheeple-who-don't-subscribe-to-tinfoil regular repeating the political argument for the story. I would say it's been omarized, except I never heard the narrative from Mark O'Mara's mouth, so its origin is unknown. But that polishing of Zimmerman's knob you offered up is exactly what the people I know were expecting. It's the reason they let the story go; nobody wanted to be so undignified as to make the obvious point.
But your craven deification of George Zimmerman and false condemnation of everyone else is pretty much exactly the kind of fake heroic narrative Zimmerman's rescue stunt was intended to create.
But the guy who is so much smarter than the rest of us that he cannot help being sucked in by political cynicism went and made the point. Zimmerman is acting exactly like a self-obsessed celebrity who is coming apart at the seams, and here you are, with all of your cynicism and alleged intelligence, pushing one of the most blatant pieces of propaganda this tragic case has to offer. I'm no longer surprised when such bravado and braggadocio as you put up comes 'round to show just how intellectually stunted the behavior actually is.
So, of course it comes back the federal government, currency, the NSA, whistleblowing-vs.-espionage, private sector, debt ceiling, Post Office, monetary policy in general, and semiotics.
Because ... what? Those arguments have some relevance to the argument that race is an artificial construct, so only pay attention to racial issues? Or, perhaps, support George Zimmerman's hero-worship narrative?
No, really, what is the relevance?
So, yeah. If you want to step into the ring and start throwing punches, don't bawl when you get hit.
____________________
Notes:
Russell, Jeffrey Burton. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. 1977. New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 1987.
Michael said:
You really want to go there? Very well.
Oh, poor effing you.
Actually, what's really sad about that whine is that it's irrelevant. As Iceaura noted:
"And the first time you posted that, people did you the courtesy of explaining to you why you cannot draw the parallels you attempted then and now - the differences in actual, physical event, are many and basic and directly relevant; they are also pretty simple, one would assume anyone of ordinary intelligence and literacy would have no problem recognizing them when presented with a list."
You're not actually responding to those points people posted, but, rather, simply insisting on your original argument as if those points never existed. It's one thing to disagree with another's argument, but it is purely dishonest to continue stamping your feet like a child and insisting on your original point.
As an ethical point, you should probably drop this pathetic argument until you can figure out the basic difference between right and wrong. It really is undignified.
As a substantive point, however, you still haven't explained what makes your example relevant. Well, at least, not according to the facts. We're aware you're under some delusion that these cases are somehow similar, but you really need to make the factual connection clear. One way of dealing with that substantive point would be to address the substantive differences people have repeatedly noted instead of just bawling and posting a flood of irrelevant, ranting excrement.
Racism at its most refined is still racism. And, frankly, yours isn't particularly refined.
Sure, you're dismissive about the details; the only one that matters to you is apparently skin color.
Of course you think it's pretty obvious; that's the expected claim when you can't otherwise explain your point.
So why don't you tell us how all those other shootings apply here.
Otherwise, it's just more irrelevance on your part that only reinforces your appearance of racism.
Again, establish the relevance instead of just insisting. Show that this isn't about race by actually focusing on something other than race.
Again, the relevance of this point is not inherent; you need to actually put some effort into explaining it instead of hiding behind fallacy. That is, as usual, the authority of your argument is nothing more than your say-so.
However, I would note one point in specific, and that is a consistent failure of those who would remind that race is an artificial construct. In the preface to The Devil, historian Jeffrey Burton Russell notes:
The historical evidence can never be clear enough for us to know what really happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen), but the evidence as to what people believed to have happened is relatively clear. The concept—what people believed to have happened—is more important than what really did happen, because people act on what they believe to be true.
(12)
(12)
Now, this can actually be applied in two ways here. As one of them—the facts of the case versus what the gaps in the story represent—is actually what's been going on for over fifteen months, we can leave that process to itself.
But in a larger sense, you are demonstrating the consistent failure of those who would remind that race is an artificial construct.
So is the state.
So is the nuclear family.
So is the very idea of money itself.
And so, when we get down to it, are human and civil rights.
