Why do they seem so determined to also make it racial?

[Heebie Jeebie]

If race is involved, then it's fine to discuss it matter-of-factly as part of the case. But if there is no evidence race is playing a part, bringing it up simply because you are upset another case was falsely made about race makes you every bit as bad as the people you are condemning.

No one brought race up. The question was why in some cases, where it has no bearing, do people bring it up and in other cases the same people are silent. It's not hypocritical to ask that and point out cases where it has occurred.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No one brought race up. The question was why in some cases, where it has no bearing, do people bring it up and in other cases the same people are silent. It's not hypocritical to ask that and point out cases where it has occurred.

Because it's the way some people make their living...

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Because it's the way some people make their living...

And I thought that kind of action was frowned upon. Or is it shooting a person at random that is frowned upon? I'll e-mail Jesse again to clear it up. I think he is the one who explained it that way.

 

[Slyfox696]

No one brought race up.

You clearly didn't read the opening post of the thread.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

And I thought that kind of action was frowned upon. Or is it shooting a person at random that is frowned upon? I'll e-mail Jesse again to clear it up. I think he is the one who explained it that way.

Displaying outrage about this case, when it doesn't benefit your income or ideology, wouldn't make sense...

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

You clearly didn't read the opening post of the thread.

Where is the mention of race, aside from quoting the remarks of others who brought it up before in cases where it wasn't applicable?

 

[Slyfox696]

Where is the mention of race, aside from quoting the remarks of others who brought it up before in cases where it wasn't applicable?

The entire thread is about race and how "liberals...have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines" and "One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire".

The entire thing is about criticizing "liberals" for talking about race and then justifying why it's okay for "right wingers" to talk about race.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The entire thread is about race and how "liberals...have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines" and "One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire".

The entire thing is about criticizing "liberals" for talking about race and then justifying why it's okay for "right wingers" to talk about race.

Do you disagree with the first half of your opening sentence?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

The entire thread is about race and how "liberals...have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines" and "One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire".

You're 1/2 right. The thread is about why liberals are now questioning why anyone has mentioned race in the random killing of a man after raising it themselves in so many cases where it did not apply.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree it's important when discussing whether the shooter is legally justified or not. I disagree it has anything to do with race.

Because one sold a story and the other wouldn't.

I'm not sure you get what I'm saying. My point is you cannot condemn those who bring up race when race is seemingly not a factor (such as the Zimmerman case) and then bring up race where race has yet to be shown a factor (such as the Lane case). If you do exactly what you condemn others for, it's hypocrisy. That's the point I'm trying to make.
If race is involved, then it's fine to discuss it matter-of-factly as part of the case. But if there is no evidence race is playing a part, bringing it up simply because you are upset another case was falsely made about race makes you every bit as bad as the people you are condemning. And even if race is a motivating factor, bringing it up ONLY so you can criticize others makes you in the wrong as well. If "conservatives" are only bringing up race to criticize the "liberal media", not because they care about race relations in America, that's every bit as disgusting as the media turning the Zimmerman case into an issue of race.

At the end of the day, the only reason race should ever be brought up in a crime such as this is if it has clear ties to motivation and if it's being brought up for honest and legitimate reasons. Failing one of those two tests, bringing up race to condemn those who bring up race is hypocritical.

OK, with all of that being said, do you not consider that race may have indeed played a part in the Chris Lane execution based on the fact that at least one of the perps has shown racial animosity having bragged of beating up at least 5 whites in retaliation for the Zimmerman verdict? I will agree only that making the assumption that race is not a factor without any basis is just as wrong as saying that race is a factor without any basis. If you feel that you have a sound basis is that not reason to make an issue of something?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Are you saying that racism does not exist or that it is exaggerated ?

