Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?
I didn't use a slur. I quoted testimony.
Since you made no mention of the fact that you were quoting testimony I had no idea you were quoting testimony.
You'll forgive me, I trust, for not having commited all of the testimony in this case, in its entirety, to memory.
I see now that you put quotes around the comment but since you didn't attribute it to anyone in particular I guess I must have assumed that surrounding things you say in quotations was simply some peculiarity to your posting style. I've seen stranger things here on the Interwebz.
I just went and Googled the comment and I see now that it was actually a comment Rachel Jeantel made during cross examination the other day.
Do you stand by this comment, in defense of racial slurs?
I've already made my position on racial slurs clear.
I defend anyone's right, yours (regardless of whether or not you actually do) and Rachel Jeantel's alike, to use racial slurs.
I may not use them myself, and I may find them reprehensible generally, but the 1st Amendment guarantees our right to use them and I stand with the Constitution.
I think the Constitution makes the right call here.
As a white man I don't feel hurt, belittled, offended, put upon, or effected in any other way by Jeantel's use of the word "cracker" to refer to a white man.
Words are just words and they have no more power to hurt us then we deliberately surrender to them.
To the contrary, a prohibition against using any particular word is a pretty slippery slope.
You may find "cracker" offensive.
I may find "Jesus" offensive.
Do we only prohibit the words you find offensive?
See what I mean?