• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Racism is contextual

Mycroft said:
Those are powerful straw-men you've built there, but I don't feel I should respond to ideas that are attributed to me but don't come from anything I've said.

Care to try again?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Nothing you've said suggests that we should ignore racism, even in the form of unconscious biases.
 
phiwum said:
If anyone has done that in this thread, I've missed it.

You're totally right that it happens, but I haven't seen it here. (I do make liberal use of the ignore feature, but I don't ignore Joe and I don't think he's said anything like that. )
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it *was* the subject (although, like you, I use the ignore function for that sort of person), but it has happened before (see: Trayvon Martin, John Crawford III, Richard Sherman - among many others)

JoeMorgue said:
"I just think conceptualizing unintentional biases as 'racism' is not the best way to go forward in discussions about race relations..."

"...therefore I'm completely okay with cops shooting black people."

Okay somebody has got to fill in the blank for me here.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if you're completely okay with it - the point is that both are obviously racist. Better to recognize what it is and nip that sort of thing out early, than to wait until the cop is already firing wildly into a car, or a pack of goons in MAGA hats are committing terrorist attacks while screaming about the jews. There's a scale at work, sure, but it's the same scale one scale, not two entirely separate ones.
 
Mumbles said:
I didn't say that it *was* the subject (although, like you, I use the ignore function for that sort of person), but it has happened before (see: Trayvon Martin, John Crawford III, Richard Sherman - among many others)
Click to expand...

Agreed, and it is a bad argument.

It's just not an argument I've seen here.
 
Mumbles said:
I've mostly kept out of this, since it's...somewhat interesting to watch a mostly white group (yes, an assumption) try to figure out who is and isn't a racist.
Click to expand...

That's actually quite racist. Apparently you think that white people can't do the intellectual process required to reach conclusions on this issue.

And most of my black and Hispanic friends have noticed the same thing.
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that people who bring up their black friends are racist.
 
kellyb said:
She does have a KKK grand wizard as an avatar.
lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, but be fair. It is a fascinatingly horrid statue.

Honestly, if they did Hitler that badly, I wouldn't look askance at anyone using it as an avatar.

Totally defend Mumbles's choice here.
 
phiwum said:
Yeah, but be fair. It is a fascinatingly horrid statue.

Honestly, if they did Hitler that badly, I wouldn't look askance at anyone using it as an avatar.

Totally defend Mumbles's choice here.
Click to expand...

I'm in Memphis and have joked with friends in Nashville about doing a statue trade, because I find that one so amusing. :)
So, yeah.
 
phiwum said:
Yeah, but be fair. It is a fascinatingly horrid statue.

Honestly, if they did Hitler that badly, I wouldn't look askance at anyone using it as an avatar.

Totally defend Mumbles's choice here.
Click to expand...

THe faqct that it's such an incredibly ugly statue is exactly why I picked it as an avatar, and then brought it back when certain posters here started defending the Confederacy while admitting to having no knowledge at all of what "Lost Cause mythology" is.
 
Crawtator said:
As a member of a skeptics forum, I'm going to ask you for some evidence backing these assertions. Because they seem to be, as an outsider to this discussion just reading along, personally biased and potentially wildly off-base.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the court found, that is what the verdict meant when the cop was found not guilty. That an average reasonable person would feel threatened for his life and be justified in shooting Philando Castile in that traffic stop. That is what a verdict means. That means in that case it was legally reasonable to panic after pulling over a black driver for a tail light after finding out he was a legal gun owner.

lawyers present evidence juries decide fact and in that case the jury found that to be the actions of an average reasonable person. There is some hypothesizing about why they found that reasonable but it certainly is reasonable.
 
Mycroft said:
Those are powerful straw-men you've built there, but I don't feel I should respond to ideas that are attributed to me but don't come from anything I've said.

Care to try again?
Click to expand...

The whole society feels the need to side with the cops shooting blacks for being black and it is totally not racist why is that going further?
 
phiwum said:
Agreed, and it is a bad argument.

It's just not an argument I've seen here.
Click to expand...

Yes we just have people refusing to address the likely situation of many of those shootings at all, because it doesn't fit in with their definition of racism.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That is exactly what the court found, that is what the verdict meant when the cop was found not guilty. That an average reasonable person would feel threatened for his life and be justified in shooting Philando Castile in that traffic stop. That is what a verdict means. That means in that case it was legally reasonable to panic after pulling over a black driver for a tail light after finding out he was a legal gun owner.

lawyers present evidence juries decide fact and in that case the jury found that to be the actions of an average reasonable person. There is some hypothesizing about why they found that reasonable but it certainly is reasonable.
Click to expand...

I am an attorney. I am asking you to specifically quote the part of the verdict where it says it is alright to panic and kill a black man. The specific quote, mind you. No more hyperbole.
 
Crawtator said:
I am an attorney. I am asking you to specifically quote the part of the verdict where it says it is alright to panic and kill a black man. The specific quote, mind you. No more hyperbole.
Click to expand...

They found that to be a reasonable reaction, that fit the circumstances. Juries don't write verdicts explaining their rational, they found the killing as to be in self defence, which means a reasonable person would have found the thought of a black man with a legal handgun permit to be threatening.

So the quote would be "Not Guilty" and the rest being based on the defense offered. As an attorney I thought you would understand that kind of thing.
 
As an attorney, I see no defense of your use of "black man" in the reasoning of the jury. Why not just "man"? You seem to be hyper-inflating the issue. Not saying the underlying reasoning isn't correct, but you are inserting your own opinions on those of others, which I find both insulting and disingenuous.
 
ponderingturtle said:
They found that to be a reasonable reaction, that fit the circumstances. Juries don't write verdicts explaining their rational, they found the killing as to be in self defence, which means a reasonable person would have found the thought of a black man with a legal handgun permit to be threatening.

So the quote would be "Not Guilty" and the rest being based on the defense offered. As an attorney I thought you would understand that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

That looks like not a quote.
 
ponderingturtle said:
They found that to be a reasonable reaction, that fit the circumstances. Juries don't write verdicts explaining their rational, they found the killing as to be in self defence, which means a reasonable person would have found the thought of a black man with a legal handgun permit to be threatening.

So the quote would be "Not Guilty" and the rest being based on the defense offered. As an attorney I thought you would understand that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm gonna ask you once again to give me a quote from the verdict, recordings....heck ANYTHING, where the court or jurors said specifically this. Otherwise, you a part of the problem with ramping up racial tensions.
 
Crawtator said:
Exactly. I'm gonna ask you once again to give me a quote from the verdict, recordings....heck ANYTHING, where the court or jurors said specifically this. Otherwise, you a part of the problem with ramping up racial tensions.
Click to expand...

They said not guilty, that ment they found the cops actions to be the actions of a reasonable person. Are you going to say shooting someone who is getting his wallet out because you ordered him to after he tells you he has a legal gun in the vehicle is not panicking?

The nature of his defense is that a reasonable person would feel threatened for his life in that situation, the jury agreed. You seem to think that their all pretending that he would totally have panicked and shot white law abiding gun owners for following his orders? And of course that too would have been the reasonable thing to do?

You seem to view cops in a very strange light as such indiscriminately afraid and violent killers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom