DescentBB

The fact of the matter is that, with affirmative action, a lot of the time these days, minorities have a distinct advantage over white folks. The problem really lies in living in the past, and agitators from both sides fostering resentment, which prevents any of us from moving forward.

flip wrote:The fact of the matter is that, with affirmative action, a lot of the time these days, minorities have a distinct advantage over white folks. The problem really lies in living in the past, and agitators from both sides fostering resentment, which prevents any of us from moving forward.

+1

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There is no head start. Everyone's 'start' is at birth and the current generation of black man has no door closed to him. He has a thinner network of opportunity and that network can not be artificially brought up to par beyond the kind of methods I pointed to.

I agree, but wouldn't you, too, agree that this reality is a sort of head start. OK, perhaps not in the sense of a start from behind, but to keep with a racing analogy, one group has to run a narrower path through far deeper footing than another.

Yes one group has less of a natural support group...less opportunities created.....less financial resources...etc. it will be generations before they have grown that kind of foundation. And as I pointed out it can not be fast tracked.
None of that disparity justifies turning a blind eye to their irrational reaction to the struggle they find themselves dealing with. And no amount of sympathy or empathy is justification for encouraging them to behave irrationally.

And the people who spur the outrage for their own political gain are despicable!
To continually describe Martin as only an 'unarmed teen who was shot' after a jury found he was shot for physically beating a man into the ground is irresponsible.
To agree that the jury came to the correct verdict and still support the notion that Zimmerman committed murder is outrageous.

You have done those things.
Self defense and murder are mutually exclusive. You haven't acknowledged that.
You have tried to introduce black people's 'historically wounded perception' as a reason both of those conditions are in allowed to live in conflict.
Regardless of how it might hurt them the proper thing to do is to say flat out: 'Martin wasn't just an unarmed kid shot while walking home. He brought much more to the meeting than innocence and Skittles. Your outrage is misplaced. Your emotions are being exploited'

That would be the proper message, not continuing the narrative that Zimmerman is guilty of causing Martins death because of all the choices he could have made that would have led to a no shooting conclusion. They both had a right to do any number of things including everything they both did with the exception of beating a mans head in! That one act must be the tipping point because it is the only illegal act that was committed. No matter how less than optimal other choices were that one was the step too far.

You also suggested the Zimmerman case was like John Gotti's acquittals. That is not true! They lacked the evidence and witnesses to prove what he denied doing.
Gotti never admitted to killing someone and the jury then found it was justified self defense!
Zimmerman freely admitted shooting Martin, the eye witnesses supported his self defense claim, the detectives, the timeline, the physical evidence...all of it weighed heavy in Zimmermans favor. It wasn't the lack of evidence that let him off, it was the abundant existence and substance of the evidence that convinced a jury they had to find him not guilty!
That is a hell of a lot different than not having eye witnesses, physical evidence, etc. to convict Gotti. In Gottis case, once they got a witness and solid evidence he was convicted. So again you are clouding the water to equate Gotti's acquittals with Zimmerman's! Why would you do that if you actually believe the verdict was correct. Again, for it to be self defense it can't be 'sort of murder'....'murder but off on a technicality'! To be self defense someone else had to be posing an imminent threat.

When in the discussion of the reaction to the verdict you cited the perception of black people and their history as a reason for their anger. I suggested their perception is clouded. You haven't addressed that perception.
If their perception is not in line with reality why in the world would you want to feed their ill-conceived anger?!?
Your comments have done that also.

That brings us back to the question I posited before:
Do you believe their perception trumps the law? If so, how. If not, what relevance is there to keep introducing it if it doesn't justify the attempt to keep the anger burning hot with regard to the verdict?

at this juncture, for my part, it is better to simply agree to disagree. If you all don't see the race-based myopia in your statements above, you are past the point where anything will change for you. One can hope your next generation sees reality more clearly. The only point I'm going to address is Will's objection to my Gotti comparison. Just look at your own words, Will:"There weren't witnesses or evidence to prove he did the thing he denied doing". Isn't that exactly what has come from most old-time Mafioso trials? Seriously, the witnesses weren't there(often dead) and the evidence wasn't there(Zimmerman clearly didn't cooperate in certain aspects of the initial investigation, which was his right). No real difference that I can see. The point I made was that in neither case does acquittal equate to 'innocence', and I'll hold to that opinion. Other than that, the fact that some black people are responsible for making their own situation worse is moot(what did Trayvon's family do?, his elder brother is an college student), the fact that you, as white folks, see the viewpoint of black people as 'clouded' is just sort of insulting, the fact that you view 'affirmative action' as somehow not needed or unfair to white people is laughably ignorant, and the idea that somehow, the response to this matter is purely a matter of some people seeking political gain simply shows that you do not interact with many people of color. Sad, really, but no sense in my continuing to try to sell you all on reality, it clearly isn't going to take root.