Racism, as well as other forms of bigotry, certainly exists but is not nearly as pervasive as many assert. Public policy racism clearly exists when lower educational standards (expectations?) are considered "fair" based on race. Using the fact that some whites are racist to make the moronic leap to most whites are racist and therefore all whites (or society in general) owe some debt to all blacks is also wrong. Some seem to assert that without holding a position of power that one cannot be considered racist (racialist?) even when they go out of their way to try to "pay back" whites or assert that they are owed reparations (based on race alone) for past wrongs.

 

[opendebate]

Racism, as well as other forms of bigotry, certainly exists but is not nearly as pervasive as many assert. Public policy racism clearly exists when lower educational standards (expectations?) are considered "fair" based on race. Using the fact that some whites are racist to make the moronic leap to most whites are racist and therefore all whites (or society in general) owe some debt to all blacks is also wrong. Some seem to assert that without holding a position of power that one cannot be considered racist (racialist?) even when they go out of their way to try to "pay back" whites or assert that they are owed reparations (based on race alone) for past wrongs.

So lets agree that extremists on either side should for the most part should be ignored. Because we can point fingers as each side and find glaring examples to prove support our accusations about them. Those extremists though, do represent the majority of either or any party. If we forget the whole reparations thing and just look at what is happening today, you do not consider it pervasive? Tell me why please.

 

[Lutherf]

Or, the Right is just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal media.

For me it goes well beyond hypocrisy. We DO need to have a discussion about race in this country because there's some pretty damned big problems that race is at the heart of.

Hell, in the last few months we've had two black kids shoot a baby in the head, we've had two black kids and a "wannabe" shoot a guy for jogging, we've had two black kids beat an old guy to death and that's just the stuff that hit the news! We have black kids killing each other off at a ridiculous rate in Chicago and a little black kid in the Bronx got shot by the cops because he was shooting at other kids.

Now we all know it isn't totally a black thing but what are the statistics? 10:1, 20:1? What the hell!!?? That sure sounds like a problem to me.

What's worse than all that killing, though, is that the conversation that needs to be had keeps getting pushed aside. We see this stuff going on but we choose to talk about guns or poverty instead. We talk about a biased judicial system and racial profiling. We talk about broken homes and how "these poor kids never had a chance". Well, that's great. That stuff does need to be talked about but it's also a bunch of conversations that miss the overall problem......there is a thug culture in this country that has corrupted young black males.

What has caused this culture to develop? Why is it tolerated?

It's time to put all the discussion about excuses on the back burner and focus on the problem. If kids are growing up believing that their best opportunity for success in life is to be a gang banger and street thug we have really and truly failed a whole generation of kids.

 

[Slyfox696]

Do you disagree with the first half of your opening sentence?

I disagree with the notion race issues are being exacerbated by one side OR the other. I think there are many sides to share the blame for continuing racial issues.

You're 1/2 right. The thread is about why liberals are now questioning why anyone has mentioned race in the random killing of a man after raising it themselves in so many cases where it did not apply.

No, I'm all the way right. This is about the "right wing" once again bringing up race when there was nothing to stimulate a conversation about race.

OK, with all of that being said, do you not consider that race may have indeed played a part in the Chris Lane execution based on the fact that at least one of the perps has shown racial animosity having bragged of beating up at least 5 whites in retaliation for the Zimmerman verdict?

Yes, it is possible race has played a part. But previous words do not indicate this was about race. For this situation to be about race, there needs to be evidence this incident was about race. If that makes sense.

I will agree only that making the assumption that race is not a factor without any basis is just as wrong as saying that race is a factor without any basis. If you feel that you have a sound basis is that not reason to make an issue of something?

Where I would argue with you is the idea that, absent of any evidence to suggest something (in this case, race), one cannot not assume the absence of something. In other words, I took the first part of your comment to mean that without any evidence of race, we cannot assume it wasn't racially motivated. I would argue with that premise to say absence of evidence is a great reason to assume absence. If further investigation suggests a racial motivation to the attack of Chris Lane (and prior comments do not, themselves, suggest a racial motivation), then it is absolutely okay to assume a possible racial motivation.

With that said, however, and coming back to the point of this thread, if there is to be evidence of racial motivation in this case, it's still not appropriate to bring up race, if the only reason you are bringing up race is to criticize someone else for bringing up race. If you wish to discuss it as a/the contributing factor, by all means do so. But if you're only bringing it up to heighten the tension between sides, then one is no better than those one condemns.

I hope that all made sense. There was a lot of generals and theoreticals.

there is a thug culture in this country that has corrupted young black males.

What has caused this culture to develop?

Income inequality, usually due to past racist policies. Whether it's right or not, it's easy to understand why many black people see things as a "us vs. them" mentality.

Why is it tolerated?

It's not. Black people are many times more likely to be incarcerated, even for similar crimes (if I remember correctly).

It's time to put all the discussion about excuses on the back burner and focus on the problem. If kids are growing up believing that their best opportunity for success in life is to be a gang banger and street thug we have really and truly failed a whole generation of kids.

I feel there are many people who contribute to that failure, not the least of which are the so-called "leaders" of black America. Anyone who thinks Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shout at the rain for the advancement of minorities is naive. They shout because it makes money, and if it improves race relations, so be it. Of course, if it were to improve race relations, they would probably be out of a job, so they are not really so much worried about improving race relations as they are improving the status of black people. There's a subtle difference on the surface between the two (improving race relations and improving the status of black people) but it truly is a significant difference.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I disagree with the notion race issues are being exacerbated by one side OR the other. I think there are many sides to share the blame for continuing racial issues.

I would say this is an ignorant position to hold with relation to reality...

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

No, I'm all the way right. This is about the "right wing" once again bringing up race when there was nothing to stimulate a conversation about race.

Now you are totally wrong.

Please show where the 'right wing' brought up race, as opposed to quoting what others said about race, in the initial post.

 

[Slyfox696]

I would say this is an ignorant position to hold with relation to reality...

You think?



'Crackers,' a 'teenage mammy' -- the sorry truth about race and Zimmerman trial | Fox News

Rep. Steve King Claims Undocumented Immigrants Mostly '130-Pound' Drug Runners - YouTube

Now you are totally wrong.

Please show where the 'right wing' brought up race, as opposed to quoting what others said about race, in the initial post.

I already did. Are you really asking me to repeat myself, just a couple posts after I last did?

The entire thread is about race and how "liberals...have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines" and "One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire".

The entire thing is about criticizing "liberals" for talking about race and then justifying why it's okay for "right wingers" to talk about race.

I feel like this conversation with you has just about reached it's limit. When you ask me to show you something I've already shown you, it's a pretty good sign of deterioration of conversation.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I already did. Are you really asking me to repeat myself, just a couple posts after I last did?

If you had provided it I wouldn't ask but you haven't done anything of the sort.

 

[LowDown]

Nothing quite so ironic about criticizing someone for bringing up race by bringing up race. I'd suggest it's not the "liberals" who race-bait, but rather people on both sides. Like the opening post of this thread.

It's not ironic. It's appropriating their methods. Shamelessly and cynically, like them.

 

[Slyfox696]

It's not ironic. It's appropriating their methods. Shamelessly and cynically, like them.

So you are shamelessly and cynically condemning them for shamelessly and cynically condemning others.

Nah, no irony there.

 

[LowDown]

So you are shamelessly and cynically condemning them for shamelessly and cynically condemning others.

Nah, no irony there.

No, that's shamelessly and cynically ginning up racial resentments and hatred. Goose, gander, etc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I disagree with the notion race issues are being exacerbated by one side OR the other. I think there are many sides to share the blame for continuing racial issues.

No, I'm all the way right. This is about the "right wing" once again bringing up race when there was nothing to stimulate a conversation about race.

Yes, it is possible race has played a part. But previous words do not indicate this was about race. For this situation to be about race, there needs to be evidence this incident was about race. If that makes sense.

Where I would argue with you is the idea that, absent of any evidence to suggest something (in this case, race), one cannot not assume the absence of something. In other words, I took the first part of your comment to mean that without any evidence of race, we cannot assume it wasn't racially motivated. I would argue with that premise to say absence of evidence is a great reason to assume absence. If further investigation suggests a racial motivation to the attack of Chris Lane (and prior comments do not, themselves, suggest a racial motivation), then it is absolutely okay to assume a possible racial motivation.

With that said, however, and coming back to the point of this thread, if there is to be evidence of racial motivation in this case, it's still not appropriate to bring up race, if the only reason you are bringing up race is to criticize someone else for bringing up race. If you wish to discuss it as a/the contributing factor, by all means do so. But if you're only bringing it up to heighten the tension between sides, then one is no better than those one condemns.

I hope that all made sense. There was a lot of generals and theoreticals.
Income inequality, usually due to past racist policies. Whether it's right or not, it's easy to understand why many black people see things as a "us vs. them" mentality.

It's not. Black people are many times more likely to be incarcerated, even for similar crimes (if I remember correctly).

I feel there are many people who contribute to that failure, not the least of which are the so-called "leaders" of black America. Anyone who thinks Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shout at the rain for the advancement of minorities is naive. They shout because it makes money, and if it improves race relations, so be it. Of course, if it were to improve race relations, they would probably be out of a job, so they are not really so much worried about improving race relations as they are improving the status of black people. There's a subtle difference on the surface between the two (improving race relations and improving the status of black people) but it truly is a significant difference.

What other than prior racism is the basis for Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's existance? When we need to use Goerge Zimmerman's justified] self defense shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example of "classic" racism in the U.S. then something is terribly wrong. TM was not shot beacause he was black, he was shot because he chose to knock down and continue to beat GZ who happened to be armed and thus able to stop the attack. A jury decided that was fact and the federal DOJ despite much effort was unable to show otherwise, yet the POTUS thought that to be cause to "discuss race", explaining that he too had "suffered" from past racism.

Do not attempt to simply blow off the fact that (at least) one of the Chris Lane murdering perps expressed past racial hatred as "unrealted" to their later actions of killing someone of a different race, while saying that the POTUS was justified in using his own past experience of racism as a reason to question the actions/motivations of GZ.

Saying that TM could have been his son was simply insane, on the part of Obama, unless his son would likely have violently attacked GZ for simply observing/following him. What, other than past racism, could justify Obama not identifing with the person having to use deadly force to stop a violent and unprovoked violent attack (as verified by a jury) as possibly being his son? Perhaps that is also racism, since Obama's son would self identify as black due to their halfrican heritage instead of being a "white hispanic".

 

[Slyfox696]

No, that's shamelessly and cynically ginning up racial resentments and hatred. Goose, gander, etc.

Right, you're doing the same thing they are. I'm glad we agree.

What other than prior racism is the basis for Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's existance?

I think that is the wrong question to ask. I think the better question to ask is why does this country still give a damn what they think? I know I've mentioned this on the forum here before, but I have a friend who once said to me (part quote, part paraphrase), "Jesse Jackson does not speak for me. Al Sharpton does not speak for me. They do not speak for every black person in this country".

I always thought it was a very good insight. For some reason this country seems to think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the leaders of all black people, like Roger Goodell is the leader of the NFL. And this happens on both sides, with each side looking to these men for their views on race, whether it's to agree or disagree. We need to stop worrying about what they think and do more to make a bad problem better.

When we need to use Goerge Zimmerman's justified] self defense shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example of "classic" racism in the U.S. then something is terribly wrong. TM was not shot beacause he was black, he was shot because he chose to knock down and continue to beat GZ who happened to be armed and thus able to stop the attack. A jury decided that was fact and the federal DOJ despite much effort was unable to show otherwise, yet the POTUS thought that to be cause to "discuss race", explaining that he too had "suffered" from past racism.

There's many things in this paragraph which I'd like to address, but I'm not sure if I feel like doing it now. I agree TM was not shot because Zimmerman was a racist (though his skin color did have something to do with it, but only by the coincidence of reported black suspects involved in other crimes...in other words, it wasn't racism). I agree the media blew the race aspect way out of proportion, but they do that for most stories they cover, because their job is to sell, not inform. But at the same time, I think the fact it DID turn into an issue of race (even if it shouldn't have) should still provide us the REASONABLE ability to discuss race. And when I say reasonable I mean disqualify those who think racism today is equal to the 1860s and to disqualify those who think racism doesn't exist or has even turned back on the white man. None of those statements are true. We very much have many racist elements in society, from all races and I think we DO need to discuss race more than we do. We need to discuss race objectively, not like this thread tried to do, but rather with open and frank discussion. The problem with that conversation is that it's a very emotionally charged subject and most people simply cannot put aside their opinions, prejudices and history to do so.

Do not attempt to simply blow off the fact that (at least) one of the Chris Lane murdering perps expressed past racial hatred as "unrealted" to their later actions of killing someone of a different race, while saying that the POTUS was justified in using his own past experience of racism as a reason to question the actions/motivations of GZ.

I'm not. I'm saying past expressions of racism does not mean Lane was murdered for racist reasons. And I'm saying the POTUS was justified to discuss racism (I'm speaking more after the trial than before) because it's still a problem in this country and because of the media response to GZ, regardless of whether it should have originally been made about race or not, it is/was a good time to have the discussion. In other words, Obama was not justified because of GZ, but rather because it was a discussion already being had.

Saying that TM could have been his son was simply insane, on the part of Obama

I agree, but having just watched the full video, I don't think it was as big of a deal as others made it out to be. I just watched the video for the first time a minute ago, and I was always under the impression when Obama said if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon, he was using it to advance the position this situation was the result of racism. But that's not what he said at all, it was more of a personal message to Trayvon Martin's parents, a show of understanding how they feel about the loss of their son.

Don't get me wrong, Trayvon was far from the innocent boy originally portrayed from the media. This case was, most likely, not about race. But at the same time, a boy did still lose his life and at the time, due to the lack of details surrounding the situation, it was not inappropriate for the President to show the parents of a slain boy that their son's life meant something.


Again, I agree Obama saying that, as President, carries weight and it was not a good decision to say. But it was also not a prepared remark and Obama was probably speaking more as a father than he was as a President.

What, other than past racism, could justify Obama not identifing with the person having to use deadly force to stop a violent and unprovoked violent attack (as verified by a jury) as possibly being his son?

Well, it's important to note Obama did not say Trayvon Martin could have been his son. He said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. There is a difference. Again, I agree it was not a good statement by the man who is President, but I'm sure most fathers could at least understand the feeling of losing a child and being told the person who killed him wasn't even going to stand trial for it.

I'm not saying Zimmerman was legally wrong (though morally/ethically I think he leaves something to be desired), but I'm saying I think Obama was speaking more as a father than the President.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right, you're doing the same thing they are. I'm glad we agree.

I think that is the wrong question to ask. I think the better question to ask is why does this country still give a damn what they think? I know I've mentioned this on the forum here before, but I have a friend who once said to me (part quote, part paraphrase), "Jesse Jackson does not speak for me. Al Sharpton does not speak for me. They do not speak for every black person in this country".

I always thought it was a very good insight. For some reason this country seems to think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the leaders of all black people, like Roger Goodell is the leader of the NFL. And this happens on both sides, with each side looking to these men for their views on race, whether it's to agree or disagree. We need to stop worrying about what they think and do more to make a bad problem better.

There's many things in this paragraph which I'd like to address, but I'm not sure if I feel like doing it now. I agree TM was not shot because Zimmerman was a racist (though his skin color did have something to do with it, but only by the coincidence of reported black suspects involved in other crimes...in other words, it wasn't racism). I agree the media blew the race aspect way out of proportion, but they do that for most stories they cover, because their job is to sell, not inform. But at the same time, I think the fact it DID turn into an issue of race (even if it shouldn't have) should still provide us the REASONABLE ability to discuss race. And when I say reasonable I mean disqualify those who think racism today is equal to the 1860s and to disqualify those who think racism doesn't exist or has even turned back on the white man. None of those statements are true. We very much have many racist elements in society, from all races and I think we DO need to discuss race more than we do. We need to discuss race objectively, not like this thread tried to do, but rather with open and frank discussion. The problem with that conversation is that it's a very emotionally charged subject and most people simply cannot put aside their opinions, prejudices and history to do so.

I'm not. I'm saying past expressions of racism does not mean Lane was murdered for racist reasons. And I'm saying the POTUS was justified to discuss racism (I'm speaking more after the trial than before) because it's still a problem in this country and because of the media response to GZ, regardless of whether it should have originally been made about race or not, it is/was a good time to have the discussion. In other words, Obama was not justified because of GZ, but rather because it was a discussion already being had.

I agree, but having just watched the full video, I don't think it was as big of a deal as others made it out to be. I just watched the video for the first time a minute ago, and I was always under the impression when Obama said if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon, he was using it to advance the position this situation was the result of racism. But that's not what he said at all, it was more of a personal message to Trayvon Martin's parents, a show of understanding how they feel about the loss of their son.

Don't get me wrong, Trayvon was far from the innocent boy originally portrayed from the media. This case was, most likely, not about race. But at the same time, a boy did still lose his life and at the time, due to the lack of details surrounding the situation, it was not inappropriate for the President to show the parents of a slain boy that their son's life meant something.


Again, I agree Obama saying that, as President, carries weight and it was not a good decision to say. But it was also not a prepared remark and Obama was probably speaking more as a father than he was as a President.

Well, it's important to note Obama did not say Trayvon Martin could have been his son. He said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. There is a difference. Again, I agree it was not a good statement by the man who is President, but I'm sure most fathers could at least understand the feeling of losing a child and being told the person who killed him wasn't even going to stand trial for it.

I'm not saying Zimmerman was legally wrong (though morally/ethically I think he leaves something to be desired), but I'm saying I think Obama was speaking more as a father than the President.

Where Obama blew it on his analysis of the GZ/TM situation was in acknowedging that race should have been involved in the dicussion at all. To have a truley "post racial" society one must look at this case as the jury did - a case involving an aggressor and a defender. This was not some pre-arranged fight, as portrayed by many the media (and the prosecution), in which one party had the advantage of being legally armed and thus that fact alone establishes their intention of killing someone.

 

[washunut]

That's the question the irony impaired Jo-Ann Reid at NBC asked about the killing of the Australian baseball player in Oklahoma.

But the folks at MSNBC all have black belts in finding racism where it doesn't exist:

For Chris Matthews any criticism of Obama is due to "white supremacy".

For Martin Bashir, "IRS" is the new N-word. Any criticism of the IRS is nothing more than a racist attack on Obama, according to him.

For Lawrence O'Donnell a joke about Obama playing too much golf is a racist dog whistle.

And then there's Al Sharpton.

This bunch asking why conservatives make Oklahoma about race is like pornographers asking why everything is about sex.

But it was Eric Holder who asked for a national conversation about race. Of course, what he meant by that is that all of us sit quietly while he preached to us about the usual racial grievances. He didn't want or expect anyone else to actually say anything or offer an alternative view of the issues. Alas, though, white guilt is increasingly hard to come by.

So, instead there is a lot of push back, such as over the Zimmerman trial. People are appalled by the shameless and disgusting effort to exploit that tragedy, whereby Zimmerman became a "white Hispanic" and audio tapes were edited by NBC to make Zimmerman sound racist.

It is liberals who have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines. This strategy has worked well for them, ginning up resentments and firing up the troops. One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire.

Need a turn out the minority vote theme for 2014. Without Obama running many will stay home.