Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

[quadraphonics]

I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying that "fucking cones" is not as implausible as, say, Martin throwing his cellphone to the ground to attack Zimmerman.

Sure, but that's not saying much. Plausibility doesn't seem to figure heavily into the considerations of the Zimmerman advocacy crowd. Inventing some pretext to continue clinging to his defense - without admitting any racism or other bias - seems to be the beginning and end of the story for that crowd.

 

[Bells]

Off topic Rant


Never said I was leaving altogether. I said I would not debate this threads topic as you make that a futile and impossible effort.


Actually, I have never seen you, have I, Bells? Never seen a picture- I'm sure your avatar is not an accurate reflection of physical appearance.

You might want to think about that...

Because you have acknowledged your race- Was that racial profiling?
Or was it apparent due to your strongly exhibited bias?

What I did say is that you're showing a lack of impartiality, a bias.
That is in your behavior. Not your race. That is no more offensive than calling me a racist for saying, "Logically, a black kid walking down the street"-- as opposed to WHAT? A pink and purple polka dot kid? OR are you saying that he is not black? Or are you suggesting that his being black shouldn't be mentioned- as if it's a non issue?

Funny because I primarily said, "He was just a kid." In fact, in most references I made to him, I made no acknowledgment of his race.

You ignore that while latching onto what you can perceive as racism (though it was simply a descriptive) so you can cry foul. That's offensive.

The way you disseminate posts to mislead is offensive.

The way you try everything in your power to attack an opponents character instead of his ideas is offensive.

When you threatened Moderator action under the ruse of trolling while ignoring the despicable tactics you have been employing, that was offensive.

Everytime you have dared to try to speculate about my son, that was offensive. (Granted that was in another thread over a year ago, where you found that I had a button in regards to my son you could push and twist, I have not forgotten what you said then and it did not go over well when you pounced on Buddhas question to me.) Everytime you tried to speculate about my personal being, that was offensive.

Trying to profile me, cast me into a mold that you created in order to attack my character, claiming I hold to ideas I do not due to your bias and unwarranted accusations was all offensive.

You have a very personal bias in this thread and it makes your behavior in it Offensive.

I've acknowledged and even, in parts apologized for my behavior. Because yes, when I stormed in and the claims I was relying on were unfounded- I looked like a fool.

It's high time you acknowledge your own offensive behavior- up to and including profiling strangers as racists without cause.

Off Topic Rant

Stop right there.

You are actually being even more offensive.

The question I asked you was clear. You said it would have been logical for the black kid to stop running from the stranger following him in his car and then on foot to answer a few questions. No one in their right mind would ever tell a child to not run away from a stranger following them in such a fashion. No one.

So I asked you, clearly, would you apply that same standard to your son? Would you tell your child not to run from a stranger following him in a car and then on foot because said stranger might have some questions for him? I also clearly said to you that I would never tell my son to do something like that. You completely disregarded this question.

One of the mainstays of stranger danger that we teach our children is to not speak to strangers, especially strangers who take to following them in a car and then on foot. Yet you seem to believe that it would have been logical for the "black kid" to do just that. You applied a standard to the "black kid" that you, as a parent, nor I as a parent, would ever apply to our own children. It was not a "speculation" about your son. I asked you if you would apply the same standard of behaviour to your son or any other child if they were being followed by a stranger in a car or on foot that you openly and deliberately stated would have been "logical for the black kid". When you change such standards or even rules and say it would have been "logical for the black kid" to do something so different to what you'd advise any other child, it is racist. And that is why it was racist.

In trying to get out of answering the question as to whether you would have applied such a standard to your own kid(s) that you felt was so "logical for the black kid", you then pretty much told me that I could not be unbiased or impartial in this because you felt I was "black". Now you try and claim you've never seen me or know what I look like. I acknowledged many times that I have French, Dutch and African ancestry. Yet you apply that as being "black" automatically. Seeing that you obviously know of the African (I always mention the 3 together), since you keep calling me "black", it stands to reason that you obviously follow the one drop rule.

But you clearly stated that I was not impartial and unbiased because of my colour. That is racist Neverfly.

You accused me of being touchy about what we are discussing because I am "black". In fact, here is what you said:

But you are black- Aren't you Bells? You're especially touchy and sensitive to it.

And after much to and fro, you then say this:

Such as calling a black kid- a black kid.
Stating that you seem touchy on the subject because it IS your race- which was said a good while after you repeatedly referred to me as being a racist for saying that the black kid walking down the street was a black kid. It's obviously absurd.

So you can stop trying to now claim that my lack of impartiality is because of my behaviour, when you clearly said that I am touchy and senstitive to it because of my colour..

I never said you were racist for calling a black kid a black kid. I was very clear and explicit. I said you were racist because you applied a standard of action and behaviour to the "black kid" that you would never apply to your own son - that it was "logical for the black kid" to not run from a stranger following him in a car and then on foot because it would have been "logical for the black kid" to speak to a stranger following him to answer said stranger's questions.

I also said you were racist for distinguishing what you believe is my colour in this discussion and saying that I am not able to be impartial and unbiased because of my colour and saying that I am touchy about this subject because of my colour.

 

[Bells]

Well then maybe he said coons. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying that "fucking cones" is not as implausible as, say, Martin throwing his cellphone to the ground to attack Zimmerman.

We don't know what he said.

It's for the investigators to determine it. Speculating about it just adds more confusion to the fray.

 

[Neverfly]

OFF TOPIC

You said it would have been logical for the black kid to stop running from the stranger following him in his car and then on foot to answer a few questions.

Let's examine that statement-
One: I admit I made an assumption. I'm not sure whether it was mine or from an article I had read at this point. Maybe you forgot where I was asking about his SECURITY jacket. So many words exchanged and so many posts later and I've read so many articles at this point...
However, I've had to eat some crow and for this reason- done a lot more research on the topic. Zimmerman was on his way to the store- not on patrol. This changes the premise and shows that I was in error to think that.
Easy huh?
We've been too busy fighting about Hypotheticals and your profiling of me to cover this.

You completely disregarded this question.

On the contrary- I answered it in post number 433.
It was that answer that led to the entire fracas about "hypotheticals" and such.
Two scenarios with one sole aggressor.

When you change such standards or even rules and say it would have been "logical for the black kid" to do something so different to what you'd advise any other child, it is racist. And that is why it was racist.

This is a completely inaccurate portrayal of what I said.
Your version of it is an absurd version. Agreed.
But I never said that a black kid would be held to a different standard at all!

I said "black kid" because Trayvon was black. No other reason whatsoever.
Nor was he held to a different standard.
Let's see - I said he had every right to walk down that street. I even stated my own experiences- Which you employed that tactic of then seizing upon that to question my character as a person; not my ideas. That was offensive.
Yes, I would teach my son to stop and answer questions from authority- Not to run away from them. I have also taught my son to avoid strangers and if he feels threatened to run.
I have learned that Zimmerman was on his way to the store- Not on patrol wearing a security jacket.
That being said, given what I understand of the case NOW, I believe my son would RUN TOO.
And I would support his decision.

I had no idea you thought that I was saying a black kid should just answer questions and a different child should not. Had I had any clue you thought such a thing, I would have clarified it for you.
All you did was quote One sentence, the sentence saying "Logically a black kid should answer..." Over and over calling it Racist. I asked you why it's 'racist' several times and you never told me what you just said in that post. Would do you expect, Bells?

By the way---- My son is not white, Bells.

Due to your assumptions of your own, quote mining and "seeking of a vendetta" against the Profiling you filed me under, you never stopped to consider that enlightening me as to the nature of the situation might cause me to have a different viewpoint, did it?
You treat it as if I must maintain One Viewpoint and fight it to the death as you do.

Not at all, if I'm shown I'm wrong- I'm wrong. I might even resist at first... but I won't slip into denial of the evidence and I have demonstrated this time and time and time again.
I will change my support of a position if convinced it's best.

In trying to get out of answering the question as to whether you would have applied such a standard to your own kid(s) that you felt was so "logical for the black kid", you then pretty much told me that I could not be unbiased or impartial in this because you felt I was "black".

Inaccurate. I did not try to get out of answering anything- I thought I had answered it.
And that led to the whole fracas about Hypotheticals, where your anger dictated your posts and responses.
I asked you about it for one reason and one reason alone- The profiling you have been doing, your attitudes and behavior, all suggest that you have a very personal bias on the topic.

Since you have finally chosen to enlighten me as to your "Double Standard" misunderstanding- I see that I was Wrong.

At the time, I felt that your anger stemmed from a Very Personal Bias, not based on your race, But how you identify yourself. Your extreme hostility and defensiveness suggested such.

This means that I owe you an apology. And words, as apologies, are always weak- But it is what it is. Had you showed self control, better behavior and explained your perceptions of what I was trying to convey-instead of flying off the the handle- This all could have very easily been avoided.

I apologize, Bells, for my insensitive remarks. And take that for what it is worth; I do not make apologies insincerely, nor lightly.
I must be convinced I was in error to make one and I feel convinced in spite of your hostility.

Imagine how offensive you were being, calling me a racist due to your perceptions of what I had actually said.

So you can stop trying to now claim that my lack of impartiality is because of my behaviour, when you clearly said that I am touchy and senstitive to it because of my colour..

I am biased on topics of Lakota politics and I Know It.

I cannot talk on those topics without feeling deep rooted resentment and anger. So I avoid them.

It's not color or even race- It's identity and how we defend it.

I was very clear and explicit.

I do not believe that you were at all.

Given that my assumptions and your inability to read my mind, it is Plausible that you would assume something as well.
My faulty assumption was that Zimmerman was an authority.

We have neighborhood watch- they all have Black SECURITY jackets and Maglights. None are ever armed, the maglight is enough... But all are easily visibly identifiable.
That is a failure on my part, assuming it is the same there.

 

[Bells]

Neverfly..

Here is my first comment to you about your "logical for a black kid comment":

Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way. He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
It never would have been in the news- He would have arrived home to his family, complained about some jerk guard questioning him and gone about his business.

Tell me something. If your kids are walking home and this stranger starts to stalk them in his car. Would you advise your children to approach the stranger and answer his questions? Or would you advise your children to run?

You ignored the question..

I then again mention the fact that Martin correctly ran from the stranger following him in the car and then on foot (that even you acknowledge now, you would expect your own son to do if it was a stranger who had no markings identifying him as someone in a position of authority).. In other words, I was trying to tell you it was perfectly normal for Martin to run under the circumstances and that it wasn't "logical for the black kid" to stop, and let the stranger following him in such a manner catch up and then answer the stranger's questions.

You again ignore it as well as disregard the original police report and findings which stated Zimmerman acted inappropriately by a) not identifying himself as a neighbourhood watch or concerned citizen, instead preferring to confront Martin as if he was a criminal when there was no proof that he had committed or was about to commit a criminal act and b) ignoring the dispatchers advice to not follow Martin.

I again query your different standards that you applied to Martin (ie logical for the black kid to not run from the stranger following him in the way Zimmerman was) and the manner in which you had been questioning his (Martin's) true motives for being out that night.

You again refuse to clarify your statement. To which I responded with obvious disgust at the manner in which you had been acting up to this point.

I then again explicitly state the question about whether you would apply the same standard to your own child that you did to Martin (ie, whether you would expect your child to not run from a stranger following him in a car and then on foot because you felt it was "logical for the black kid" to stop and speak to a stranger following him that way). And I explained why it was racist that you appeared to apply such a standard to a "black kid" that neither you nor I would ever apply to our own children. Here is the post, in case you know, you try and claim that you didn't know that I was trying to clarify this with you for the upteenth time:

You still don't get it, do you?

You are applying a standard to Martin, that you would never apply or expect from your own son.

When you say that Martin should not have run for example, when you say that had he behaved better, when you say that he was somehow responsible for Zimmerman following him... When you say that it would have been logical for the black kid to turn around and speak to the stranger following him and answered questions that weren't really asked..

You would never ever apply that to your own son, would you?

And that is what you do not understand Neverfly. Martin could very well have been your son or my son.

Would you ever tell your son to not run if he sees tha the is being followed by a stranger in a car or on foot, day or night? Would you ever tell your own son that he should stop and speak to the stranger following him and tell him what he's doing there? No, you would not. If a stranger followed your son, you would expect and hope that your son would run. At no time did Zimmerman ever identify himself as a neighbourhood watch person. Not once. What he was to Martin was the stranger following him down a dark street in his car and then on foot and then catching up to him.

That is what you aren't getting.

Either way- the emotions of this one have got me all worked up. I have a son and I've spent a lot of energy forcing myself to NOT think about "What if it was him?"

I asked you that question for a reason. Not to think 'what if it was him?', but to consider if you would hold your son to the same ridiculous standards you hold Martin to.

Would you ever ever advise your son to approach and speak to a stranger who had been following him in a car, day or night? I wouldn't. Would you ever expect your son to not run if he was being followed or chased by a stranger for doing nothing more than walking down the street on his way home?

Your response was to pose it as a hypothetical and absolve Zimmerman of blame. You didn't even answer the question.

I again ask you if you would apply the standard to your son that you applied to Martin when you said it would be "logical for the black kid" to not run away from the stranger following him but to simply stop and answer his questions.

You again fail to answer the question. You then fire off some posts getting offended that I wasn't giving your hypotheticals equal attention. I again ask you about your different standards that you applied to the "black kid" which you would never apply to your son.

You again fail to answer it and ignore it completely..

You then go off again about the hypotheticals and several posts later, I again explain to you that I was not interested in your hypotheticals but actually wanted a response from you about your applying such a standard to "the black kid" that you'd never apply to your own son (again, to refresh your memory, when you said it would have been logical for the black kid to not run but to stop and answer the questions of the stranger who was following may have had for him - ignoring that to Martin, Zimmerman was just some guy following him in a car without any form of identification identifying him as a neighbourhood watch person..)..

I again bring up the racism of that comment and double standard you have.

You again ignore my request for clarification about the different standard issue.

Are you starting to see a pattern here Neverfly?

So I again seek clarification and make it clear and explicit what it was I had been asking you all along:

Okay. I am going to explain this to you carefully and slowly. Try to keep up.

I asked you specifically if you would apply the same standard to your son as you did to Martin in how you carried on about his lead up to his being shot and killed at point blank.

I asked you that several times.

In your attempt to avoid the answer, you went on this weird 'if my son acted like Martin and did this - ie, supposedly like Martin had acted'.. In that sentence, you put in everything that happened between Martin and Zimmerman as what Zimmerman said and also added in the 'grab the gun' bit. You pushed the line from before that Martin was responsible for being shot by Zimmerman.

So yes, when you said the 'what if that was my son' and then went on the list of what Zimmerman had claimed about Martin, you added in the grabbed the gun and yes, I queried you about it, because you changed the scenario with Martin in applying it to your son.

Do you understand now Neverfly?

You tried to say 'if my son had acted like Martin and did this and this and this and then added in 'grabbed the gun', yes, you changed the scenario and you were trying to subtly imply this was true. I know there is no proof that this is true, and so I asked you to provide evidence of this new narrative from you that you decided to add in to Martin's actions.

Get it now?

And what do you do?

You ignore it again. And then you bring up my being "black" and tell me that I am apparently sensitive and touchy about this subject.

I again comment on your applying different standards and respond to your comments about how my being black makes me apparently touchy and sensitive to what is being discussed in this thread.

You ignore it again.


I again comment on your ignoring that very specific question and failing to answer it and also on your bringing what you think is my colour up in this thread.

You again ignore it.

By this point, we are on page 23. Now I could go on and keep pointing out how you keep ignoring the fact that you applied a racist double standard to Martin and then acted like the racist by bringing up what you perceive is my colour and telling me that I cannot be unbiased because of my race and colour. But I think I have established enough of a pattern here to show that you really cannot now claim this:

I had no idea you thought that I was saying a black kid should just answer questions and a different child should not. Had I had any clue you thought such a thing, I would have clarified it for you.

 

[Neverfly]

Amazing Bells.

You are lying. Not only are you lying, but you managed to post links to each post all along the way.
I couldn't have put it better myself. You lied throughout by describing the events with your misrepresentations and characterizations.
Even if you did say "You are holding Martin to a standard you wouldn't hold to your son" You Forget that I had not yet read or even been told that Zimmerman was on his way to the store, Not in a security jacket on patrol.

I said, you just kept repeatedly posting the statement I made and charging me with racism.
You said,

Originally posted by Bells:
I again bring up the racism of that comment and double standard you have.

That statement linked to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2937170&postcount=450

No, Bells. All that post did was paste my statement.
All you said was, "Of course you do."

THAT IS IT. YOU CLARIFIED NOTHING.


