Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Craig4]

Are you aware that the exact same excuse gets used do rationalize use of the n-word against "only a certain kind of black guy"?


Again... same argument used by the other side. The only difference being that you don't even try to church it up.

If the defendants had stayed home I would never had said a thing about them. I dehumanize them because of their choices, not their skin color.

 

[bruto]

Would you be as acceptable of calling a black person a racial epithet based on what they actually did after the fact?

Is it okay to use racial slurs to demean individuals, and other people are just supposed to assume that it's not meant as a generalization?

I don't recall seeing any racial epithets that apply to the entire white race regardless of culture, history or location. Perhaps I missed it. If there were racial epithets disparaging white people in general, I'd agree that it was at the very least gratuitiously stupid. But I think there's a point at which people's matching of a stereotype makes them fair game.

 

[wareyin]

I don't recall seeing any racial epithets that apply to the entire white race regardless of culture, history or location. Perhaps I missed it. If there were racial epithets disparaging white people in general, I'd agree that it was at the very least gratuitiously stupid. But I think there's a point at which people's matching of a stereotype makes them fair game.

I'm going to agree with Emily's Cat, here. This is far too close to the rationale that the KKK and the like use when calling black people slurs. They match the stereotype, I don't mean every black guy, just the bad ones, etc.

Using racial slurs hurts your message more than helps it, and it gives ammo and cover both to those wanting to slur and dehumanize people like Arbery or Floyd.

 

[wareyin]

If the defendants had stayed home I would never had said a thing about them. I dehumanize them because of their choices, not their skin color.

As I said in the post above, this is far too close to the rationale of the KKK, 'I wouldn't call them lazy ******* if they wasn't such lazy *******!'

Using racial slurs hurts your message and gives ammo and cover to those wanting to slur and dehumanize the Arberys and Floyds.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm going to agree with Emily's Cat, here. This is far too close to the rationale that the KKK and the like use when calling black people slurs. They match the stereotype, I don't mean every black guy, just the bad ones, etc.

Using racial slurs hurts your message more than helps it, and it gives ammo and cover both to those wanting to slur and dehumanize people like Arbery or Floyd.

You and Emily's Cat are the real heroes.

 

[wareyin]

You and Emily's Cat are the real heroes.

Aw, shucks! Thanks for your support!

 

[bruto]

I'm going to agree with Emily's Cat, here. This is far too close to the rationale that the KKK and the like use when calling black people slurs. They match the stereotype, I don't mean every black guy, just the bad ones, etc.

Using racial slurs hurts your message more than helps it, and it gives ammo and cover both to those wanting to slur and dehumanize people like Arbery or Floyd.

I'll concede the point, if what we are discussing is racial stereotypes, which I may have missed or ignored. I don't feel quite the same about life-choice stereotypes, but will at least agree that they're a detriment to the message.

 

[quadraginta]

I'll concede the point, if what we are discussing is racial stereotypes, which I may have missed or ignored. I don't feel quite the same about life-choice stereotypes, but will at least agree that they're a detriment to the message.

This is the crucial distinction. Someone has no choice about what skin color they are born with, and slurs based on skin color are racist by definition.

But all whites are not crackers any more than all whites are skinheads or clansmen or Nazis.

Plenty of whites manage to be born poor in the South and manage somehow not to fit the description of 'cracker'. And some are born to privilege beyond their peers and work hard at touching all the bases that would make them fit the description to a T. Big pick-ups with Confederate battle flag decals, gun racks, etc. And, yes, disparaging blacks at every opportunity.

Yes, it is a derogatory figure of speech, and intended as one. But it is not a racial slur. It is a character description. It is in no way by any stretch of the imagination any sort of an equivalent to the "N" word. And any efforts to make it seem so reek of the most base and desperate apologetics.

People are not born fitting the description as 'crackers'. They earn it. There is little doubt that the McMichaels have earned it. Even worked for it.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Watch how fast Arbury exits the construction site and hits the road. Couple seconds. Same thing in reverse, but Travis would be pointing towards his neighbors houses, making him hesitate.

Plus I gather you don't shoot, right? This is a shotgun, with a dozen or so spreading pellets, not a bullet. I also take it you never tried to hit a high speed moving target. Not the easiest thing either

As a city born and bred Canadian, about the only thing I tell about a gun from merely looking at it is if it's a hand gun or a long gun, because that's really bleeding obvious. I can't tell the difference between a shotgun and a rifle. Were I in this scenario, I would have assumed the long guns being held by the McMichaels were rifles capable of killing me at a considerable distance, especially if the people handling them knew what they were doing (and I wouldn't have a reason to believe otherwise.)

Having said that, this sort of knowledge may be more widespread in Georgia.

 

[Busta Capp]

<snip>

Yes, it is a derogatory figure of speech, and intended as one. But it is not a racial slur. It is a character description. It is in no way by any stretch of the imagination any sort of an equivalent to the "N" word. And any efforts to make it seem so reek of the most base and desperate apologetics.

<snip>

This is ridiculous reasoning.

This racist generalization is worse than that racist generalization ?

Nonsense.

 

[quadraginta]

This is ridiculous reasoning.

This racist generalization is worse than that racist generalization ?

Good job snipping out all of the post which carefully explains why it is not a "generalization".

Nonsense.

Yes. You are responding with nonsense. Try actually responding to the content of the post if you want to improve your response.

 

[Busta Capp]

Go back and reverse all the racial stereotype/components of your nonsensical post and you have what Emily's Cat pointed out earlier.

This racist generalization is worse than that racist generalization.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

He, of course, had no way of knowing when if the police would arrive. (Nor, actually, do we. A journalist's "seconds later" can be hyperbolic.) I find the prospect of the pursuers standing there scratching their heads and saying, "What're we gonna do now, Paw? He's a-standin' twinny yards away and there ain't no pave-a-ment thar" to be rather silly, in a grim way.

A small difference but to my mind an important one.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

This is the crucial distinction. Someone has no choice about what skin color they are born with, and slurs based on skin color are racist by definition.

But all whites are not crackers any more than all whites are skinheads or clansmen or Nazis.

Plenty of whites manage to be born poor in the South and manage somehow not to fit the description of 'cracker'. And some are born to privilege beyond their peers and work hard at touching all the bases that would make them fit the description to a T. Big pick-ups with Confederate battle flag decals, gun racks, etc. And, yes, disparaging blacks at every opportunity.

Yes, it is a derogatory figure of speech, and intended as one. But it is not a racial slur. It is a character description. It is in no way by any stretch of the imagination any sort of an equivalent to the "N" word. And any efforts to make it seem so reek of the most base and desperate apologetics.

People are not born fitting the description as 'crackers'. They earn it. There is little doubt that the McMichaels have earned it. Even worked for it.

Surely the closest equivalent is 'Thug' (in it's North American usage)? Behavioural but with class and ethnic stereotypes baked in. I agree 100% that these three have earned the epitath, but I'd also agree that using it is unhelpful, using one justifies using the other and when using them is justified it spreads to cover marginal or inappropriate cases. And when it does it's not (in my admittedly limited experience) the innocent white bloke who's derided as a 'cracker', it's the innocent black bloke who's derided as a 'thug'.

I'm not pearl clutching about the language, or seeking to defend them from criticism, I don't even disagree that the name fits. I just think using it helps perpetuate the problem.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why not just call them murderers? It's what they are.

Dave

 

[Darat]

I suspect a lot of people are taking exception to your framing of this as "should have".



I think many people can probably hypothesize about different actions that Arbery could have taken, that might have kept him alive. By framing it as what he should have done, it comes across as if you're attributing blame to Arbery.



Running through someone else's yard might have saved his life, but it might not have. I don't know for sure, and I can't say that were I in his position it would have occurred to me to go off road.

And to be blunt it would seem that a black man running through peoples' yards being chased by 2 white men would be at a high risk at being shot at by residents seeing it happen.

 

[Darat]

I don't quite agree with your characterization of the event, but leaving that aside, if the exact same set of events were to happen with the only differences being the skin color of the participants, I think a couple of things would differ:



- Media coverage would be dramatically different

- Many of the posters here (and elsewhere) would interpret events differently



I think it'd still be a legitimate question as to why the (white) guy ran towards the (black) guy with the gun pointed at him. Not the most interesting question among the many that can be raised about this incident, but still worth asking.







It has?

And I am sure the decision wouldn't have been to not prosecute until a video was released a couple of months afterwards.

 

[Darat]

Fine. Jump off the street at a 90 degree angle twenty yards in or so and stand there. Or knock on the nearest front door. We know factually that the police arrived within moments of the shooting, so basically he would not have had to do much at all but bide his time till other neighbors or the 5-0 rolled up. Does that answer your question?



Or are you freewheeling this to some other scenario, with conditions as yet undisclosed?



Yet again, my argument is that he was not somehow restricted to asphalt. Others insist he was. I find that an odd assertion.

Knock on a front door with two white men chasing you from behind, and what then politely enquire about the residents good health and ask if they could allow him entry into their abode as he is being chased by the two men behind him?*

Never mind that he would have had no idea when the police would be turning up or even if they would be turning up, using future unknown and unknowable to the victim events to suggest he should have taken another approach to try and prevent his behaviour passes into the irrational.


*And does anyone really think that a black man knocking on a front door with two white men chasing him from behind could assume to have a good reception?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Two armed men.

 

[Thermal]

Knock on a front door with two white men chasing you from behind, and what then politely enquire about the residents good health and ask if they could allow him entry into their abode as he is being chased by the two men behind him?*

Never mind that he would have had no idea when the police would be turning up or even if they would be turning up, using future unknown and unknowable to the victim events to suggest he should have taken another approach to try and prevent his behaviour passes into the irrational.


*And does anyone really think that a black man knocking on a front door with two white men chasing him from behind could assume to have a good reception?

Two armed men.

Wow. You said that out loud, you know.

If a guy ran up banging on my door with two armed civilians chasing him, you're goddamned right he would find safe haven at Chez Thermal. Because, knowing nothing else, guys running around with shotguns chasing unarmed men are absolutely the bad guys. While im not sure what I would do, his race would not be a factor. The armed nuts would.

But I see we don't share that view. Seriously, you guys are taking a really dark subtextual turn here.