Interview with Black Intern on Zimmerman's Team

[Kal'Stang]

Racism is defined as the belief that one race is inferior to another, particularly when that inferiority is seen as innate. Please explain how blacks tweeting that she doesn't belong there are claiming that one race is inferior to another.

Definitions change. Remember when "gay" just use to mean "happy"? Since then one other meaning has been applied to it. Remember when "faggot" use to just mean "a bundle of sticks"? Since then 2 other meanings have been applied to it.

The definition of a word is not definitively tied to just the letter of the word. It is also tied into how that word is used or the intent of the word. Indeed that is one of the very reasons I do not read the bible even though I believe in God. I don't believe that it says the same thing it once did due to definitions changing.

 

[Oceandan]

You're all wrong, "racism" today is defined by "if you disagree with POTUS you are a racist".

Theplay....you use whatever term you choose. Racist, bigot......definitions are so garbled today, "justice" means putting public bounties on people and wearing tee shirts with GZ's likeness in scope sights. Where one group of people can use the "n" word but another can't, where the "n" word used thirty years ago gets someone fired but "creepy ass cracker" makes one a hero.

Disgusting, as Mark O'Mara said, in his closing.

 

[spanky]

This is hilarious, of all the law students and interns to apply for working with MOM and the defense they pick a black girl.


And then some Zimm supporters accuse the state of playing the race angle...heheh.

 

[Oceandan]

Some of you might have noticed her sitting behind the lead lawyers on Zimmerman's side. She volunteered to help with the case.

[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/12/erin-mattingly-dnt-zimmermans-legal-intern.cnn.html[/video]

WOW thanks for sharing this Josie!! I had no idea. After going through this trial, and honestly being a bit pessimistic (I'm an eternal optimist by nature) about our future, it's seeing young people like this lady, that returns my faith in our future. Bright, articulate and in my humble opinion a courageous young lady who will use her experience on this trial as the foundation for a wonderful career. Heck, who knows, we may be seeing a young lady who will go on to affect change in a way we can all be proud!

I needed this!

 

[spanky]

WOW thanks for sharing this Josie!! I had no idea. After going through this trial, and honestly being a bit pessimistic (I'm an eternal optimist by nature) about our future, it's seeing young people like this lady, that returns my faith in our future. Bright, articulate and in my humble opinion a courageous young lady who will use her experience on this trial as the foundation for a wonderful career. Heck, who knows, we may be seeing a young lady who will go on to affect change in a way we can all be proud!

I needed this!

Plus, she was black.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Definitions change. Remember when "gay" just use to mean "happy"? Since then one other meaning has been applied to it. Remember when "faggot" use to just mean "a bundle of sticks"? Since then 2 other meanings have been applied to it.

The definition of a word is not definitively tied to just the letter of the word. It is also tied into how that word is used or the intent of the word. Indeed that is one of the very reasons I do not read the bible even though I believe in God. I don't believe that it says the same thing it once did due to definitions changing.

Oh please. Definitions change dynamically with society and when that happens, dictionaries catch up with society and account for those new definitions. They don't change when two random people on the Internet decide to make up new definitions to meet their needs. The situation we're dealing within in this thread is latter not the former.

 

[Oceandan]

Oh please. Definitions change dynamically with society and when that happens, dictionaries catch up with society and account for those new definitions. They don't change when two random people on the Internet decide to make up new definitions to meet their needs. The situation we're dealing within in this thread is latter not the former.

Are you going to deny people are called "racists" just for disagreeing with POTUS? "two people on the internet" That's not even intellectually dishonest, it's laughable.

Oh wait, are you the new "word czar"?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh please. Definitions change dynamically with society and when that happens, dictionaries catch up with society and account for those new definitions. They don't change when two random people on the Internet decide to make up new definitions to meet their needs. The situation we're dealing within in this thread is latter not the former.

Dictionaries don't always catch the new definitions straight away. How long did it take before gay stopped just meaning "happy" in dictoinaries? Or Faggot stopped just meaning "a bundle of sticks"? Indeed it is not uncommon for dictionaries to print new editions a few decades after thier last edition came out. Only re-printing the last edition over and over and over until a new edition is made and printed.

So while yes, dictionaries do catch up with society and account for those new definitions, that catching up can take decades to do. Society however moves at a much faster pace.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Dictionaries don't always catch the new definitions straight away. How long did it take before gay stopped just meaning "happy" in dictoinaries? Or Faggot stopped just meaning "a bundle of sticks"? Indeed it is not uncommon for dictionaries to print new editions a few decades after thier last edition came out. Only re-printing the last edition over and over and over until a new edition is made and printed.

So while yes, dictionaries do catch up with society and account for those new definitions, that catching up can take decades to do. Society however moves at a much faster pace.

Again, this is not an issue of society dynamically changing definitions. This is an issue of two random people on the Internet misusing a word. I'm not going to pretend it's anymore than that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Again, this is not an issue of society dynamically changing definitions. This is an issue of two random people on the Internet misusing a word. I'm not going to pretend it's anymore than that.

