Conquer Club

Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Concerning Zimmerman Verdict

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:00 pm

Woodruff wrote:The evidence points to Trayvon's actions being much more than that, of course. I know you think you've got to trump-up everything to try to support your side of the argument, but you're doing such a terrible job of it that you should probably re-think that strategy.


Trayvon tested positive for marijuana in his system at the time of his death.
Ever hear of someone getting high on marijuana cigarettes then going out to curb stomp someone?

Generally it's just that rather than conceding the point you are discounting the testimony of a molestation victim who did identify the specific prejudices leading up to the attack, simply because she is a molestation victim and therefor might be a liar. And it's not even like her story is where the accusation of racial profiling comes from, it simply fits the fold.
Let's talk molestation for a second. It's a crime of dominance and power. It's not always about a sexual attraction to children, but there's always an edge of dominance to it. With his cousin's story, Zimmerman essentially just started touching her one night, without trying to groom her or anything like that, which to me suggests that he's not attracted to kids.
As for his record as Captain of the Watch, he called the police a few times, always on black people, and usually for petty reasons like WWB, or loitering. In each case, Zimmerman told the police that he didn't want the "suspects" to see him and that he didn't want to have to approach them. Yet on the day that he saw Trayvon, he chased after him. Why? Because Trayvon was smaller, a kid, and Zimmerman had a gun. He knew that he could dominate Trayvon. Zimmerman definitely has a hero complex of a sort, but he's only going to get physical if he knows for a fact that he can dominate the other person.


thegreekdog wrote:The profile of those people committing the buglaries started or included the term "black." In any event, it is interesting that the race of Martin did not come up until Zimmerman was asked by the police.

I also found it interesting that he didn't mention that Trayvon was talking on his phone. Zimmerman might not have understood what he was looking at, but if you can see that a person is black you can see that they are talking to someone.

thegreekdog wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Trayvon didn't get the opportunity to say that. Zimmerman only vaguely identified himself as a threat. If he had said "I am the watch captain" then I'm sure Trayvon would have said something similar to that. Though, it certainly would have been a hostile courtesy.

What would you have thought if you were in his shoes?


Frankly, if someone was following me I would call my girlfriend, complain that some [insert homosexual slur here] was following me, turn around and punch him in the face and then beat his skull against the curb. What would you do Juan? Same?


Yes and no.
>Call my girlfriend,
>Detective dumbass is following me or something,
>"DUDE, WHY THE F*CK ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME?"
I would be expecting him to identify himself as a stupid cop, so that I could then ask WTF I'm being charged with.
>Not a cop????? OH SH*T.jpeg
>rearrange his face with a rock or something
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:26 pm

Note to self - if following JB, identify myself.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby Woodruff on Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:16 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Woodruff wrote:The evidence points to Trayvon's actions being much more than that, of course. I know you think you've got to trump-up everything to try to support your side of the argument, but you're doing such a terrible job of it that you should probably re-think that strategy.


Trayvon tested positive for marijuana in his system at the time of his death.
Ever hear of someone getting high on marijuana cigarettes then going out to curb stomp someone?


Good Lord, are you just as ignorant about this subject as most of the conservatards here are? Your "evidence" is only mildly relevant to the issue at hand.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Generally it's just that rather than conceding the point you are discounting the testimony of a molestation victim who did identify the specific prejudices leading up to the attack, simply because she is a molestation victim and therefor might be a liar.


I think it's odd that you're not willing to concede that her motives might be in question. Well, it would be odd if you weren't a rhetoric-driven buffoon.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:23 am

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
spurgistan wrote:So you admit that being young and black made him look suspicious. Thank you. That's what racism is.


Here is where BBS and I part ways. It is absolutely racist to suggest that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious because he was black. This could be ameliorated by context, but I suppose we don't like to acknowledge that context matters (rishaed's post some time ago lays all that out - burglaries committed by young, black men in the same neighborhood in a period of time). So the question is this (and posed in a different thread) - if Martin had been the one committing the burglaries and Zimmerman had stayed in his car and Martin had been arrested based on Zimmerman's racist suspiscions - are you okay with that Spurgistan? BBS? Juan?


To be clear,

"Being racist" means believing in the superiority of one race over another--based solely upon race.

"Profiling" using a variety of characteristics, one which can include skin color, cannot be correctly called "racist suspicions." (If Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime--solely based on race and race alone, then I'd agree with your description of Zimmerman's activity).

"Profiling" may involve "prejudice," but prejudice is a silly word when taken out of context. Everyone is prejudiced even when it comes to trying new food, or getting a wiff of someone who smells bad. Very few can drop their expectations about others. So, even using a phrase like "prejudiced suspicions" would be silly. (I can't think of a way to correct the "racist suspicions" phrase).

So, with that aside, I'd still repeat what I said about profiling in your thread some days ago. And, if cops did it, or private security did it, I don't care--in that, it's not like cops have magical attributes which nullify their partiality or their potential racism/not caring about racism.


Generally, I find someone who looks "suspicious" to mean that I feel superior to that person (or that person is inferior to me, who does not look suspicious). Unless, I suppose, I want to look suspicious.


That's a silly way to define suspicious.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:25 am

Night Strike wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
john9blue wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.


Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?


Yes it is.


and that's okay.


I don't think it's okay (because I am anti-profiling regardless of the reason), but I understand and accept the arguments as to why it's okay.


How do you catch possible criminals without knowing their exact name, birthday, social security number, address, etc. then? You obviously don't go around arresting all black males to interrogate them all about the crime, but that doesn't mean you ignore a black male walking next to homes and peering into windows at night in a neighborhood that has been burglarized by at least one black male.


Haha, if we target males because recently males were breaking into houses, then I guess we'd be sexists. They'd assume that we think males are inferior.

(Their position doesn't make sense cuz reductio ad absurdum).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby spurgistan on Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:03 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
spurgistan wrote:So you admit that being young and black made him look suspicious. Thank you. That's what racism is.


Here is where BBS and I part ways. It is absolutely racist to suggest that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious because he was black. This could be ameliorated by context, but I suppose we don't like to acknowledge that context matters (rishaed's post some time ago lays all that out - burglaries committed by young, black men in the same neighborhood in a period of time). So the question is this (and posed in a different thread) - if Martin had been the one committing the burglaries and Zimmerman had stayed in his car and Martin had been arrested based on Zimmerman's racist suspiscions - are you okay with that Spurgistan? BBS? Juan?


To be clear,

"Being racist" means believing in the superiority of one race over another--based solely upon race.

"Profiling" using a variety of characteristics, one which can include skin color, cannot be correctly called "racist suspicions." (If Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime--solely based on race and race alone, then I'd agree with your description of Zimmerman's activity).

"Profiling" may involve "prejudice," but prejudice is a silly word when taken out of context. Everyone is prejudiced even when it comes to trying new food, or getting a wiff of someone who smells bad. Very few can drop their expectations about others. So, even using a phrase like "prejudiced suspicions" would be silly. (I can't think of a way to correct the "racist suspicions" phrase).

So, with that aside, I'd still repeat what I said about profiling in your thread some days ago. And, if cops did it, or private security did it, I don't care--in that, it's not like cops have magical attributes which nullify their partiality or their potential racism/not caring about racism.


Except that in this case there's still the power construct of a racist society. We're not trained to think of white people as "suspicious" in the same way as we're trained to think of young black men as possibly being up to no good. Do we think that if there had been a string of burglaries by white kids that the sequence would have gone the same?

Also, in response to TGD's question, I'd still be annoyed that an authority figure singled out a person for surveillance based solely on broadly defined racial characteristics, and would feel even more annoyed that those artificial characteristics were reinforced for one dumb person, but would lack the vitriol caused by the shooting death of a teenager who was armed with iced tea and Skittles.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby patches70 on Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:35 am

spurgistan wrote:
Except that in this case there's still the power construct of a racist society. We're not trained to think of white people as "suspicious" in the same way as we're trained to think of young black men as possibly being up to no good.


There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved- Jesse Jackson, November 27, 1993


Hey, you might be on to something there!
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:50 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
spurgistan wrote:So you admit that being young and black made him look suspicious. Thank you. That's what racism is.


Here is where BBS and I part ways. It is absolutely racist to suggest that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious because he was black. This could be ameliorated by context, but I suppose we don't like to acknowledge that context matters (rishaed's post some time ago lays all that out - burglaries committed by young, black men in the same neighborhood in a period of time). So the question is this (and posed in a different thread) - if Martin had been the one committing the burglaries and Zimmerman had stayed in his car and Martin had been arrested based on Zimmerman's racist suspiscions - are you okay with that Spurgistan? BBS? Juan?


To be clear,

"Being racist" means believing in the superiority of one race over another--based solely upon race.

"Profiling" using a variety of characteristics, one which can include skin color, cannot be correctly called "racist suspicions." (If Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime--solely based on race and race alone, then I'd agree with your description of Zimmerman's activity).

"Profiling" may involve "prejudice," but prejudice is a silly word when taken out of context. Everyone is prejudiced even when it comes to trying new food, or getting a wiff of someone who smells bad. Very few can drop their expectations about others. So, even using a phrase like "prejudiced suspicions" would be silly. (I can't think of a way to correct the "racist suspicions" phrase).

So, with that aside, I'd still repeat what I said about profiling in your thread some days ago. And, if cops did it, or private security did it, I don't care--in that, it's not like cops have magical attributes which nullify their partiality or their potential racism/not caring about racism.


Generally, I find someone who looks "suspicious" to mean that I feel superior to that person (or that person is inferior to me, who does not look suspicious). Unless, I suppose, I want to look suspicious.


That's a silly way to define suspicious.


Interestingly, I wasn't defining suspicious. I was attaching a quality to someone being suspicious, namely inferiority.

Try again?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:56 am

spurgistan wrote:Except that in this case there's still the power construct of a racist society. We're not trained to think of white people as "suspicious" in the same way as we're trained to think of young black men as possibly being up to no good. Do we think that if there had been a string of burglaries by white kids that the sequence would have gone the same?


Why do you think we're trained that way? If I'm in Philadelphia, for example, and I see a group of teenagers acting rowdy, I'll probably be suspicious and/or cautious. I don't think that has to do with any training I've had; rather, it has to do with the spate of assaults in Philadelphia whereby a group of teenagers attack random people. Is it racist for me to be suspicious and/or cautious if those teenagers are black? Yes. Do I care that I'm being racist? Nopers.

I do think that a string of burglaries by white kids would have gone the same way.

spurgistan wrote:Also, in response to TGD's question, I'd still be annoyed that an authority figure singled out a person for surveillance based solely on broadly defined racial characteristics, and would feel even more annoyed that those artificial characteristics were reinforced for one dumb person, but would lack the vitriol caused by the shooting death of a teenager who was armed with iced tea and Skittles.


I don't know what the red means. What I do know is that violence in the U.S. is not problematic because of stand-your-ground laws or white people shooting black men. The energy and zeal that Martin supporters (or Zimmerman detractors) have put in to their defense of Martin or attack of Zimmerman (and attendant items) is better served somewhere else.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby Woodruff on Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:21 am

patches70 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
Except that in this case there's still the power construct of a racist society. We're not trained to think of white people as "suspicious" in the same way as we're trained to think of young black men as possibly being up to no good.


There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved- Jesse Jackson, November 27, 1993

Hey, you might be on to something there!


You may be misinterpreting his statements...is Jesse Jackson saying he's relieved that it's somebody white and so he doesn't think he'll be robbed (I doubt this is it, based on what I know of Jesse Jackson) or is he saying that he's relieved that it's somebody white so that if he is robbed, at least it won't be another statistic against blacks (I find this likely, based on what I know of Jesse Jackson)?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby patches70 on Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:47 am

Woodruff wrote:
patches70 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:
Except that in this case there's still the power construct of a racist society. We're not trained to think of white people as "suspicious" in the same way as we're trained to think of young black men as possibly being up to no good.


There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved- Jesse Jackson, November 27, 1993

Hey, you might be on to something there!


You may be misinterpreting his statements...is Jesse Jackson saying he's relieved that it's somebody white and so he doesn't think he'll be robbed (I doubt this is it, based on what I know of Jesse Jackson) or is he saying that he's relieved that it's somebody white so that if he is robbed, at least it won't be another statistic against blacks (I find this likely, based on what I know of Jesse Jackson)?


The bold is what JJ means. You need only look into the quote to gain the context to understand. Back in the days when he was addressing black on black violence.

From the way, way back machine-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0824,d.aWc

-There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
-Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993). Quoted in "Crime: New Frontier - Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue" by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original). Partially quoted in US News & World Report (10 March 1996)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0824,d.aWc

Yes, racism from white America is the cause of hip hop culture glorifying the way of the gun, the thug life, of bitchez and ho's, ganglife and all that other jazz. JJ is saying that the black community has to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, that counting on government to fix it won't work, that blaming racism isn't the answer and to stop killing each other in the streets.

Wanna change the perception? Change the reality. TGD is a racist because-
TGD wrote:Why do you think we're trained that way? If I'm in Philadelphia, for example, and I see a group of teenagers acting rowdy, I'll probably be suspicious and/or cautious. I don't think that has to do with any training I've had; rather, it has to do with the spate of assaults in Philadelphia whereby a group of teenagers attack random people. Is it racist for me to be suspicious and/or cautious if those teenagers are black? Yes. Do I care that I'm being racist? Nopers.


TGD must be racist, he must have been programmed to be and not just because he's looking at a particular reality. People think blacks are overly criminal and look at them suspiciously? Statistically speaking blacks commit a far higher per capita crime rate than whites, mostly against each other. That's just reality. Blacks are killing blacks by the bucket load and it's not racist of people to not want to get caught up in that violence which is a statistical fact.

We can take the easy way out and blame racism, or we can take the individualist position in which people must take responsibility for their actions, regardless of their race. Even socio-economic positions don't justify murdering people, or beating people senseless. "Racist America forced me to sell drugs and kill that gangbanger!" It's a cop out.

The epidemic violence of black on black crime spills over into all areas of society and creates a perception. That's why focusing on Zimmerman is a waste of effort, there are far worse things going on that can be traced right back to this incident.

Does racism exist? Of course.
Was Zimmerman a racist? FBI investigations, the facts of the case, there is no evidence of that at all.
Does decrying Zimmerman as a racist address the real problems? Not in the slightest.


<shrugs> We can keep blaming racism and just sit back and watch as black youths murder each other in the streets or we can stop calling each other names, giving each other labels and start taking responsibility for ourselves as individuals and do the right and wise thing. Like not committing crimes on other people.

I know, I know, wishful thinking. But if thinking that a black is more suspicious than a white is racist, then Jesse Jackson is definitely a racist. Because he knows that he has a better chance of being robbed/harmed by another black than being robbed/harmed by a white. He's not being a racist with this thinking, he's looking at statistical reality and he's commenting that it's the black community that has to do something about this. And doing something about this problem is not achieved by crying racism at everything.

Pretty much what others have said in this thread-A white Hispanic killing a black is racism, a black killing a black is just statistics. Which is the bigger problem? Racist America or black on black violence? Is this protest against Zimmerman addressing any aspect of the bigger problem?

The black community is not being well served by this assumed Zimmerman racism and blaming this incident on racism. IMO.

But by all means, carry on with "Zimmerman is a racist" "Is not! Is too!" charade. (Not saying that you are participating in this charade, Woodruff, I'm just saying in general). It really avails to only throwing gasoline on a raging house fire.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:07 pm

spurgistan wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
spurgistan wrote:So you admit that being young and black made him look suspicious. Thank you. That's what racism is.


Here is where BBS and I part ways. It is absolutely racist to suggest that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious because he was black. This could be ameliorated by context, but I suppose we don't like to acknowledge that context matters (rishaed's post some time ago lays all that out - burglaries committed by young, black men in the same neighborhood in a period of time). So the question is this (and posed in a different thread) - if Martin had been the one committing the burglaries and Zimmerman had stayed in his car and Martin had been arrested based on Zimmerman's racist suspiscions - are you okay with that Spurgistan? BBS? Juan?


To be clear,

"Being racist" means believing in the superiority of one race over another--based solely upon race.

"Profiling" using a variety of characteristics, one which can include skin color, cannot be correctly called "racist suspicions." (If Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime--solely based on race and race alone, then I'd agree with your description of Zimmerman's activity).

"Profiling" may involve "prejudice," but prejudice is a silly word when taken out of context. Everyone is prejudiced even when it comes to trying new food, or getting a wiff of someone who smells bad. Very few can drop their expectations about others. So, even using a phrase like "prejudiced suspicions" would be silly. (I can't think of a way to correct the "racist suspicions" phrase).

So, with that aside, I'd still repeat what I said about profiling in your thread some days ago. And, if cops did it, or private security did it, I don't care--in that, it's not like cops have magical attributes which nullify their partiality or their potential racism/not caring about racism.


Except that in this case there's still the power construct of a racist society. We're not trained to think of white people as "suspicious" in the same way as we're trained to think of young black men as possibly being up to no good. Do we think that if there had been a string of burglaries by white kids that the sequence would have gone the same?

Also, in response to TGD's question, I'd still be annoyed that an authority figure singled out a person for surveillance based solely on broadly defined racial characteristics, and would feel even more annoyed that those artificial characteristics were reinforced for one dumb person, but would lack the vitriol caused by the shooting death of a teenager who was armed with iced tea and Skittles.


"Power construct" is a concept used to bring existence to issues which don't exist. If you want to talk about methodology, be my guest, but the humanities from which such concepts arise are definitely 'going down the tubes' (thank god). Anyway, the bolded still isn't true, as explained. I don't find inventing such tensions to serve as good enough defense.

Also, "racist society" is funny to say, since you start with the premise that the "society" (whatever that is--perhaps whatever you want it to be) is definitely racist. That needs to be questioned, since clarity needs to be at least brought to the table first.

The underlined wasn't the case, as has been explained many times. More variables then skin color were used.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:10 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
spurgistan wrote:So you admit that being young and black made him look suspicious. Thank you. That's what racism is.


Here is where BBS and I part ways. It is absolutely racist to suggest that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious because he was black. This could be ameliorated by context, but I suppose we don't like to acknowledge that context matters (rishaed's post some time ago lays all that out - burglaries committed by young, black men in the same neighborhood in a period of time). So the question is this (and posed in a different thread) - if Martin had been the one committing the burglaries and Zimmerman had stayed in his car and Martin had been arrested based on Zimmerman's racist suspiscions - are you okay with that Spurgistan? BBS? Juan?


To be clear,

"Being racist" means believing in the superiority of one race over another--based solely upon race.

"Profiling" using a variety of characteristics, one which can include skin color, cannot be correctly called "racist suspicions." (If Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime--solely based on race and race alone, then I'd agree with your description of Zimmerman's activity).

"Profiling" may involve "prejudice," but prejudice is a silly word when taken out of context. Everyone is prejudiced even when it comes to trying new food, or getting a wiff of someone who smells bad. Very few can drop their expectations about others. So, even using a phrase like "prejudiced suspicions" would be silly. (I can't think of a way to correct the "racist suspicions" phrase).

So, with that aside, I'd still repeat what I said about profiling in your thread some days ago. And, if cops did it, or private security did it, I don't care--in that, it's not like cops have magical attributes which nullify their partiality or their potential racism/not caring about racism.


Generally, I find someone who looks "suspicious" to mean that I feel superior to that person (or that person is inferior to me, who does not look suspicious). Unless, I suppose, I want to look suspicious.


That's a silly way to define suspicious.


Interestingly, I wasn't defining suspicious. I was attaching a quality to someone being suspicious, namely inferiority.

Try again?


You're inserting your own normative claims about "suspicion" and presuming the same for all involved. You're using an analogy which you've constructed in your own mind, and then applying that to the individuals of this scenario--individuals whom you possess very limited information about, internally.

Do you think that's a problem?

Anyway, the part in bold I find incorrect--if that helps clarify the conversation here.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:55 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:You're inserting your own normative claims about "suspicion" and presuming the same for all involved. You're using an analogy which you've constructed in your own mind, and then applying that to the individuals of this scenario--individuals whom you possess very limited information about, internally.

Do you think that's a problem?

Anyway, the part in bold I find incorrect--if that helps clarify the conversation here.


I do not think that's a problem. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where identifying a criminal by racial characteristics is seen as a neutral thing. It has negative connotations whether or not there are insidious undertones (or insidious overtness). Martin was black and perhaps he was acting suspiciously; but when inserting "black" and "suspicious" in the same discussion, our society views that as racist. Again, unfortunately, the normative claims of pretty much everyone are going to be the same about suspicion, unless you're a super villain or something.

In any event, the problem you have is that I insinuated that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious because Martin was black. Perhaps you are correct that I have placed my own bias on to Zimmerman's thoughts and actions; however, the evidence provided, in addition to context, strongly supposes that Zimmerman identified Martin as a potential threat, worthy of suspicion, because he was black. Nothing I've read on this site or anywhere else suggests that Zimmerman did not know or, more importantly, did not care about Martin's race when he eventually called the police and eventually confronted Martin. There's that and there's the bulk of our society's normative views on race and crime: either blacks are unfairly persecuted or blacks commit a whole lot of crimes per capita compared to other races or sometimes both. I don't know many people who don't hold one or more of those views. Perhaps you are the only one.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Zimmerman

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:32 pm

tgd wrote:Perhaps you are correct that I have placed my own bias on to Zimmerman's thoughts and actions; however, the evidence provided, in addition to context, strongly supposes that Zimmerman identified Martin as a potential threat, worthy of suspicion, because he was black


If that was the only criterion used by Zimmerman to identify Martin as a threat, then I'd agree on the "suspicious racism" part, but from what I've seen, it wasn't the only characteristic used. Martin was young, allegedly was sneaking around/looking into houses, and there was the relevant past, criminal circumstances of others. I assume Zimmerman used more than just skin color to assess the situation, and IIRC, that was clarified in court. It could be the case that Zimmerman simply lied, but we'd have no way of knowing either way--(caveat: people like JB would know nevertheless because he can read minds through television). So... where's that put us? A 1v1 Duel for Truth?

tgd wrote:There's that and there's the bulk of our society's normative views on race and crime: either blacks are unfairly persecuted or blacks commit a whole lot of crimes per capita compared to other races or sometimes both. I don't know many people who don't hold one or more of those views. Perhaps you are the only one.


Well, there's the positive and the normative. If one states: "black people on average commit more crimes per capita in place X," then that's a positive, scientific statement. There's nothing morally repugnant with it itself because it merely explains. Positive claims explain "what it is."

Normative claims state "what should be" or "ought to be," and they can underlie the positive statements. For example, it occurs when people insert a "that's wrong/right/racist/sexist" opinion in statements like "for everyone 1 male, heterosexual child molester, there are 16 who are homosexual, child molesters." Saxi mentioned that study, and some people went ballistic because they're confusing scientific statements with their blended, normative claims. (Who knows what they were assuming about the researchers, but I'm sure they'd let their opinions run wild without verification). Another example, it's what spurgistan was doing with his "power construct/racist society" analysis; it's unscientific.

    To be clear, racism exists, but people too often insert racism into places where they're not occurring, and usually they don't care to verify if racism was even relevant to the issue, nor do they care to consider other factors (e.g. being young, the history of crime of area X, etc.). They assume only that "racism is happening" to be true, then crusade about presumed injustice--which is not helpful.

I strive to keep the distinction between the positive and normative clear for good reason. Failing to maintain the distinction usually taints the analysis, so maybe that'll clarify our discussion here. Of course, most of society fails to do this because they're generally unscientific and also because aligning the facts with one's normative beliefs is self-assuring, cheap, and efficient (i.e. they don't know any better, or rather don't value the positive, scientific path as much). Great and frequent examples of this are Player, JB, NS, and Phatscotty. (In my opinion, you fall into this category as well--after only considering your position up this point).
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:35 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:You're inserting your own normative claims about "suspicion" and presuming the same for all involved. You're using an analogy which you've constructed in your own mind, and then applying that to the individuals of this scenario--individuals whom you possess very limited information about, internally.

Do you think that's a problem?

Anyway, the part in bold I find incorrect--if that helps clarify the conversation here.


I do not think that's a problem.


To go on a tangent, it can be a problem because using such an analogy presumes that one knows what the observed is thinking. One presumes to know how the observed defines and understanding their visual stimulae, environment, others, etc. In most cases, that's not a problem, since I can imagine that being on fire is terrible, so if I see JB on fire, then I'd think, "gee, that's terrible."

Sometimes, it's a problem for cases such as this one, which is why I mention it. We just don't know at the moment how Zimmerman assessed the situation (which goes back to the Duel for Truth paragraph above).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:43 pm

Is Duel for the Truth like a WWE cage match?


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Zimmerman

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:42 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Is Duel for the Truth like a WWE cage match?


--Andy



Excellent suggestion, Andy. We need a WWE CC map.

Or it's this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=193621
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:13 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:A 1v1 Duel for Truth?


Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sometimes, it's a problem for cases such as this one, which is why I mention it. We just don't know at the moment how Zimmerman assessed the situation (which goes back to the Duel for Truth paragraph above).


See above.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, there's the positive and the normative. If one states: "black people on average commit more crimes per capita in place X," then that's a positive, scientific statement. There's nothing morally repugnant with it itself because it merely explains. Positive claims explain "what it is."

Normative claims state "what should be" or "ought to be," and they can underlie the positive statements. For example, it occurs when people insert a "that's wrong/right/racist/sexist" opinion in statements like "for everyone 1 male, heterosexual child molester, there are 16 who are homosexual, child molesters." Saxi mentioned that study, and some people went ballistic because they're confusing scientific statements with their blended, normative claims. (Who knows what they were assuming about the researchers, but I'm sure they'd let their opinions run wild without verification). Another example, it's what spurgistan was doing with his "power construct/racist society" analysis; it's unscientific.

To be clear, racism exists, but people too often insert racism into places where they're not occurring, and usually they don't care to verify if racism was even relevant to the issue, nor do they care to consider other factors (e.g. being young, the history of crime of area X, etc.). They assume only that "racism is happening" to be true, then crusade about presumed injustice--which is not helpful.

I strive to keep the distinction between the positive and normative clear for good reason. Failing to maintain the distinction usually taints the analysis, so maybe that'll clarify our discussion here. Of course, most of society fails to do this because they're generally unscientific and also because aligning the facts with one's normative beliefs is self-assuring, cheap, and efficient (i.e. they don't know any better, or rather don't value the positive, scientific path as much). Great and frequent examples of this are Player, JB, NS, and Phatscotty. (In my opinion, you fall into this category as well--after only considering your position up this point).


Short answer - I don't disagree with most of that on principle, but you have an entirely unrealistic world view.

Long answer - See red. While it is undoubtedly noble (and scientific) of you to strive to keep the distinction between scientific data and normative views, it is ultimately doomed to failure because most of our society (I would frankly say all because I'm sure you have some views on people, things, places, based on no evidence other than your own internal biases) does not view statistics in anything other than through their own lens. There is a fascinating fantasy football article that is released every year around this time wherein Matthew Berry of espn.com presents a host of statistics and then makes a conclusion. He notes at the beginning of the article every year that writers can make statistics say what they want them to say simply by pointing out only certain statistics and ignoring others. Similarly, you, me, JB, NS, Phatscotty, Player, Woodruff, etc. can post statistics or some scientific study that supports their own normative views on different issues. I do it all the time. You do it a lot.

Ignoring that my own point of view on the Zimmerman/Martin issue is that it is irrelevant soap opera-ish drivel compared to actual issues with violence and racism in the United States, my specific view on this subject is that Zimmerman made a negative conclusion (suspicious) about Martin based, however minor you want to think, on Martin's race. Once the profile that Zimmeran used was, in no particular order, (a) night time, (b) man, (c) young, (d) black, (e) peering into windows, (f) rash of burglaries, wherein the profile included the race of Martin, the issue became about race. Should it have been a racial issue? Of course not, that's silly. Zimmerman could have been suspicious about Martin by (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) alone without (d). I've indicated previously and multiple times in this thread that I don't believe race is a strong or useful identifying factor in a profile. So if race is not necessary for a profile and taking into account the views of all spectrums of our society that race is a hot button issue that leads to conflict, why even mention it? This case is an issue only because of Martin's race AND because Martin's race was a factor, however minor, in the confrontation; whether you think that is fair or not is irrelevant because 99% of our society thinks Martin's race was relevant to the situation and they have a basis in thinking that way. So we have to deal with that issue and the way to deal with it is to eliminate race from profiling.

I think I've digressed, but... let me know what map. I won't play freestyle or speed, but anything else is good.

Also Andy - Cage matches are for wimps. We need Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber. Perhaps a ladder match.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Zimmerman

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:24 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:A 1v1 Duel for Truth?


Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).


Just curious about this part.....so when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what race the suspicious person is, Zimmerman should have ignored the question?? Because that would have some implications for the whole "HE REFUSED TO LISTEN TO THE DISPATCHER!!!" thing

I have a "suspicion" that you are still working with the edited version of the 911 call recording
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Zimmerman

Postby loutil on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:21 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:A 1v1 Duel for Truth?


Short answer - Yes.
Slightly longer answer - I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Even longer answer - The problem lies, again, with societal norms and what our society deems to be acceptable profiling and what our society deems to be unacceptable profiling. The profiling of a black man, regardless of additional factors, is grounds for immediate suspiscion. Zimmerman acknowledged thinking Martin was black and, regardless of other factors (young, walking at night, peering into windows, past history of break-ins in the neighborhood), the "black" part stands out. If Zimmerman said he didn't know what color skin Martin had, perhaps we would be discussing something else (actually, we probably would be discussing something more important, like violence in inner cities or public education problems or conflict in the middle east).


Why is the profiling of a black man, regardless of factors, suspicious? Let us look at a something in the press right now. New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success. NY has gone from one of the worst big cities for crime to one of the best. Now the liberals are pushing back because 90% of the people stopped and frisked are either black or Hispanic. Even the Washington Post wrote an editorial calling this blatant profiling and bad policy. However, the newspaper and the rest of liberal followers miss the "other factors". 95% of all murders and shooting victims in New York are black or Hispanic. 90.2% of all people arrested for murder and 96.7% of all people arrested for shooting someone are either black or Hispanic. It would be good police work to focus on those groups when trying to prevent more. Frisking a 73 yr old whit woman or a 42 yr old man from China may make your liberal heart feel better but it wont stop crime. However, profiling young Hispanics and young African Americans is exactly how you stop crime as it has with DRAMATIC results in NY. In 2012 NY city recorded it lowest level of homicides since at least 1963 when reliable records were first kept.
Image
User avatar
General loutil
Team Leader
Team Leader
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: Zimmerman

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:56 pm

A tragic example was apartheid in South Africa. With strict curfews and areas off access to the black population, overall crime was lower. After the ANC took over (roughly 1991-1994) crime since then has tripled/quadrupled. There's other factors involved like imposing Western, developed country-standards for labor regulations, which caused significant unemployment (whoops), which is generally viewed as one of several determinants of crime.

Saudi Arabia supposedly has a relatively low crime rate--compared to developed, Western countries, but they also have strict forms of punishment and law.

Before an idiot puts words in my mouth, I don't support apartheid, and I am unsure as to the efficiency of stricter forms of corporeal punishment, but there's obviously a hard tradeoff to be made between crime and liberalism, and there's other factors, other than policing methods and state laws, which can lower crime.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Zimmerman

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:36 am

loutil wrote: New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success.

There are no numbers to support this claim. Crime rates have definitely gone down, but correlation isn't the same as causation. The "get tough on crime" policy overall has been a success, but "stop and frisk" means nothing on it's own.

"Stop and frisk" is supposed to be implemented in areas with high rates of crime. Stopping and searching someone because "being black is suspicious" is insanely racist and it's racist for you to defend it on the grounds that blacks and latinos are criminals and should therefore be frisked always.
The policy doesn't work like that. The stop and frisks happen in high crime areas; it's not a free card for cops to search black people anywhere they go in the city. And 88% is the most important number to keep in mind here. Because 88% of those searched were entirely innocent of anything.

Furthermore, If I follow your defense then black and latino communities should be routinely searched, and that's a terrible way for the police to make friends.


I'm a Liberal. I may have a bleeding heart, but at least I know what's right.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Zimmerman

Postby loutil on Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:13 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
loutil wrote: New York's stop and frisk policy. It has been an overwhelming success.

There are no numbers to support this claim. Crime rates have definitely gone down, but correlation isn't the same as causation. The "get tough on crime" policy overall has been a success, but "stop and frisk" means nothing on it's own.

"Stop and frisk" is supposed to be implemented in areas with high rates of crime. Stopping and searching someone because "being black is suspicious" is insanely racist and it's racist for you to defend it on the grounds that blacks and latinos are criminals and should therefore be frisked always.
The policy doesn't work like that. The stop and frisks happen in high crime areas; it's not a free card for cops to search black people anywhere they go in the city. And 88% is the most important number to keep in mind here. Because 88% of those searched were entirely innocent of anything.

Furthermore, If I follow your defense then black and latino communities should be routinely searched, and that's a terrible way for the police to make friends.


I'm a Liberal. I may have a bleeding heart, but at least I know what's right.

Why am I not surprised that you put words in my mouth to try and make a point? I never said that being black is suspicious. I never said all blacks and latinos should be frisked. Allowing the police to stop and frisk those people they deem suspicious, based on behavior and NOT skin color, has worked.
Further, your stat is not exactly correct. Last year close to 700,000 people were stopped on the street. Approximately half were frisked and about 10% were arrested. 2 important points. 1: just because you were not arrested does not mean you were "entirely innocent". 2. They made 70,000 arrests. That is an amazing result and statistic.
Image
User avatar
General loutil
Team Leader
Team Leader
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: Zimmerman

Postby loutil on Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:15 am

The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a penal law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons. The rules for stop, question and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio.
Image
User avatar
General loutil
Team Leader
Team Leader
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur