- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 2,926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I already read the article. Like I said in my above reply, I do believe there is some room for discussion on race regarding discrimination and possibly even outright racism stemming from the aftermath of the incident leading to the death of Trayvon Martin. What do you believe can be done to stop the racial prejudice of those who would automatically label a "white person" a racist such as what was assumed to be ZM's race without any prior or current evidence that would lead any reasonable person to such a conclusion?
I wouldn't say such an assumption is supported by crime statistics at all. It's supported by mainstream ignorance of crime statistics (and statistics in general).
The key fact is that the vast majority of people aren't criminals (ignoring things like speeding, "borrowing" stationary from work and the like). Even if, in a given area, 1% of white kids are criminals and 10% of black kids are criminals, it'd still be logically wrong to assume a random black kid is a criminal - there is a 90% chance that you're wrong.
The problem is that people see the news and (misrepresented) statistics which doesn't give a balanced view of the world, both in what is presented and the manner in which it is. We're not assessing anything on a considered understanding of the statistical reality (in as much as statistics can represent reality at all). This impacts all sorts of things of course - race is just one of them.
You are kind of derailing the conversation here.
Great. No worries.
Consider this as a possibility, we have intelligent people informed by the same information who reach a different conclusion. It happens all the time. I believe it is an error on your part (an many others) to make the assumption that people who did not reach the same conclusion as you could only have done so if they are misinformed. I don't believe this is the case. Maybe instead it is a matter of perception. I chose to respect your intelligence even though I disagree with your conclusion and assume instead that we are different people who have been informed differently on a personal level (as individuals) and that is why we have reached a different conclusion. You are welcome to disagree with me but please do not diminish me by reducing me and the life that informs my perceptions and my opinion to being nothing more than a product of media manipulation and I will return the favor.
I believe you speak of perceptual biases. If people's perceptual biases are preventing them from seeing the facts of the case (established by the jury, the FBI, and the Justice Department's non-filing of hate crimes), then we have a larger cultural problem than if the media was simply misinforming people. What about peoples' "life that informs" perception and opinion is preventing them from accurate perception? I say accurate because there is literally no evidence that GZ is racist. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting he is not, yet the perception within certain groups abounds that GZ is a racist. You say I insult you by assuming that the media has misinformed you, yet that is the less antagonistic conclusion for the particular prejudice on display. The other option is that your personal bias has prejudiced you beyond the influence of truth. Ignorance is less a malady than unreasonableness, so to speak.
Here is where our personal biases come into play. You state that the facts of the situation and the history of the individuals involved would indicate that race did not play a part. I look at those very same facts and believe there was a better chance that they do. I also will not promote my understanding as fact because I don't know it is merely my opinion based on the information available to me. You may be certain, I may be certain, but we do not know whether he was motivated by racism, only he knows. Because as you say...the facts in the GZ case are somewhat less black and white.
In all honesty, I feel like claiming to KNOW is arrogant and disrespectful to the people who see the case differently. As for the facts, some people consider their opinion fact. We all have to back away and make certain we do not blend our interpretation of the facts with the actual facts.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that you acknowledge race a factor in the case. I am asking that you make an effort to understand why some would.
This tone is problematic. You call those who disagree with your opinion to be deluded. Does it not even occur to you that if there are so many who feel this way perhaps there lives are informed by experiences you have not had that make that perception completely valid. That instead of being deluded they have first hand experiences that you have not that lead them to a different understanding?
No individual who knew and interacted with GZ before this incident would claim he was in any way a racist. In fact, there were quite a few who claimed the exact opposite. There is absolutely ZERO evidence suggesting that GZ was motivated by racial prejudices of any kind. Both the trial and the FBI/justice department investigation have found/not found such. These are facts. When perception loses all basis in reality, it becomes delusion. I do not bandy that word around carelessly. We all have our selfish delusions on occasion, and they are often benign. But, in this case, they were not.
People still perceive racial hatred in GZ, a belief that is notable due to the complete absense of evidentiary or historical support. That's delusional. Personally, I think it is a reasonable delusion due to the "coverage" the case recieved. Nonetheless, it is still a delusion and I can't personally justify such a harmful one. That's not to say racism is non-existant. There are true cases of racism which influence how people percieve events. But if you want to focus solely on racial animosity towards blacks/minorities, that's fine. I do think it is unreasonable to start such a conversation by discussing GZ/TM and expect people to ignore the obvious and only supportable example of prejudice in the whole GZ/TM ordeal.
I'm discussing the role of race in the TM/GZ case, it's completely relevant to any topic discussion where race in that case is being discussed. I see a huge problem in this country and find it very concerning that individuals immediately and without reason can so easily jump to the conclusion that just because a white guy (who turned out to actually be hispanic) killed a black teenager that race must necessarily be involved. Do you not see an issue with that? How can we even attempt to minimize the racial divide and misconceptions held by individuals if we do not hold ourselves up to higher standards when it comes to accusations of racial discrimination or even outright racism?
