|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
This anchor on CNN is like so terrible it's hard to watch. I hate being misogynist but I feel like she has her job because she's mildly attractive.
|
On June 28 2013 00:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 00:11 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin. Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman. Two possible scenarios: Trayvon hid, but was found or Zimmerman continued looking for Trayvon There's a reason that they're closer to Tayvon's house than they are to Zimmerman's car even though they initially saw each other near Zimmerman's car. Only two ? Really ? It's absolutely impossible that Trayvon approached Zimmerman ? Not even in the realm of possibility in your world, huh ? He's a teenage football player and he can't keep distance away from Zimmerman. That is just ridiculous to me. edit: I mean, really, that recording of Zimmerman when he says "they always get away" does not exactly back up the line of thinking that Trayvon couldn't evade Zimmerman, when everybody else he called the cops on was able to.
Trayvon saw Zimmerman at his car, if he wanted to meet zimmerman, he'd go back to Zimmerman's car, not hang around near his house talking to his girl. He didn't.
You somehow believe Trayvon has magical sonar that allowed him to know that Zimmerman was several blocks away from the last place Trayvon saw him. This is real life, not a videogame.
|
On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron.
All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term.
|
On June 28 2013 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 00:11 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:
[quote]
And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks.
Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin. Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman. Two possible scenarios: Trayvon hid, but was found or Zimmerman continued looking for Trayvon There's a reason that they're closer to Tayvon's house than they are to Zimmerman's car even though they initially saw each other near Zimmerman's car. Only two ? Really ? It's absolutely impossible that Trayvon approached Zimmerman ? Not even in the realm of possibility in your world, huh ? He's a teenage football player and he can't keep distance away from Zimmerman. That is just ridiculous to me. edit: I mean, really, that recording of Zimmerman when he says "they always get away" does not exactly back up the line of thinking that Trayvon couldn't evade Zimmerman, when everybody else he called the cops on was able to. Trayvon saw Zimmerman at his car, if he wanted to meet zimmerman, he'd go back to Zimmerman's car, not hang around near his house talking to his girl. He didn't. You somehow believe Trayvon has magical sonar that allowed him to know that Zimmerman was several blocks away from the last place Trayvon saw him. This is real life, not a videogame.
Why approach his car in the street, in a lighted area, when you can attack him between houses where it's very dark and he is more vulnerable to your attack, if attacking him is Trayvon's intention ? The idea that Zimmerman was able to beat Trayvon in some footrace is ridiculous, especially considering Zimmerman was still in his car and only began to get out when he was Trayvon run away. Wtf, have some logic in your thoughts on what happened.
|
My guess:
Zimmerman followed Martin, yelled at him. Taking him for criminal on racial bias. Martin, not very smart acted as expected from a stupid 17year old, by turning arround, maybe insulting or maybe threatening Zimmerman. While younger, Martin may assumed he could beat Zimmerman in a fight, i guess he took him for fat and slow.
(Martin : 1.80 m 72 kg ,Zimmerman 1.73 91kg)
|
I keep waiting for her to reach in to a barrell next to her, and grab a giant frog like creature and shove it in her mouth, before licking her lips.
|
On June 28 2013 00:51 plgElwood wrote:
My guess:
Zimmerman followed Martin, yelled at him. Taking him for criminal on racial bias. Martin, not very smart acted as expected from a stupid 17year old, by turning arround, maybe insulting or maybe threatening Zimmerman. While younger, Martin may assumed he could beat Zimmerman in a fight, i guess he took him for fat and slow.
(Martin : 1.80 m 72 kg ,Zimmerman 1.73 91kg)
Totally plausible and reasonable way to see it.
|
Why approach his car in the street, in a lighted area, when you can attack him between houses where it's very dark and he is more vulnerable to your attack, if attacking him is Trayvon's intention ?
Travon Walk AWAY from zimmermans car and told the girl he was talking to "I lost him" thats not something someone looking at "attack" someone does
|
Trayvon had a minute and a half to go wherever he wanted after GZ lost sight of him and then stood around finishing his non-emergency call.
Trayvon chose to double back and ambush GZ.
|
"What does wet grass sound like?"
"Leaf"
|
"Was the water running?" - "No." - "Why not" - what? To be fair, she's bad, but he's asking stupid questions as well, even though i know what he's trying to do.
|
|
|
That name sums it up. Pretty much.
|
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods.
|
On June 28 2013 01:04 copt wrote:I can only understand about 30% of this witness but I have achieved something truly magical: http://i.imgur.com/YFdlLLt.jpg
You sire are amazing!!
Sir
|
I know that West is going by the book in his cross of Jeantel by going through each inconsistent version of events that she has given, but at some point I would think that the jury would tune it out. I'm pretty sure that they have made up their minds one way or another by now.
|
On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term.
but it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't a culture of discrimination against white people. Racism against whites is a laughable concept because there has never been a deeply ingrained culture bias against whites, nor has the government played an active role in discrimination against them.
On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know
|
Did she just say "that would be retarded"? Oo
|
On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know
Are you kidding? He has totally eviscerated her credibility. She is all over the place on what her testimony is.
|
How does she not know what he's talking about? This is unreal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