But that is the thing. It is not "just two random people on the internet" using those definitions. Many people use those definitions also. That's even why I /liked Josie's post, (post #15) because I agree that those definitions are being used by many people across the country. Josie just happened to put them down on this board.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Do a little private polling. Ask people you know what they think the definition of "racist" is. Ask random people on the street what they think. I have. You'll find that many of them will say something along the lines of what Josie said far more than your strict dictionary definition.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

But that is the thing. It is not "just two random people on the internet" using those definitions. Many people use those definitions also. That's even why I /liked Josie's post, (post #15) because I agree that those definitions are being used by many people across the country. Josie just happened to put them down on this board.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Do a little private polling. Ask people you know what they think the definition of "racist" is. Ask random people on the street what they think. I have. You'll find that many of them will say something along the lines of what Josie said far more than your strict dictionary definition.

You are correct. There are plenty of people who misuse the word "racist" just as there are plenty of people who misuse other words. You're all still misusing the word, LOL. Even worse, all three of you are misusing the word in the way that specifically targets non-whites. With that in mind, I think I'm going to go ahead and conclude that all three of you are racists for that reason. After all, that definition of racism is being used by many people across the country. Don't believe me? Do a little private polling.

 

[Oceandan]

You are correct. There are plenty of people who misuse the word "racist" just as there are plenty of people who misuse other words. You're all still misusing the word, LOL. Even worse, all three of you are misusing the word in the way that specifically targets non-whites. With that in mind, I think I'm going to go ahead and conclude that all three of you are racists for that reason. After all, that definition of racism is being used by many people across the country. Don't believe me? Do a little private polling.

Private polling??? Nah those are too easily swayed by folks who don't have a clue about polling. Let's do PUBLIC polling.

More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Captain America]

She's kinda cute. I'd do her.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are correct. There are plenty of people who misuse the word "racist" just as there are plenty of people who misuse other words. You're all still misusing the word, LOL. Even worse, all three of you are misusing the word in the way that specifically targets non-whites. With that in mind, I think I'm going to go ahead and conclude that all three of you are racists for that reason. After all, that definition of racism is being used by many people across the country. Don't believe me? Do a little private polling.

All of that being said, the point of the thread still stands. Race is being used to determine what is "proper" individual behavior. Sort of like the race concious "technicallity" for acceptable use of the N-word. As long as it is deemed acceptable to treat individuals differently based on their race then that can be considered as bigotry/prejudice based on race - racialism. I will agree that racist and racism require believing that relative "rankings" among races exists, not simply that differences in their individual member's treatment are valid/acceptable. I suppose that the technically correct term would be race concious, as race conciousness requires no ranking, simply a distinction based on race - or is that racialism?

 

[Lutherf]

Here's what I know. If the defendant was black, there'd be no tweets asking why a white intern was working on the case. The media and black so-called spokespeople have done a bang-up job of making this into a racial issue. And it clearly shows me who the racists are.

There's something to be said for that. Are there any blacks on the state team?

 

[Lutherf]

Racism is defined as the belief that one race is inferior to another, particularly when that inferiority is seen as innate. Please explain how blacks tweeting that she doesn't belong there are claiming that one race is inferior to another.

Like when you put out a hip hop style video asking black folk not to riot?

 

[Lutherf]

Racism is also hatred for another race.
Racism can also include thinking people of a certain race are always out to get you.
Racism can also be seen as thinking people of your race are always right and people of another race are always wrong.
Racism can also be seen as thinking you are owed something because you are of a certain race.

That stuff is no longer racism. It's Critical Social Theory.....completely different.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You are correct. There are plenty of people who misuse the word "racist" just as there are plenty of people who misuse other words. You're all still misusing the word, LOL. Even worse, all three of you are misusing the word in the way that specifically targets non-whites. With that in mind, I think I'm going to go ahead and conclude that all three of you are racists for that reason. After all, that definition of racism is being used by many people across the country. Don't believe me? Do a little private polling.

So you say that I am correct in that the definition has changed and yet I am still "misusing" the word? That's contradictory.

As for using that definition to conclude that us three are racists...I honestly don't know about the other two but none of that definition fits me at all.

Racism is also hatred for another race. I don't hate any race. In fact there is only one person in this entire world that I hate. And that person molested my nieces.

Racism can also include thinking people of a certain race are always out to get you. I do not think that anyone from any race is out to get me.

Racism can also be seen as thinking people of your race are always right and people of another race are always wrong. I SURE AS HELL don't think this. I've yet to meet anyone from any race, creed, or whatever that was always right or always wrong.

Racism can also be seen as thinking you are owed something because you are of a certain race. I also definitly do not think this either. I'm a big proponent of person responsibility. IE no one owe's me jack unless I worked for them at a job, and then it's only what was agreed upon prior to them hiring me.

And finally, that definition is not applied to any particular race. It is applicable to ALL races. Yes, just like any other definition you can direct it at a particular person, group, or race. But applying it to a particular person, group, or race does not mean that we would only apply it to that race and no other. If we did that then you would have a case for calling us racist. But I know that I for one do not do that and have never done that. So in calling me a racist....you are wrong.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

All of that being said, the point of the thread still stands. Race is being used to determine what is "proper" individual behavior. Sort of like the race concious "technicallity" for acceptable use of the N-word. As long as it is deemed acceptable to treat individuals differently based on their race then that can be considered as bigotry/prejudice based on race - racialism. I will agree that racist and racism require believing that relative "rankings" among races exists, not simply that differences in their individual member's treatment are valid/acceptable. I suppose that the technically correct term would be race concious, as race conciousness requires no ranking, simply a distinction based on race - or is that racailism?

Well, the issue in this thread is that many black people view the Zimmerman case as a symbol of society's acceptance of racial profiling and the deadly consequences such profiling can have for their sons, brothers, nephews and so on. Therefore, when some black people see a black woman working for the man who they believe unjustly murdered a black boy based on racial profiling, they see a woman who is actively working to defend someone who would kill those sons, brothers and nephews if he encountered them on another rain night after being acquitted. Therefore, they criticize her for participating in what they perceive as a defense of ideas that hurt and even kill black people.

That, to me, is not a case of people being bigoted or prejudiced or racialist or racist. I would say that the people making the comments are race conscious. I don't, however, consider race consciousness a bad thing even though I also don't consider their condemnation of the intern a good thing.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Like when you put out a hip hop style video asking black folk not to riot?

I don't know if I would call that racist, but I would call it ****ed up and insulting and I suspect it probably created more racial tension than it decreased.

 

[Psychoclown]

While yes the dictionary defination of racism refers specifically to the belief that one race is inherently superior or inferior, the fact is the words racism, prejudice, and bigotry are often used interchangeably. So while people may be technically correct that they "missused" the word, their point is still clear to anyone reading their posts and focusing on the "missuse" of the word is just a way to ignore the main point of the post.

People who criticize an intern who is working on one of the biggest cases around who happens to be black are promoting the idea that the black race is a monolithic entity that has to be lockstep on every issue and to fall outside that dogma is to be a traitor to your race. So whether you call them bigots, prejudiced, morons, or racists, the point is all the same. Focusing on a definaition of racism (which as others have pointed out, the general popuplation no longer strictly abides by and has expanded to the word to encompass bigotry in general) is focusing on minor minutiae and missing the broader and more important point.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

So you say that I am correct in that the definition has changed and yet I am still "misusing" the word? That's contradictory.

No, I'm saying that you are correct that plenty of people misuse the word. It's just that you refer to that misuse incorrectly as "the definition is changing." It's not. All of you are just wrong, LOL.

As for using that definition to conclude that us three are racists...I honestly don't know about the other two but none of that definition fits me at all.

Racism is also hatred for another race. I don't hate any race. In fact there is only one person in this entire world that I hate. And that person molested my nieces.

Racism can also include thinking people of a certain race are always out to get you. I do not think that anyone from any race is out to get me.

Racism can also be seen as thinking people of your race are always right and people of another race are always wrong. I SURE AS HELL don't think this. I've yet to meet anyone from any race, creed, or whatever that was always right or always wrong.

Racism can also be seen as thinking you are owed something because you are of a certain race. I also definitly do not think this either. I'm a big proponent of person responsibility. IE no one owe's me jack unless I worked for them at a job, and then it's only what was agreed upon prior to them hiring me.

And finally, that definition is not applied to any particular race. It is applicable to ALL races. Yes, just like any other definition you can direct it at a particular person, group, or race. But applying it to a particular person, group, or race does not mean that we would only apply it to that race and no other. If we did that then you would have a case for calling us racist. But I know that I for one do not do that and have never done that. So in calling me a racist....you are wrong.

Well, of course, you would support all these "new" definitions of racism as long as they don't include you. It's convenient - you accept new definitions of racism that are clearly created with non-whites - and particularly blacks - in mind, but you reject definitions that would make you a racist. This is exactly why it's important for people to accept that words have concrete definitions. When they don't, they start defining words according to their confirmation bias as you, Josie and MaggieD have done here. It's hilarious.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

So while people may be technically correct that they "missused" the word, their point is still clear to anyone reading their posts and focusing on the "missuse" of the word is just a way to ignore the main point of the post.

No, pointing out the misuse of the word racism is a direct criticism of the point, not an attempt to ignore it. What you are doing by minimizing such criticism is ignoring the critique as a defense of improper use of the term. Nice try.

 

[Josie]

People who criticize an intern who is working on one of the biggest cases around who happens to be black are promoting the idea that the black race is a monolithic entity that has to be lockstep on every issue and to fall outside that dogma is to be a traitor to your race. So whether you call them bigots, prejudiced, morons, or racists, the point is all the same. Focusing on a definaition of racism (which as others have pointed out, the general popuplation no longer strictly abides by and has expanded to the word to encompass bigotry in general) is focusing on minor minutiae and missing the broader and more important point.

^^^

:yt

 

[Psychoclown]

No, pointing out the misuse of the word racism is a direct criticism of the point, not an attempt to ignore it. What you are doing by minimizing such criticism is ignoring the critique as a defense of improper use of the term. Nice try.

Perhaps you could state your criticism of the point more clearly, then because its getting lost on me with your grammar nazi act.