The role of race really isn't the topic. This was my goal:
1) introduce an article that I thought may help those who strove to understand the position of the other side but were struggling
2) Make the point that while there is disagreement regarding this case, racism is still an issue in this country and we should be able to discuss it civilly
I am trying not to stray into discussing the case specifically, I would rather look at how it is discussed.
When you are at war you give the enemy a name he doesn't like. The list is endless. Don't be offended just they have one for you.
The role of race really isn't the topic. This was my goal:
1) introduce an article that I thought may help those who strove to understand the position of the other side but were struggling
2) Make the point that while there is disagreement regarding this case, racism is still an issue in this country and we should be able to discuss it civilly
I am trying not to stray into discussing the case specifically, I would rather look at how it is discussed.
This is just stupid. There is no "war" here. Only thing racist about this is the race baiters who call Zimmerman a "white Hispanic" or say Zimmerman only shot him because he was black, or profiled him for the same. That comment is ignorant and one sided.
Making the opening statement about "having an open mind" was just a veiled way of saying... If you don't agree you are closed minded.
It was an epic fail of a post and little else.
Actually it's honest. Let's move on.This is just stupid. There is no "war" here. Only thing racist about this is the race baiters who call Zimmerman a "white Hispanic" or say Zimmerman only shot him because he was black, or profiled him for the same. That comment is ignorant and one sided.
I think he was referring to a comment I made to Josie. Hey I just realized that your initials are BM :lol:
If issues regarding racism wasn't the focal point of this thread then you probably shouldn't have titled it "Race matters". You've admitted that there is absolutely no proof race was involved in any actions taken by Zimmerman and that it's just a suspicion inside that you have that makes you come to the conclusion again without any evidence whatsoever that there was some motivation involving racial prejudice at play. Do you not see how ****ed up it is and how it only draws people apart by automatically assuming (without rhyme or reason) that race is at the heart of the matter when it comes to GZ's action, not only is there absolutely no evidence supporting your claims but there is evidence to the contrary.
If you didn't want to discuss the GZ case then why the hell are you bringing it up at all? I think there's a place for a discussion on human behavioral responses to those who are different in some way shape or form and what behavior it may provoke or cause that lends itself to a subconscious bias expressed towards another. If you want to talk about it in conjunction with what we saw with the response to the TM/GZ case then fine but you're going to have to look more into the Trayvon Martins of the world since of the two key players he was the only one who you could possibly see a racial bias in (in reference to his "crazy ass cracker" comment directed at Zimmerman). I would also look into the Al Sharptons of the world and your own personal biases given the fact that in absence of anything denoting racial bias on the part of GZ plus evidence to the contrary you still want to integrate an element of race into his motivations.
My question for you is why? With no evidence suggesting that there was any clear conscious or subconscious motives and evidence to the contrary such as zimmerman mentoring black youths, his own bi-racial heritage, friends and relatives including some who identify as being black who stood up for him and said there was no evidence of a racial bias behind zimmerman prior to or after the event that lead us to this point, why do you still insist that race plays a part? and why do you think it's okay to so lazily throw around accusations of racial bias, those are life altering career ending accusations and I would hope that more people would be careful and actually need real evidence and not just baseless supposition to support their claims.
Actually it's honest. Let's move on.
Yes he absolutely was. His whole comment was about "giving the enemy a name" and then finished with "Don't be offended just they have one for you." I don't need you to tell me what I already know... thanks for nothing.
As much as you love to tell me what I am REALLY doing. No, it was not. I wanted to make sure people knew going in that I was asking them to put their weapons down before engaging in the discussion.
Wow....you're a tense tense man.
I don't have to tell you what you are thinking in any case. It is how it looks, period. It is condescending and typical of the liberal mindset to start out with demonizing and claiming it is "open minded" only if you agree.
So you have no real argument? Par for the course as you have yet to offer anything of worth.
I didn't say that. That is just your opinion. You seem to be the one doing the demonizing here.
Do you EVER have anything constructive to say? Or do you prefer to just rush in and kick everyone in the teeth you big bully.
Wow....you're a tense tense man.
I am not demonizing, I am pointing out how it looks and how a percentage of liberals posts (such as your post) use this tactic. Has nothing to do with "naming" or saying it is a blanket statement about all liberals. It is just a fact that many do.
Do you EVER have anything constructive to say? Or do you prefer to just rush in and kick everyone in the teeth you big bully.
Ad hominems are the last resort of those with no argument. Again not demonizing, just pointing out a well known fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?