callmeslick wrote: and the idea that somehow, the response to this matter is purely a matter of some people seeking political gain simply shows that you do not interact with many people of color.

Now see....that's funny.

Slick, Zimmerman cooperated beyond the hopes of the prosecution! He didn't even get a lawyer for a couple days, instead he answered ALL QUESTIONS asked of him. He returned to the police department anytime they requested and went with the detectives to the scene of the shooting and re-enacted the event ALL WITHOUT A LAWYER!

That is some hard core cooperation!

The difference between Gotti and Zimmerman is simple.
To suggest Gotti was 'getting away with it' makes sense if witnesses are mysteriously dying or going missing....if police are convinced he is guilty and trying their best to uncover evidence that would make the case.
If you know that is going on you are justified to imply Gottii has been escaping justice.

In Zimmermans case the eye witnesses corroborate the self defense claim, the physical injuries support it, the timeline supports Zimmermans accounting of events and ultimately the police detectives determined there was no reason to charge him...and so they didn't!

How you can think those two cases should leave the objective observer with the same conclusion as to the potential guilt of both party's I don't know....
(Actually we all know why people ignore reality in this case)

To suggest Zimmerman 'simply stalked and killed an unarmed child who was minding his own business doing nothing wrong' is beyond ridiculous!

And yet that is the narrative you are supporting! Only you go one step further toward ludicrous! You support that bull★■◆● story and say the verdict was correct. (And have dodged 3 times now a request reconcile the pysically impossible assertion that the jury's self defense finding was valid AND Martin was murdered by Zimmerman!)

It is no wonder you won't explore the clouded perception of black people on this issue. You are one of those who know better yet contribute to their skewed perception. You claim it is somehow due them because of the hardships of their history. Bah! I say you are guaranteeing their future is fraught with hardship! You and your kind are using them like props in a campaign.

Now, I have to join Spidey in a big belly laugh at your claim that no one is making political capital stew out of stirring the pot and feeding the race baiters fires. A big LOL to that!!

Will, the jury DID NOT, IN ANY WAY, flat-out accept Zimmerman's version of events. It also DID NOT feel he definitely acted in self defense. It merely concluded, and all jurors who have spoken to date are VERY clear about this, that there was not sufficient evidence nor credible eyewitness testimony to remove any doubt from the events which occurred. This is very different from what you are trying to assert, and this is why I can be perfectly OK with the fact that events likely showed Zimmerman to have recklessly ended the life of another, but that evidence extant was insufficient to convict him, and thus the verdict was legitimate. Further, I've been making that same point, on two or more threads, for WEEKS, and you still attempt to twist that narrative around. The only reason I used the Gotti analogy is to attempt, in a dramatic fashion, to impress upon you that 'not guity' verdicts do not equate to 'innocence'. Nothing more, nothing less.

Finally, can you point out what group or groups are making any tangible political capital out of this? I can see where some individuals are losing points with certain demographics, but mostly folks are, to me, simply re-affirming their own pre-conceptions. Hell,we're doing as much, if one looks at it.

Just now coming back to this thread, and it's leaving me shaking my head. The race to play the victim ("minorities have a distinct advantage over [us]"), or associate with the victim ("some of us, who at least can empathize"), is sickeningly thick in here.

Frankly, the lines you guys are drawing between each other (e.g. "there is only one person of 'privilege' on this board", "you do not interact with many people of color") is a microcosm of the core issue. I was personally thinking the recent trial would be an opportunity to dialogue about issues of race/culture, but the finger-pointing and white-victim-vs.-black-victim bull★■◆● makes me think we've taken a few steps backward again.

....and this is why I can be perfectly OK with the fact that events likely showed Zimmerman to have recklessly ended the life of another....

Wrong, if the facts showed that then he can't have acted in self defense. He would be guilty of manslaughter!
The jury knew that and that is why they did not convict him...of anything.

Only in your mind was it "likely" he was reckless. In reality it is only a 'possibility', one that evidence cast far far too much doubt on for it to be likely!
And that is just one more example of you spinning the narrative to support the race mongers chanting 'Zimmerman got away with it!'
It is that support you and others give that perpetuates and exploits the anger of black people. An anger based on an ill-born perspective that you nurture.
The political gain is keeping them fired up so your party can wield them like a weapon.

The Zimmerman case was a simple self defense shooting in Podunk Florida.

On a national political scale however it was a chance to win a big round in a political prize fight.
A case of a concealed weapon carrier succesfully shooting an attacker that they needed to turn into a murderer.

Since the attacker was black all they had to do was make the shooter 'white' and they could pull out one of their best weapons to fight a political battle....the race card. Easy enough, they had the media to turn Zimmerman white and even add some special effects to police video tape and then to police audio tape to change the facts. Then the usual suspects joined in with the usual tactics....viola!
White man shoots unarmed black child!

Where is the political capital? It's right there keeping the black voting block fired up as well as fresh meat for all the other left wing knee jerks.
Another cycle of validating Sharpton and Jackson, et al.
If they score enough points they win the round even if Zimmerman goes free.

There were witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman banging his head on the ground. Other than the gunshot wound, Martin showed no other injuries.

EDIT: The whole problem lies in trying to make this case about race whatsoever. The neighborhood had been suffering breakin's, Martin was a stranger to the guy who volunteered to watch over his neighborhood. Zimmerman was not acquitted for lack of evidence, a jury of his peers found him not guilty based on self-defense. To even think of this case in racial terms is the sad commentary.

If Martin was on top raining blows like a MMA fighter you would think there would be some kind of injury to his hands.

Okay, it appears the Zimmerman trial is still an open wound. Oh well; at least talking about the details of the case is better than the victim-card stuff all over the last page.

Will Robinson wrote:

....and this is why I can be perfectly OK with the fact that events likely showed Zimmerman to have recklessly ended the life of another....

Wrong, if the facts showed that then he can't have acted in self defense. He would be guilty of manslaughter!
The jury knew that and that is why they did not convict him...of anything.

Let me ask this:

How much "reasonable doubt" do you think the jury had, Will? Do you think they thought he was "likely guilty, but not certain" (as more than one juror has said), or do you think they were as utterly convinced of Zimmerman's innocence as you are?

flip wrote:Other than the gunshot wound, Martin showed no other injuries.

You've pointed this out over and over and over, but it ultimately doesn't demonstrate anything other than that Zimmerman didn't land any shots other than with a firearm. It doesn't show who started the fight (something we still don't know), and it doesn't serve to tell us anything about the state of mind of either party.

That's because you cannot speculate, which at least half of you are determined to do, in a murder trial. You can only make a verdict based on facts in evidence. The jury of 6 said not guilty, based on the facts as they knew them. Surely they had the same questions as every one on this board, yet the facts still did not lend towards the speculation. If you take all the things we "know", the logical assumption is that Martin over-reacted and put Zimmerman in a position where he felt his life was in danger.

EDIT: Let's put it this way. Martin while talking on the phone says someone is following him, not chasing him, not trying to catch him, simply following him. The prosecutors witness said she heard him say "Why are you following me?" That is when contact was first initiated. Did Martin stop to confront Zimmerman or did Zimmerman run up to Martin? By that conversation I'd conclude the former. Zimmerman then asks Martin what he was doing around there. We don't know anything else of that exchange, but next we do have several eye-witnesses saying they see Martin on top of Zimmerman, "punching him MMA style" and the next saying "banging his head on the ground." Zimmerman has injuries exactly as those witnesses describe. As he is on the ground, he is crying out for help. Seeing as Martin shows no injury whatsoever, I can conclude that even while on the ground being beat, Zimmerman cannot defend himself and is crying out for someone to help him. Those are enough facts for me to know it was not murder.

flip wrote:...you cannot speculate...

If you take all the things we "know", the logical assumption is that Martin over-reacted and put Zimmerman in a position where he felt his life was in danger.

You're still speculating about events (as well as mental states) to come to that conclusion, flip.

Again, we don't know whether Martin's reaction was appropriate or not, because we don't know what they each did/said when the fight started, because there's zero evidence about that part of the events.

Foil wrote:...

Let me ask this:

How much "reasonable doubt" do you think the jury had, Will? Do you think they thought he was "likely guilty, but not certain" (as more than one juror has said), or do you think they were as utterly convinced of Zimmerman's innocence as you are?...

I think they thought, using the law as the guide, there was a high degree of doubt that he was in any way culpable in the death. three of them were not even close to ever wanting to find him guilty, two others initially thought there was enough to consider manslaughter (bear in mind Zimmermans own attorney thought that as well when he first took the case). The last juror, B29 that slick has selectively quoted, the only minority on the panel, was all for 2nd degree murder and said she was planning to hold out for it.

Why would she feel that way? There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of 2nd degree murder! None.
But she was ready to go with her feelings...
She 'felt in her heart' that he was guilty. Yet she also said there was no reason to even charge Zimmerman, that she thought it was a show trial.
That conflict in her is the very heart of so much of what I'm railing on about.

Minorities are constantly bombarded with validation for anger that is being groomed and overfed far beyond a rational justification. Just like every good lie has some truth to it the manipulation of minority anger is rooted in real suffering. that is the historical prism slick talks about that they see things through. I'm trying to show that the Zimmerman case is a prime example of how the race bating agitators have brought that anger to a boiling point that isn't justified. The things they did to make this a race case are outrageous and they did it with no compunction. No fear of public reproach because they have successfully ingrained acceptance for their methods into the pop culture and their willful idiot base giving them impunity to carry out such acts. If Fox News altered those police tapes to serve a prosecution of a black shooter do you think the story would have died?!? Or do you think Eric Holder would be climbing up the FoxNews rectum with cleats on his boots and serving them from the inside out with summons and subpoenas?

It isn't that Martin shouldn't have been concerned about being followed, or angry that he would be questioned in an accusatory manner. It is that he most likely felt justified in going all out street thug. You can see countless examples of that playing out since well before the shooting and incidents like that taking place more and more since the shooting.
The racial tension in the country is being artificially held taught, ready to snap at a moments notice....at the mere flick of a race mongers wrist...

The reason behind juror B29's conflicted findings, her perception-trumps-social-norms in regard to reacting to the 'story' is the real elephant in the room. It is the root of the problem.
She is to be commended for doing the right thing in spite of her feelings. My guess is she recognizes justice when she sees it even when it meant letting go of the levels of outrage and indignation she has been programmed to maintain. I don't for a minute dismiss the hardships and emotional pain that minorities can't easily escape. However, I do think we have reached a point where those emotions and perceptions have been so manipulated by a purposeful and malicious mental conditioning as to make it dangerous for us all in an ever increasing way. You could say that phenomena is becoming an imminent threat in its own right. The evidence is all around us.
I believe Trayvon Martins death is the result of that exploitative mental conditioning much more so than any ill will on the part of Zimmerman or white people at large.
That however isn't a discussion many people who have access to the public's ear will want to have. After all, it is they who have created this dangerous condition. In my view they are to minorities what the Ayatollahs in Iran are to the Palestinian people; despicable people sending their proxy warriors to impale themselves on the spear of the 'enemy' to maintain the status quo in the power game.

Will Robinson wrote:...[the juror] was ready to go with her feelings...
She 'felt in her heart' that he was guilty. Yet she also said there was no reason to even charge Zimmerman, that she thought it was a show trial.
That conflict in her is the very heart of so much of what I'm railing on about.

Ah, now we're getting to it!

You are speculating about the reason she felt the defendant was probably (but not beyond reasonable doubt) guilty. Ask yourself this: Why are you making the assumption that she said this out of irrational media-fed minority anger, rather than a reasonable assessment of the case?

Will Robinson wrote:Minorities are constantly bombarded with validation for anger that is being groomed and overfed far beyond a rational justification...

..I believe Trayvon Martins death is the result of that exploitative mental conditioning much more so than any ill will on the part of Zimmerman or white people at large.

This predisposition to assume that issues of racism against minorities are trumped-up / media-fed / overstated is the very heart of what I'm railing on about.

Ok maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you are only allowed to speculate on any given facts. When all the known facts are assembled, then you have to go where they lead.

I am sick of the goofy speculation over what happened, and given the limited hard and fast facts, speculation is what you all are down to. I was just, on earlier pages, expressing frustration that racial privilege was in ANY way connected to this whole mess. And, Foil, I agree that what this trial did was bring out(as I put another way)the ugly preconceptions people hold within themselves. You have pointed this out better than I could, and coming to it fresh helps keep your questions and commentary without letting frustration creep in as I had been starting to.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...[the juror] was ready to go with her feelings...
She 'felt in her heart' that he was guilty. Yet she also said there was no reason to even charge Zimmerman, that she thought it was a show trial.
That conflict in her is the very heart of so much of what I'm railing on about.

Ah, now we're getting to it!

You are speculating about the reason she felt the defendant was probably (but not beyond reasonable doubt) guilty. Ask yourself this: Why are you making the assumption that she said this out of irrational media-fed minority anger, rather than a reasonable assessment of the case?

Will Robinson wrote:Minorities are constantly bombarded with validation for anger that is being groomed and overfed far beyond a rational justification...

..I believe Trayvon Martins death is the result of that exploitative mental conditioning much more so than any ill will on the part of Zimmerman or white people at large.

This predisposition to assume that issues of racism against minorities are trumped-up / media-fed / overstated is the very heart of what I'm railing on about.

Not so fast.
I'm using her own words to cite the way she described how she thought the facts and the law led her to not only acquit but to find the whole trial to be unwarranted.
In her words she cited her "heart" as her reason to describe him as guilty.

She was wanting to charge him for something there was NO evidence for but "couldn't find the evidence to do it".
She did make " reasonable assessment of the case"....and she also made a statement about it based on her feelings. The two don't reconcile. If the feelings part were justified so would the charge of manslaughter....

Now take what you know about the perception of the one minority juror and how she was wanting to go with her 'feelings' to go for murder 2...and look at how the initial media reports were falsified to paint Z as a racist white man...
And the subsequent efforts of Holder, Obama, Sharpton, etc to gin up racial strife where there was no racial component found to Z's motives...
Even the ACLU has left that bandwagon saying it isn't on track.

I think I make a pretty substantial case of probable cause to indict the parties I do for their role in the travesty. Not just prejudicial reasoning; fact based analysis takes me to this conclusion.

Of course there could be some other reason for her complete logical disconnect....magic spell....deranged mind...etc. but I seriously doubt that considering all the effort of the left to create a race component in this case where there was none! And having knowledge of numerous other events where that race monger machine has done the same thing. How do you think Al Sharpton became famous? Go look into that one...this is nothing new but in recent years it has been blatantly pushed to the extreme.

What on Earth, Will did either Obama or even Holder do to 'gin up' anything? Obama, in essence, gave a well stated set of observations crying out for exactly the type of understanding and introspection that Foil was hoping for. Holder merely stated what is standard DOJ policy: they got a request for a civil rights violation inquiry, and are proceeding with same. NEITHER of them has ever ascribed racism as a motivation, NEITHER of them has ever said word one that could be inferred by anyone except an insecure white person as inciting a damn thing. This is the part of the whole mess that pisses me off, folks like you trying to make up facts about the case itself and the comments afterward. I don't know whether to be astounded, dismayed or amused by folks saying that Obama should have kept silent. That isn't what a responsible leader does. A leader tries to get the nation, as a whole, to a better place, and ignoring the clearcut racial baggage that this goofy thread alone raises, or that black people carry to this day would have been irresponsible.

callmeslick wrote:What on Earth, Will did either Obama or even Holder do to 'gin up' anything? Obama, in essence, gave a well stated set of observations crying out for exactly the type of understanding and introspection that Foil was hoping for.

"If I had a son he would look like Trayvon"....that was his first offering to 'heal the nation'.
only months later did he come up with the "thoughtful" comments, after the shitstorm he helped stir up had served his purpose And those were missing some key points and perspective as I pointed out at the time. So, no, I think you are spinning some serious crap there.

callmeslick wrote:Holder merely stated what is standard DOJ policy: they got a request for a civil rights violation inquiry, and are proceeding with same. NEITHER of them has ever ascribed racism as a motivativation,...

No? He never implied a racial motivation?!?
Is he a different Eric Holder than the one I'm talking about? You know, the Attorney General Holder, who, AFTER the FBI's extensive investigation into that very subject found there was no racial motivation or component to Zimmermans case, he decided to go ahead with announcing an investigation to see if Zimmerman may have violated Martins civil rights ?!? The same announcement caused the ACLU to back away from the effort because they couldn't justify being a part of it due to the lack of substance? That Holder?!?
You must have been thinking of a different Eric Holder.

callmeslick wrote:...This is the part of the whole mess that pisses me off, folks like you trying to make up facts about the case itself and the comments afterward.

Lol! That is rich coming from you!

callmeslick wrote:I don't know whether to be astounded, dismayed or amused by folks saying that Obama should have kept silent. That isn't what a responsible leader does. A leader tries to get the nation, as a whole, to a better place, and ignoring the clearcut racial baggage that this goofy thread alone raises, or that black people carry to this day would have been irresponsible.

I never said he shouldn't say anything. I've criticized the absence of important content that would have been there if he truly was trying to "get the nation to a better place".
Adding artificial weight to that racial baggage like his team does is making their journey more difficult than it needs to be and "a better place" isn't where that kind of leadership is meant to take us.

Foil, if the reactions and perceptions I'm identifying are not caused by an "irrational, media-fed, minority anger", and are instead the results of "a reasonable assessment " then when did these kind of reactions become reasonable?!? Beating random white people up shouting " this is for Trayvon"!?!?

I'm sure you aren't trying to suggest that is a natural reaction born of reasonable assesment by blacks for being unhappy about a trial verdict halfway across the country involving people they never knew! Hell, they were delivering the beatings 'for Trayvon' in advance of the verdict! Try to explain that without describing their perception or feelings!

I think a culture of people spurred to activism and then hyper manipulated to the edge of violence by professional outsider agita is pretty damn good bet all things considered.

I think you're making my point, Will.

You hear a juror making a point about what she felt was the truth vs. what met legal requirements for conviction... and you automatically associate that with an irrational/violent mindset.

I'm sorry, but it just sounds more and more like you have stubborn preconceived notions about what minorities think or how they perceive race, and that lens is coloring everything you see.

A responsible leader would address the reasons why many young black men are getting killed every year, not single out someone just because he was killed by a “white” man.

I wonder just how many of those other young blacks could also be Obama's child, and why he doesn't make speeches about them.

Foil wrote:I think you're making my point, Will.

You hear a juror making a point about what she felt was the truth vs. what met legal requirements for conviction... and you automatically associate that with an irrational/violent mindset.

And how do you know Foil that juror wasn't just making the "I felt in my heart Zimmerman was guilty of murder" statement to protect herself from angry black responses ? Gosh, maybe she didn't want a 10k bounty put on her head also.

woodchip wrote:

Foil wrote:You hear a juror making a point about what she felt was the truth vs. what met legal requirements for conviction... and you automatically associate that with an irrational/violent mindset.

And how do you know Foil that juror wasn't just making the "I felt in my heart Zimmerman was guilty of murder" statement to protect herself from angry black responses ? Gosh, maybe she didn't want a 10k bounty put on her head also.

I made no claim to know why she decided to talk about it. Could be any number of reasons (though I'm guessing $$ were involved).

On the other hand, Will apparently believes he knows her mindset, and associated her statement with irrational violence and political conspiracy.

Foil wrote:I think you're making my point, Will.

You hear a juror making a point about what she felt was the truth vs. what met legal requirements for conviction... and you automatically associate that with an irrational/violent mindset.

I'm sorry, but it just sounds more and more like you have stubborn preconceived notions about what minorities think or how they perceive race, and that lens is coloring everything you see.

I point to a phenomena, the conditioning of the mindset of minorities to keep their outrage and sensitivity at an ultra high level.
I point out how that has manifested itself in different ways. One example, like a juror who "wanted to find guilt" even though she knows it isn't there...and violent ways like in the random black on white beatings done in protest of the shooting.
Martins likely punch to Zimmemrman's face is not really any different than the 'for Trayvon' punch thrown by an angry black guy who knows neither Trayvon nor the hapless white guy whose face he just smashed out of anger.

No where did I say the juror was violent or had a violent mindset!
I associate the same mental conditioning they both receive at the hands of the agitators as a source of twisted perception. A perception that results in different harmful reactions...be that a jurors verdict, a reporters outrageous editing of content or a random violent beat down delivered in the name of unfounded outrage.
You want to diminish my assessment, and all the examples and details and subtle nuances that it entails into Whoa Will! You just think they are all violent'?!?

Come on!! It looks to me like you wanted me to be making such a ridiculous charge that you 'found it' instead of exploring the content of my comments with some kind of objective reasoning! Isnt there a name for that? Pre...something or other...

Will Robinson wrote:No where did I say the juror was violent or had a violent mindset!

Read my post again, because that's not what I said.

I said you are making an association between the juror's statement and violent/irrational behavior based on your preconceived ideas about minorities' mindsets.

...which is exactly what you said here:

Will Robinson wrote:I point to a phenomena, the conditioning of the mindset of minorities to keep their outrage and sensitivity at an ultra high level.
I point out how that has manifested itself in different ways. One example, like a juror who "wanted to find guilt" even though she knows it isn't there...and violent ways like in the random black on white beatings done in protest of the shooting.

It's your perogative to think that's a legitimate association. It's my perogative to call it "bull★■◆●".

Spidey wrote:A responsible leader would address the reasons why many young black men are getting killed every year, not single out someone just because he was killed by a “white” man.

I wonder just how many of those other young blacks could also be Obama's child, and why he doesn't make speeches about them.

the nation was focused at the time of the speech on this, single case. If you look back, Obama has spoken frequently, often to predominantly black audiences, decrying the loss of black males in urban areas of the nation. This case has(as exemplified by this board) drawn the attention of a wider, multiethnic audience. Also, using this board as a barometer, I see little day to day lament of the state of urban black youth, except to use as a counter to some unpleasant reality around gun laws or a case like the Zimmerman case. I'll have to check the archives and look for all the threads you and others have started wondering about the death rates of urban young males.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:No where did I say the juror was violent or had a violent mindset!

Read my post again, because that's not what I said.

I said you are making an association between the juror's statement and violent/irrational behavior based on your preconceived ideas about minorities' mindsets.

...which is exactly what you said here:

Will Robinson wrote:I point to a phenomena, the conditioning of the mindset of minorities to keep their outrage and sensitivity at an ultra high level.
I point out how that has manifested itself in different ways. One example, like a juror who "wanted to find guilt" even though she knows it isn't there...and violent ways like in the random black on white beatings done in protest of the shooting.

It's your perogative to think that's a legitimate association. It's my perogative to call it "****".

I did read it again. Here it is:

You hear a juror making a point about what she felt was the truth vs. what met legal requirements for conviction... and you automatically associate that with an irrational/violent mindset.[

You have lumped violent and irrational into one mind set. As if I attribute both of those traits to all.
I had not implied that.
I had associated different irrational reactions to the perceptions many minorities have due to manipulation. Not all are reacting with violence.
Juror B29 ultimately decided to ignore her instincts to go for maximum, unfounded punishment and delivered an acquittal that she says was/is correct. No other juror wanted to go for Murder 2, only the minority juror. That is according to her interview, not any assumption.
Then she felt guilty for doing what she knew was the right thing! That's quite a bit different than violent. And I believe that is a sign of the conflict between her wisdom and her programming.

The perception based reaction I attribute to her was based on the stimuli I cited. You didn't challenge the stimuli, try to show it wouldn't have the effect I a said it does, or challenge its existence.
You just dismiss it as prejudicial assumption. Well some assumptions are pretty solid and I've tried to show the sound foundation for mine. Real life examples of the forces at work. Show me yours.

I gave you factual examples of how minority mind sets are likely programmed to be suseptable to irrational over reaction, to hyper sensitivity. There is a lot of history in the race card game to draw on there...I didn't think it was required to hash it out since I'm assuming you are aware of it. .

If beating some white guy "for Trayvon" isn't the result of outsider agita and if Al Sharpton et al are not a race baiting agitation factor that exacerbates the racial tension and thus minority perception then show me examples of how I have missed the true nature of what they really are!

Either discredit my 'assumptions' and/or demonstrate the cause for my delusion or....maybe you need to give my theory more thought than just dismissing it out of hand.

Will Robinson wrote:
You have lumped violent and irrational into one mind set.
I had not implied that.
I had associated different irrational reactions to the perceptions many minorities have due to manipulation. Not all are reacting with violence. Juror B29 reacted with determination to deliver justice in spite of her instincts and then felt guilty for doing the right thing! That's quite a bit different than violent.

The perception based reaction I attribute to her was based on the stimuli I cited. You didn't challenge the stimuli, try to show it wouldn't have the effect I a said it does, or challenge its existence.
You just dismiss it as prejudicial assumption. Well some assumptions are pretty solid and I've tried to show the sound foundation for mine. Real life examples of the forces at work. Show me yours.

I gave you factual examples of how minority mind sets are likely programmed to be suseptable to irrational over reaction, to hyper sensitivity. There is a lot of history in the race card game to draw on there...I didn't think it was required to hash it out since I'm assuming you are aware of it.

However, if you are correct and my perception is just unfounded assumption then give me examples of what stimuli has skewed my perception of minority anger/reaction and the cause I blame for it.

If beating some white guy "for Trayvon" isn't the result of outsider agita and if Al Sharpton et al are not a race baiting agitation factor that exacerbates the racial tension and thus minority perception then show me examples of how I have missed the true nature of what they really are!

I gave what I think are reasonable examples for reaching my assumption. Either discredit those assumptions or demonstrate the cause for my delusion or....maybe you need to give my theory more thought than just dismissing it out of hand.

the highlights point out places where you make completely unfounded assumptions. In other words, you make assumptions which as essentially built upon other assumptions, and thus get onto shaky ground. You are entitled your opinion, but you tend to present these blatant assumptions as likely explanations. They simply are not. How many white guys were actually 'beaten for Trayvon'? There were exactly zero around here or down in VA, and I think most people heard Sharpton et al on the TV in both locales. On the other hand, above this post, you assailed me with the blatant misread of Holder's words, and your expectations of how Obama should address the nation, as if toeing to your expectations is the one best course. Your whole set of arguments and assumptions here have been built on a seeming foundation of old-school white biases(and, yes, I'm aware that is an assumption on my part.....frankly, I scratch my head trying to figure out exactly where you come up with some of this stuff). Then, after piling these assumptions up, you challenge Foil and others to provide specific examples showing the error of your thinking. Why should any of us bother, when you've already been shown the words, and law around separating a not guilty verdict from a judgement of innocence, yet keep claiming that the jurors were convinced that Zimmerman didn't act wrongly?

Slick, I conceded the 'assumption' tag to Foil because that was the crux of his complaint but it seems to have served as more of a semantic smoke screen for you.

However, I obviously qualified my concession by pointing out I have delivered much more than blanket assumption. I cited examples that take a generic assumption, that may or may not have a foundation, and I showed just cause for reaching what i believe is a sound conclusion. Of course in a literal world everything we know or think we know is just assumption.

You can take this into semantic land if you like or you could answer a few of the pointed questions I asked that would require you to actually address that foundation I claim makes my conclusion solid and not just knee jerk assumption as you would like to believe,
So far you have dodged every question that takes you to face the heart of my assertions. Imagine that...

repeat your two core questions, perhaps it all got lost in the verbiage......

callmeslick wrote:I'll have to check the archives and look for all the threads you and others have started wondering about the death rates of urban young males.

You won't find any started by me, but won't prove a thing either way.

And making it about me, won't change a thing regarding how I felt about that speech.

Starts a thread with a racial epithet to decry race mongers and agitators. Good plan. Worked like a charm.

vision wrote:Starts a thread with a racial epithet to decry race mongers and agitators. Good plan. Worked like a charm.

What? Only black people can make use of the slur aimed at them? Must be some part of affirmative action I haven't heard about.

The obvious point is, if you really gave a crap about rage mongering and agitation you wouldn't start a thread with a racial slur, regardless of your race. Not only does it put people on the defensive and make you look unsophisticated, it doesn't do anything to help your image as a racist on this forum. I understand you are tired of all the sympathy towards people of color, but suck it up and prove you are above the crybaby antics. It is embarrassing that a white person is complaining about the after effect of a court battle where another "white" person was served properly in the judicial system. Not guilty isn't enough for you? You want Mr and Mrs Martin to personally apologize for raising a black child too? Ridiculous and childish.

vision +1

People of color…lol, what am I...transparent?

Frankly, I can't think of a more divisive term than that.

Spidey wrote:People of color…lol, what am I...transparent?

Frankly, I can't think of a more divisive term than that.

I'm sure you can't.......