You did not ever answer that question until two posts between us ago- to which I replied with an apology.
I never said it wouldn't be logical for him to run from a stranger, I was saying it wouldn't be logical from him to run from AUTHORITY.

Yes, I questioned your claims when you said Zimmerman was not in authority- I was not wrong to do so as I will question what anyone claims on here if I have seen no support for it.

And you are still accusing me of being a racist even so.

So, Bells, my apology stands for insensitive remarks- caused in a good part by the confusion that I believe you deliberately created.

You have demonstrated only your continued Hostility and misrepresentations. You did so, lying each step of the way -with links to what really happened.

You have no sense of shame, do you, Bells? None at all... Most people would have seen the error, the resulting confusion, vaguely even the apology at least- and moved on. Not you... You chose that as the opportunity to get more hostile, even, seeing the apology as a sign of weakness.
When you do develop a sense of shame, I will accept your apologies.

Oh well... Moving along-- Back on topic, folks...

 

[Bells]

Amazing Bells.

You are lying. Not only are you lying, but you managed to post links to each post all along the way.
I couldn't have put it better myself. You lied throughout by describing the events with your misrepresentations and characterizations.
I said, you just kept repeatedly posting the statement I made and charging me with racism.
You said,

That statement linked to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2937170&postcount=450

No, Bells. All that post did was paste my statement.
All you said was, "Of course you do."

THAT IS IT. YOU CLARIFIED NOTHING.


You did not ever answer that question until two posts between us ago- to which I replied with an apology.

And you are still accusing me of being a racist even so.

So, Bells, my apology stands for insensitive remarks- caused in a good part by the confusion that I believe you deliberately created.

You have demonstrated only your continued Hostility and misrepresentations. You did so, lying each step of the way -with links to what really happened.

You have no sense of shame, do you, Bells? None at all... When you do develop a sense of it, I will accept your apologies.

Oh well... Moving along-- Back on topic, folks...

And you are delusional and dishonest.

But thank you for that. Thanks for making it even clearer just how delusional you are when you try and claim that:

I had no idea you thought that I was saying a black kid should just answer questions and a different child should not. Had I had any clue you thought such a thing, I would have clarified it for you.

When there is clear and explicit evidence to the contrary. I had made it clear in very explicit terms that I did feel you were saying a black kid should answer questions from a stranger after being followed by said stranger. Repeatedly. You continuously ignored those requests for clarification.

You know, I don't often see someone who lies as much and as badly as you do. It is astounding to me that you can still try and deny it and worse, tell me that I am lying...

You are a piece of work, you know that?

I mean you have managed to stun even me, and I am someone who has had first hand dealings with actual disgusting criminals. I bow down to you sir, not for a good reason. But simply because your despicable actions in this thread have managed to surprise even me, who has seen some people do some pretty bad things.

 

[Neverfly]

When there is clear and explicit evidence to the contrary. I had made it clear in very explicit terms that I did feel you were saying a black kid should answer questions from a stranger after being followed by said stranger. Repeatedly. You continuously ignored those requests for clarification.

Eh, not really... I did not find you Clear and explicit at all. I found you attacking my personal character at each turn until, fed up, I started having to IGNORE much of your posts to get through.

Maybe having to ignore your posts has some play in this.:shrug:

I mean you have managed to stun even me, and I am someone who has had first hand dealings with actual disgusting criminals. I bow down to you sir, not for a good reason. But simply because your despicable actions in this thread have managed to surprise even me, who has seen some people do some pretty bad things.

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, that's all cleared up at this point- so again- Back on topic...

 

[Balerion]

Sure, but that's not saying much. Plausibility doesn't seem to figure heavily into the considerations of the Zimmerman advocacy crowd. Inventing some pretext to continue clinging to his defense - without admitting any racism or other bias - seems to be the beginning and end of the story for that crowd.

I'm not part of the Zimmerman advocacy crowd, so I'm not overly concerned with their motives. The fact remains that he very well could have said "cones," and the argument that he didn't because "nobody corroborated the cones" is misleading.

It sure sounds like he says "coons" on the recording, but it seems improbable that he would so casually use a racial slur while on the phone with 911. It doesn't mean he didn't say it, it just means that he'd have to be spectacularly stupid to do such a thing.

We don't know what he said.

That's what I've been saying. We don't know one way or the other for certain.

It's for the investigators to determine it. Speculating about it just adds more confusion to the fray.

Kind of a non-sequitur there, especially since whatever speculation we engage in will have no effect whatsoever on the investigation.

 

[Bells]

Eh, not really... I did not find you Clear and explicit at all. I found you attacking my personal character at each turn until, fed up, I started having to IGNORE much of your posts to get through.

Maybe having to ignore your posts has some play in this.:shrug:


I mean you have managed to stun even me, and I am someone who has had first hand dealings with actual disgusting criminals. I bow down to you sir, not for a good reason. But simply because your despicable actions in this thread have managed to surprise even me, who has seen some people do some pretty bad things.

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, that's all cleared up at this point- so again- Back on topic...[/QUOTE]

Thank you Neverfly.

I am now going to take the advice of a colleague and actually do what I should have done long ago in this thread before it got to this point.

Rest assured, I have detailed my actions and yours in the 'back room', and also requested that our interaction be reviewed. While I rarely ever moderate someone with whom I am in an active argument with, your breach of this site's rules and with the recommendation of a colleague, it is time for me to do what I actually find quite unpleasant at the best of times.

Keep in mind, the warning that you receive from me is not for 'calling the black kid a black kid', but it is for your intellectual dishonesty and racism towards a member (and moderator - ie me). If you wish to review that warning, you are free to PM James R (Administrator) and Tiassa and Stryder (senior moderators).

To others who have been participating in this thread, I apologise that it has gotten to this point.

 

[Neverfly]

Thank you Neverfly.

I am now going to take the advice of a colleague and actually do what I should have done long ago in this thread before it got to this point.

Rest assured, I have detailed my actions and yours in the 'back room', and also requested that our interaction be reviewed. While I rarely ever moderate someone with whom I am in an active argument with, your breach of this site's rules and with the recommendation of a colleague, it is time for me to do what I actually find quite unpleasant at the best of times.

Keep in mind, the warning that you receive from me is not for 'calling the black kid a black kid', but it is for your intellectual dishonesty and racism towards a member (and moderator - ie me). If you wish to review that warning, you are free to PM James R (Administrator) and Tiassa and Stryder (senior moderators).

To others who have been participating in this thread, I apologise that it has gotten to this point.

You participated in bringing it to this point and your idea of "detailing" your actions is Calling This:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2937170&postcount=450
This:
"I again bring up the racism of that comment and double standard you have. "
A clear misrepresentation as you clarified nothing. You just kept pasting what I said and calling it racist. You did not explain WHY you thought it was so until post number 522. Which really questions your judgment of accusing me of racism, at all.
Once I saw that, realized the miscommunication, I apologized.

You increased your hostility once I apologized.
Add that to your detailed report.

THAT Bells, Is Dishonesty.

Please Specify what Site Rules I have violated. We can then review those rules to see whether or not you have also violated them.
You can also point out where the rules are posted that I might read them, myself...

 

[Bells]

The sites rules can be found here: "Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary)"


Rules that you have breached:

I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban


Hate speech and stereotyping

7. Stereotyping a member based on his or her membership of a group (e.g. his or her race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is unlikely to be conducive to civil discussion and will usually attract moderator attention. It is acceptable to point out similarities and differences among groups, but only as long as this is supported by argument or evidence.

[Your comments about my colour, how I was touchy and sensitive to it and how it apparently made me unable to be unbiased because I was "black" applies here].

_________________________________________

Knowingly posting false or misleading information

15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

_________________________________________

Trolling

• Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
• Never attempting to justify their position.

 

[Neverfly]

The sites rules can be found here: "Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary)"

Ah, thank you.

Rules that you have breached:

Hate speech and stereotyping

7. Stereotyping a member based on his or her membership of a group (e.g. his or her race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is unlikely to be conducive to civil discussion and will usually attract moderator attention. It is acceptable to point out similarities and differences among groups, but only as long as this is supported by argument or evidence.

[Your comments about my colour, how I was touchy and sensitive to it and how it apparently made me unable to be unbiased because I was "black" applies here].

Hmmm...

Agreed. I abide by this decision and I accept your warnings for this behavior.

 

[steampunk]

Sorry - which link is that?

Witness #22

http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/...ase-witness-interviews-statements-full-audio/

 

[steampunk]

Brief Notes:

Last week, prosecutors released over 180 pages of documents for public consumption

...

• During the time he lived at The Retreat, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons in his community on four occasions before the Martin slaying. According to the Sanford Police Department, "all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified black males as the subjects."

A co-worker also stated in an interview that Zimmerman was fired from his job because he constantly made complaints about people at work to Human Resources. He also made racial comments and bullied this co-worker. See link to audio interview Witness 22 above.

 

[steampunk]

Ah, thank you.



Hmmm...

Agreed. I abide by this decision and I accept your warnings for this behavior.

I don't really understand why you are admitting to Hate speech and stereotyping. A statement that proves you were being racist against African Americans or towards Bells has escaped me.

What exact remarks are you sorry for?

 

[Neverfly]

I don't really understand why you are admitting to Hate speech and stereotyping. A statement that proves you were being racist against African Americans or towards Bells has escaped me.

What exact remarks are you sorry for?

Frankly, after reading post number 525 and clicking on each one of her descriptive that contained links to posts and reading over each and every one of those posts, a great deal became a lot more clear to me...

Reading post number 522, I can see a clear explanation as to why she was originally accusing me of racism. I do not agree with that charge... But that was not what the warning was issued for, nor has it remained not clarified due to post 524.

Reading over all of that, while being aware of my own faulty assumptions of whether Zimmerman was an authority to be answered to and her inability to read my mind and a lot of posting back and forth quickly between us... My own failed attempts to ignore what I felt was inflammatory comments and even an attempt to step out of debating the topic -- Areas where I had thought I had answered questions, but now appears, in hindsight, as though I did not answer them to Bells satisfaction--It became very clear to me that almost all of that can easily be simple miscommunication and misunderstanding. The events leading up to it begged for it.

Bells warning to me was not for that---

It was for referring to her OWN racial heritage and claiming it was the cause of her hostility toward me as another claim, that she felt she needed to defend that heritage.

[Your comments about my colour, how I was touchy and sensitive to it and how it apparently made me unable to be unbiased because I was "black" applies here].

That showed a rather embarrassing lack of judgment on my part. My remarks were insensitive and uncalled for. Even if I thought it was the case- I had No Business Asserting that. Perhaps I may behave that way about my heritage; I take great pride in the Lakota people and culture. I had no cause to project that onto others and make a claim against her that was insensitive. It was stereotyping, even if on an individual level and that doesn't make it ok.
Reading over the reasons WHY she felt the original charge of racism was justified in post number 522, even if it was an error due to miscommunication, made it apparent that the comment I made in regards to her own defensiveness could never be justified.

For that, yes, I am sorry. Even if it took me a long moment to see it.

I'd like to edit to add: This is a derailment and I kinda would prefer to not re-hash it. Let's allow the thread to resume on topic.

 

[Bells]

Thank you.

The issue will be reviewed by the rest of the staff also.

But for now, this issue is now closed.

 

[steampunk]

]Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way. He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
It never would have been in the news- He would have arrived home to his family, complained about some jerk guard questioning him and gone about his business.

This does sound bad. But, taking into consideration all that you've been saying (excluding your later explanation of your intent on this quote) I think you committed a faux paus. I think it's out of line for you to be attacked.

I really believe you thought Bells was black and was being over-sensitive and you were attempting to confront Bells on that. But, Bells is Olive, she says. So you are wrong. But, were you racist and hateful? No. Is assuming someone black racist or hateful? Is assuming someone is sensitive about being black racist or hateful? I don't think so.

 

[Neverfly]

This does sound bad. But, taking into consideration all that you've been saying (excluding your later explanation of your intent on this quote) I think you committed a faux paus. I think it's out of line for you to be attacked.

I really believe you thought Bells was black and was being over-sensitive and you were attempting to confront Bells on that. But, Bells is Olive, she says. So you are wrong. But, were you racist and hateful? No. Is assuming someone black racist or hateful? Is assuming someone is sensitive about being black racist or hateful? I don't think so.

If I were to say, "I'm really not in the mood for that classical music crap right now!" - I would not have to be a hater of classical music in order to have been insensitive by calling it "crap."
By the time you see this, you'll see Bells point that the issue is now closed... which was posted while you were writing your reply.
Didn't feel right to ignore you but I hope this clears up how I see it and...

Moving On...