Where the artificial construct argument hops the rails is that those who would remind us of the point always isolate the abstract and ignore the real. That is, the artificial construct has real effects in the world, and those real effects are something people seem to forget when wagging their finger and reminding us that race is an artificial construct. Liberals long for the day when bigotries about race, sex, religion, and other superficial issues can be folded into general classism, because that's when we get to start making real human progress. But as long as politics and law continue to exploit the artificial construct, the construct cannot be dismissed for its artifice. There are real effects here.
Meanwhile, you cannot erase the artificial construct from the discourse when you're leaning so heavily on it.
The problem with this complaint is that it ignores facts. You have had multiple opportunities to address the problems with your claim about media response to two different stories. You have refused to do so, and simply insisted on your superficial, race-based argument.
There is a difference between argument ad hominem and pointing out observable fact. Ad hominem would be to point to your opinions about the federal reserve and say it disqualifies you from having an opinion about abortion.
However, when you observably and demonstratively insist on insulting people with dishonesty and a reliance on your presumption of inherent intllecutal superiority, people aren't crossing into ad hom by reminding that the irrelevant arguments are nothing more than distractions and offer nothing to the general discussion.
I mean, it really is pretty stupid:
Here's the problem: Your self-aggrandization actually contradicts the record you've left. Your appeal to the Roderick Scott case is exactly an appeal to emotion.
Pointing out the apparent dishonesty of making such a contradictory claim is not ad hom. Unless, of course, you are going to assert that reality itself is a fallacy.
See, we actually agree that money is an artificial construct. However, you seem more than willing to respect this artificial construct insofar as I sincerely doubt you would obtain a car by simply walking down to the dealership and taking it without paying.
Just like you're more than willing to respect the artificial construct of race by reducing your argument about the killing of Trayvon Martin to racial issues, e.g., your unsupported push of the Roderick Scott case.
However, perhaps the more important point to make is that you do yourself no credit when you switch topics in order to drag yet another thread down into your tinfoil hatred of the United States and its people.
Indeed, it was almost predictable that when confronted with your gullibility, you would turn back to the usual conspiracy theories.
But, to be clear:
"Zimmerman, wearing a bullet proof vest due to fear he'll be shot, still risked his life and pulled to the side of the road, not knowing if he'd be recognized and maybe even who knows what - and helped pull a family out of an over turned SUV. Meanwhile other 'concerned Citizens' (many of whom probably wish Zimmerman was in prison or dead) drove right on by happy to mind their own business leaving a family trapped in a SUV."
Most of my social circle isn't the sort of news junkie I am. Indeed, they will acknowledge that world events within the human endeavor is my version of following sports news, celebrity gossip, soap operas, or the latest JJ Abrams television series. And you can say what you want about the volume and quality of information I attend; that's actually beside my point right now.
See, the Zimmerman rescue story made the morning news insofar as about five people I know heard it, and all of them hedged the same way I did, and nobody actually came out and said it. Sure, they were thinking it, but they knew better than to say it.
And that's actually why I introduced the Texas incident.
See, while people found that whole rescue suspicious, or dubious, or whatever, they let it go. Even I still give Zimmerman a certain benefit of the doubt. But, in truth, that benefit was reduced by his publicity stunt in Texas.
And the thing is that these people, who identify diversely as liberals or various kinds of independents (even the Republican voters around me won't identify as Republicans right now; they're just "independents" pushing the GOP platform), let it go. They either knew that the point would arise on its own, or else didn't really care one way or another because they simply want justice to arrive so this damn story can go away.
And, to be certain, the point arose. Here comes our know-it-all, overtly-conspiratorial-"shadow"-stats-are-sound-evidence, better-than-the-sheeple-who-don't-subscribe-to-tinfoil regular repeating the political argument for the story. I would say it's been omarized, except I never heard the narrative from Mark O'Mara's mouth, so its origin is unknown. But that polishing of Zimmerman's knob you offered up is exactly what the people I know were expecting. It's the reason they let the story go; nobody wanted to be so undignified as to make the obvious point.
But your craven deification of George Zimmerman and false condemnation of everyone else is pretty much exactly the kind of fake heroic narrative Zimmerman's rescue stunt was intended to create.
But the guy who is so much smarter than the rest of us that he cannot help being sucked in by political cynicism went and made the point. Zimmerman is acting exactly like a self-obsessed celebrity who is coming apart at the seams, and here you are, with all of your cynicism and alleged intelligence, pushing one of the most blatant pieces of propaganda this tragic case has to offer. I'm no longer surprised when such bravado and braggadocio as you put up comes 'round to show just how intellectually stunted the behavior actually is.
So, of course it comes back the federal government, currency, the NSA, whistleblowing-vs.-espionage, private sector, debt ceiling, Post Office, monetary policy in general, and semiotics.
Because ... what? Those arguments have some relevance to the argument that race is an artificial construct, so only pay attention to racial issues? Or, perhaps, support George Zimmerman's hero-worship narrative?
No, really, what is the relevance?
So, yeah. If you want to step into the ring and start throwing punches, don't bawl when you get hit.
____________________
Notes:
Russell, Jeffrey Burton. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. 1977. New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 1987.
Last edited:
Oh Tiassa, if only more people could grasp this what an awakening what a truly giant step for humankind. Until these artificial constructs (divisiveness) are put into one big heaping pile can we got on with an oh so much needed glorious (evolution) revolution. Your words have made my day, Thank You!
Oh, there's plenty of racism here, that much we can agree on.
Monroe Simmons
While the sentiment doesn't escape me entirely, it seems more than a little severe and, ultimately, counterproductive. To the one, we can note the problem of wishing ill on the innocent. Add to that the proposition that people like Zimmerman just wouldn't get the point, anyway, and we're pretty much at vendetta by proxy.
And it doesn't help to wish ill on Zimmerman himself; the point is to stop the cycle of needless human destruction.
He isn't capable of comprehending what he's done. The last thing we need is a vendetta encouraging the next generation. Ultimately, this is the purpose of the concept of human rights; without them, we'll just dig in and try to kill one another—history is pretty clear on this point.
But, you know, I'm still looking toward the civil suit; if a fifty million dollar wrongful-death award to Trayvon Martin's family can force George Zimmerman to spend every remaining day of his life face to face with what he's done, well, they'll never see all the money, but at least he will have had to reckon with himself.
And, to be certain, we know what ego defense and neurosis will bring. Still, however, whether he's denying, projecting, repressing, sublimating, or whatever else, he will still be dealing with it.
There is an old, untitled Hap Kliban cartoon captioned, "God made Monroe Simmons wear a lime popsicle around his neck for most of his adult life." Certes, in the issues of the day, one might think of Sieveheads, but in this case I see a different application. Whatever lime popsicle George Zimmerman must wear around his neck for the rest of his life will be his burden. And though we might deem it too light, it might well be all that Justice can exact.
Birch said:
While the sentiment doesn't escape me entirely, it seems more than a little severe and, ultimately, counterproductive. To the one, we can note the problem of wishing ill on the innocent. Add to that the proposition that people like Zimmerman just wouldn't get the point, anyway, and we're pretty much at vendetta by proxy.
And it doesn't help to wish ill on Zimmerman himself; the point is to stop the cycle of needless human destruction.
He isn't capable of comprehending what he's done. The last thing we need is a vendetta encouraging the next generation. Ultimately, this is the purpose of the concept of human rights; without them, we'll just dig in and try to kill one another—history is pretty clear on this point.
But, you know, I'm still looking toward the civil suit; if a fifty million dollar wrongful-death award to Trayvon Martin's family can force George Zimmerman to spend every remaining day of his life face to face with what he's done, well, they'll never see all the money, but at least he will have had to reckon with himself.
And, to be certain, we know what ego defense and neurosis will bring. Still, however, whether he's denying, projecting, repressing, sublimating, or whatever else, he will still be dealing with it.
There is an old, untitled Hap Kliban cartoon captioned, "God made Monroe Simmons wear a lime popsicle around his neck for most of his adult life." Certes, in the issues of the day, one might think of Sieveheads, but in this case I see a different application. Whatever lime popsicle George Zimmerman must wear around his neck for the rest of his life will be his burden. And though we might deem it too light, it might well be all that Justice can exact.
One thing that has occurred recently since the verdict is the comment made by President Obama.
Obama said,
"Twenty years ago that could have been me." He then goes on to say that Black men are sometimes followed in Stores, or by police on the road, etc.
WHAT THE HELL?
I am sorry, but I have ALSO been followed in stores; I have ALSO been followed by police in my car with one eye on speedometer and another eye on rear view mirror as I make a series of turns hoping they will vanish, and I am white.
I think that was a racist comment.
His presidency means that the majority of people both white and black voted for a black president, and he should not be crying the poor minority stance.
Now ... I am not sure what to think of the Zimmerman thing. It seems unfair, but I am only addressing the comments by Obama.
Obama said,
"Twenty years ago that could have been me." He then goes on to say that Black men are sometimes followed in Stores, or by police on the road, etc.
WHAT THE HELL?
I am sorry, but I have ALSO been followed in stores; I have ALSO been followed by police in my car with one eye on speedometer and another eye on rear view mirror as I make a series of turns hoping they will vanish, and I am white.
I think that was a racist comment.
His presidency means that the majority of people both white and black voted for a black president, and he should not be crying the poor minority stance.
Now ... I am not sure what to think of the Zimmerman thing. It seems unfair, but I am only addressing the comments by Obama.
So that could have been you as well. Sounds like you agree.
Sometimes, You've Just Gotta Be Kidding
Cry a freakin' river, dude. I was once harassed by cops for minor in possession when I had nothing on me and was cold sober. Somebody from the other high school at the football game dropped and smashed a bottle of liquor fifty feet away.
Or there was the time I got pulled over for suspicion of DUI. The officer explained a problematic, unsignaled lane deviation. I asked him if he thought I should have simply run into the black dusty van parked halfway out into the lane on the side of the freeway. He had no idea what I was talking about, so I told him he was welcome to drive back and take a look at it.
Yeah, we've all been through it.
But there is a difference between that and what Obama and pretty much any black man in America can tell you.
For instance, Leonard Pitts Jr., in 2009:
This is something entirely different than what you and I experience.
Then again, the fact that we're having this point out right now is also suggestive. After all, people have been talking about these aspects throughout the Martin case, and for a long time in society.
And right on schedule (it's always on schedule because there's no time like the present) in walks someone who can only be taken seriously if we accept the proposition that he is absolutely ignorant of the history under consideration.
It's why people bite with accusations of racism. That is, an informed mind is already aware of certain issues on the table. It is one thing to disagree with those issues, but when one has the appearance of ignoring them altogether in order to drag the discussion back to square zero, it's not an appetizing choice. Racist and therefore stupid? Or just outright stupid?
I'd rather believe you just didn't think the point through.
It happens.
____________________
Notes:
Pitts Jr., Leonard. "The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident: Sometimes, they just don't see you". The Seattle Times. July 24, 2009. SeattleTimes.com. August 5, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009533389_pitts26.html
KWHilborn said:
Cry a freakin' river, dude. I was once harassed by cops for minor in possession when I had nothing on me and was cold sober. Somebody from the other high school at the football game dropped and smashed a bottle of liquor fifty feet away.
Or there was the time I got pulled over for suspicion of DUI. The officer explained a problematic, unsignaled lane deviation. I asked him if he thought I should have simply run into the black dusty van parked halfway out into the lane on the side of the freeway. He had no idea what I was talking about, so I told him he was welcome to drive back and take a look at it.
Yeah, we've all been through it.
But there is a difference between that and what Obama and pretty much any black man in America can tell you.
For instance, Leonard Pitts Jr., in 2009:
And if Gates looked like a lawbreaker to James Crowley, well, to me he looks like former Los Angeles Lakers star Jamaal Wilkes, pulled over because the tags on his car were "about to" expire; like clean-shaven, 6-foot-4 businessman Earl Graves Jr., detained by police searching for a mustachioed 5-foot-10 suspect; like Amadou Diallo, executed while reaching for his wallet.
And like me, with hands up and a rifle trained on my chest by an officer who later claimed he stopped me in that predominantly white neighborhood for a traffic violation.
Because I look like Henry Louis Gates, he looks like Jamaal Wilkes, and we all look like some dangerous, predatory black man intent on mayhem. So there is no shock here — only a sobering reminder that the old canard is, at some level, true. We all look alike.
And like me, with hands up and a rifle trained on my chest by an officer who later claimed he stopped me in that predominantly white neighborhood for a traffic violation.
Because I look like Henry Louis Gates, he looks like Jamaal Wilkes, and we all look like some dangerous, predatory black man intent on mayhem. So there is no shock here — only a sobering reminder that the old canard is, at some level, true. We all look alike.
This is something entirely different than what you and I experience.
Then again, the fact that we're having this point out right now is also suggestive. After all, people have been talking about these aspects throughout the Martin case, and for a long time in society.
And right on schedule (it's always on schedule because there's no time like the present) in walks someone who can only be taken seriously if we accept the proposition that he is absolutely ignorant of the history under consideration.
It's why people bite with accusations of racism. That is, an informed mind is already aware of certain issues on the table. It is one thing to disagree with those issues, but when one has the appearance of ignoring them altogether in order to drag the discussion back to square zero, it's not an appetizing choice. Racist and therefore stupid? Or just outright stupid?
I'd rather believe you just didn't think the point through.
It happens.
____________________
Notes:
Pitts Jr., Leonard. "The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident: Sometimes, they just don't see you". The Seattle Times. July 24, 2009. SeattleTimes.com. August 5, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009533389_pitts26.html
@ Tiassa,
No. I live in a city where white police are a minority. You can stand there and say our societies are racist up your yin yang, but it is a fact the majority of Americans have voted for a Black leader. It is a fact that some of the best Actors are Black.
Heck, even writing this anti racism letter is likely the closest I myself come to racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto
Picking one or two incidents of real racism and comparing that to your own life is ridiculous. I am not saying racism does not exist. I am saying it is less than it was 20 years ago
I am also saying it is likely that Obama has no clue what experiences a white person has had regarding the law or being watched while shopping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YLWRlxGnzI
[video=youtube;-YLWRlxGnzI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YLWRlxGnzI[/video]
(Watch from 50 seconds on)
I think seeing car doors locked and purses clutched is common experience among MEN. Not certain types of men.
@ Tiassa (cont'd),
What make you an authority on what men experience? These things happen to all men without race cards being held.
OBAMA WAS RAISED BY RICH WHITE GRANDPARENTS, and was a lawyer most of his life (even taught law). I am sure his rights have not been compromised any more than my own.
Had you been a lawyer when in the situations you described, you would be able to quickly have the officer back down if he was abusive to your rights in many instances.
@ Billvon,
No.
I am not blaming it on race. I am saying EVERYONE gets followed by police, and EVERYONE has eyes on them in stores.
I like Obama (maybe because I'm not American), but he played a race card here and HE HAS NO IDEA IF THE SAME THING HAPPENS TO WHITES.
I am not a racist myself and my children are half Asian, and Toronto is a very race integrated melting pot, which is why I found the comments from the President racist.
@ Billvon, (cont'd),
So if you do think that could have been me then you do not believe it was racial violence.
EVERYONE gets followed by police. Everyone gets followed in stores. That's their jobs to watch everyone.
No. I live in a city where white police are a minority. You can stand there and say our societies are racist up your yin yang, but it is a fact the majority of Americans have voted for a Black leader. It is a fact that some of the best Actors are Black.
Heck, even writing this anti racism letter is likely the closest I myself come to racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto
Picking one or two incidents of real racism and comparing that to your own life is ridiculous. I am not saying racism does not exist. I am saying it is less than it was 20 years ago
I am also saying it is likely that Obama has no clue what experiences a white person has had regarding the law or being watched while shopping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YLWRlxGnzI
[video=youtube;-YLWRlxGnzI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YLWRlxGnzI[/video]
(Watch from 50 seconds on)
I think seeing car doors locked and purses clutched is common experience among MEN. Not certain types of men.
@ Tiassa (cont'd),
What make you an authority on what men experience? These things happen to all men without race cards being held.
OBAMA WAS RAISED BY RICH WHITE GRANDPARENTS, and was a lawyer most of his life (even taught law). I am sure his rights have not been compromised any more than my own.
Had you been a lawyer when in the situations you described, you would be able to quickly have the officer back down if he was abusive to your rights in many instances.
@ Billvon,
No.
I am not blaming it on race. I am saying EVERYONE gets followed by police, and EVERYONE has eyes on them in stores.
I like Obama (maybe because I'm not American), but he played a race card here and HE HAS NO IDEA IF THE SAME THING HAPPENS TO WHITES.
I am not a racist myself and my children are half Asian, and Toronto is a very race integrated melting pot, which is why I found the comments from the President racist.
@ Billvon, (cont'd),
So if you do think that could have been me then you do not believe it was racial violence.
EVERYONE gets followed by police. Everyone gets followed in stores. That's their jobs to watch everyone.
Obvious Questions
And?
And?
Okay, really: And?
Seriously, I think you're trying to make a point here, but I've no idea what that is.
You and I both know that the best accuracy any self-reporting study can have relies on massive sample size in order to correct reporting errors.
You know, I'll just straight up ask: Is there an honest point in that?
I'm sure Trayvon Martin would thank God that this is happening slightly less these days, except he can't because he's dead.
Or perhaps we might ask you to further explain the implications of your statement.
I would say that's an interesting tack, but in truth I haven't the energy to lie to you.
But it's true, the president does not know what it's like to be allowed the full complement of his human rights according to his skin color. And it is absolutely true that he doesn't know what it's like to live with the effective privilege of his skin color not being a criterion for suspicion.
Maybe up in the Great Northland, you've so oversolved your race problems as to create new ones in which white people are victims enslaved by institutions that legally only regard them as sixty percent human.
But George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in Florida. You know, one of the United States of America?
And the reality here is that we're not going to cry for white people who are followed in department stores when they're acting suspiciously. The problem we face as relates to questions of race in the Martin killing is whether having black skin is enough to constitute "acting supsiciously". This is a long heritage in the United States, and one we have clearly not reconciled. When people say things like, "Picking one or two incidents of real racism and comparing that to your own life is ridiculous", in relation to this question about skin color only reminds that you have no idea the scale to which this problem persists in the United States of America.
No, not really. Maybe in Canada or something, but not in the United States.
Actually, as I noted at another site last month:
While there is certainly truth in the statement that "these things happen to all men without race cards being held" insofar as anyone can attract the attention of police or private security guards, there really isn't much of a comparison in the United States of America between what white men and black men experience.
Let me know the day some guy pulls a gun on you when you're walking home from the market simply because you looked suspicious as a white guy in a sweatshirt with his hood up in the rain.
And you'll note that I'm presuming you live through the encounter.
I want you to live.
I think it's tragic that so many people think Trayvon Martin's death was a good thing. And if cultural illiteracy is the only reason you're throwing in with that lot, it's time to bone up.
You ought to try that one at the Apollo.
No, really. Great comedy.
Ah, yes, the great myth of the American defense lawyer. God love 'em, but no, you have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe that sort of stuff works in television shows and movies, but reality ain't a silver screen.
To the one, yes, it helps to know the law. To the other, no, not very much, as equal protection under the law goes out the window when it's a police officer versus someone who's not a cop.
And if you're nonwhite, things get even worse.
Just out of curiosity, when do you think these questions of racism, such as black skin being an inherent criterion of supicion, finally disappeared from American culture?
____________________
Notes:
BD. "An Obvious Question". This Is. July 21, 2013. BDThisIs.WordPress.com. August 5, 2013. http://bdthisis.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/an-obvious-question/
KWHilborn said:
And?
And?
Okay, really: And?
Seriously, I think you're trying to make a point here, but I've no idea what that is.
You and I both know that the best accuracy any self-reporting study can have relies on massive sample size in order to correct reporting errors.
You know, I'll just straight up ask: Is there an honest point in that?
I'm sure Trayvon Martin would thank God that this is happening slightly less these days, except he can't because he's dead.
Or perhaps we might ask you to further explain the implications of your statement.
I would say that's an interesting tack, but in truth I haven't the energy to lie to you.
But it's true, the president does not know what it's like to be allowed the full complement of his human rights according to his skin color. And it is absolutely true that he doesn't know what it's like to live with the effective privilege of his skin color not being a criterion for suspicion.
Maybe up in the Great Northland, you've so oversolved your race problems as to create new ones in which white people are victims enslaved by institutions that legally only regard them as sixty percent human.
But George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in Florida. You know, one of the United States of America?
And the reality here is that we're not going to cry for white people who are followed in department stores when they're acting suspiciously. The problem we face as relates to questions of race in the Martin killing is whether having black skin is enough to constitute "acting supsiciously". This is a long heritage in the United States, and one we have clearly not reconciled. When people say things like, "Picking one or two incidents of real racism and comparing that to your own life is ridiculous", in relation to this question about skin color only reminds that you have no idea the scale to which this problem persists in the United States of America.
No, not really. Maybe in Canada or something, but not in the United States.
Actually, as I noted at another site last month:
Now, maybe I’m just a racist, but when it comes to what it looks, sounds, and feels like to live in dark skin, I tend to trust the descriptions that come from people who actually live in that skin a bit more than some white guy telling black people what to think,
While there is certainly truth in the statement that "these things happen to all men without race cards being held" insofar as anyone can attract the attention of police or private security guards, there really isn't much of a comparison in the United States of America between what white men and black men experience.
Let me know the day some guy pulls a gun on you when you're walking home from the market simply because you looked suspicious as a white guy in a sweatshirt with his hood up in the rain.
And you'll note that I'm presuming you live through the encounter.
I want you to live.
I think it's tragic that so many people think Trayvon Martin's death was a good thing. And if cultural illiteracy is the only reason you're throwing in with that lot, it's time to bone up.
You ought to try that one at the Apollo.
No, really. Great comedy.
Ah, yes, the great myth of the American defense lawyer. God love 'em, but no, you have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe that sort of stuff works in television shows and movies, but reality ain't a silver screen.
To the one, yes, it helps to know the law. To the other, no, not very much, as equal protection under the law goes out the window when it's a police officer versus someone who's not a cop.
And if you're nonwhite, things get even worse.
Just out of curiosity, when do you think these questions of racism, such as black skin being an inherent criterion of supicion, finally disappeared from American culture?
____________________
Notes:
BD. "An Obvious Question". This Is. July 21, 2013. BDThisIs.WordPress.com. August 5, 2013. http://bdthisis.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/an-obvious-question/
And it was carefully and courteously explained to you that there was no such contrast in the media - the contrast was in the events themselves, while the media reporting was consistent.michael said:
Your failure to recognize the contrast in the events even after several of the significant and directly relevant differences were listed for you reveals a basic problem with your ability to reason in this matter - what this problem is seems pretty obvious after your long and imaginative digressions into the irrelevancies of Martin's upbringing, the irrelevancies of Zimmerman's ancestry, your continual accusations of racebaiting by other people, and the great importance you place on the nonexistence of race except as a "mental construct" (? what other existence would a sociological entity have?).
You are engaged in a vociferous denial of the role of race in Martin's targeting and death, Zimmerman's behaviors and acquittal. The possible motives for that are few, and the people who run around insisting that black teenage boys are not afflicted by racism in the US are of a kind; it has a name.
An ad hominem is the use of personal flaws as premises in an argument about something else. I did not do that. The personal disparagement back there, which I have repeated here, is the conclusion (not a premise) of a tight bit of logical reasoning from explicit evidence and clear, impersonal premises - starting with the observations that two events required by your argument to be relevantly quite similar were relevantly very different, the differences directly account for the exact differences in media reporting you posted, you have been supplied with a partial list of the more significant differences and the changes they enforce on your reasoning, and you have instead insisted upon your original errors and counterfactual stance.michael said:
So by that and the others too tedious to repeat, I was led to the question of your motives and agenda, rather than beginning with it.
It's possible that many black people do not realize that these things happen to white men, or maybe how often they happen to some classes of white men - they certainly happened to me, routinely, including the sight of a middle aged office dressed Asian woman stopping dead as we approached each other in the middle of a wide overpass on the campus of the University in Seattle, turning and running away, as fast as she could in high heels, until she could get behind a group of other adults and return to crossing the overpass with her head down and the group kept directly between us (they were a bit nonplussed, and looked at me with suspicion). Middle of the afternoon, sunny day.kwilborn said:
So maybe we could ask of black men that they make more allowances for white men's familiarity. And in return white men could face squarely the fact that having the police actually draw their weapons is not a normal part of a traffic stop involving them, that white men can count on not being stopped and manhandled by mistake for their resemblance to some perp that looks nothing like them except in having a shared race, that they can count on getting through their youthful manhood without being actually detained without cause more than once or twice, and so forth and so on.
Last edited: