Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is there are more positive far far better ways to fight racism than to counter it with racism and hatred.
|
Okay, but it's a stretch to call anything this judge did racist or hateful. You, as someone who seems to constantly lament being called a racist, should understand this.
Quote:
|
We need t teach and learn from each other, not have Rev. Sharptons, Louis Farrakhans, and the likes or David Duke's or whomever running around creating more hatred. We need more men like George Foreman, MLK, later Malcolm X, Clarence Thomas', Colin Powells, and so on that get out there and will take up the cause in POSITIVE ways. Not keep reopening wounds, promote hated and preach ignorance so they can stay in power.
|
I agree that we need people who don't promote hatred. I think you have an overly broad definition of promoting hatred.
Quote:
|
I have stated before, I would feel the same about ANY judge removing all but a certain group out. It's prejudicial and goes against everything I believe a court and a judge should stand for. How are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said? I find it bullshit.
|
I know you find it bullshit. I think you're over reacting. I mean shit, why stop at not throwing everybody just the nonblacks out of the courtroom. Why didn't the judge take out an ad on one of his local radio stations, or better yet, why didn't he write a book? Like you said, how are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said?
I know you're a parent, so you should be aware of the differences, psychologically speaking, between lecturing someone in front of strangers and lecturing them in front of just their peers. Perhaps the judge felt that lecturing these young men in front of the rest of the court wouldn't have the desired effect. Do we even know what he said, specifically? If not, why are you making such a big fuss about it? It's quite possible that had he said whatever he said in front of everybody it would have been of little benefit to anybody else with respect to the lessening effect it might have had on the people for whom it was intended.
Quote:
But the worse part, for me is when 1 judge of a certain background can do it but another from a different background can't.
If you are going to argue that it is ok for a judge to do this then you best argue ALL judges can or you are just as prejudiced and hateful as those you supposedly are fighting against.
|
I think you are too quick to use the word hate, and it causes you problems when communicating with other people. Prejudice and hate are two different things and they don't necessarily always overlap. Accusing this judge, or anyone who supports him, or racial hatred is ridiculous. It is difficult to take one who makes such accusations seriously, especially when it is possible, given that little that we actually know about this judge, that the judge in question has done more to further race relations than you could ever hope to.
Quote:
There is a HUGE assed difference between proactive teaching to reject ANY prejudice and teaching hate and prejudice to fight hate and prejudiced.
Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright are positive and teach positive race relations????? Give me a fucking break.
|
Who cares about them?
Quote:
|
No, it's not reasonable and someday I would hope color, religion, sex and so on won't matter.
|
But it is reasonable. Someone who wasn't racist and discriminatory, full of hate you might say, wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of race.
Quote:
|
But right now they do. Why? Because again, oce you have people saying one judge can because of a certain background and another can't, PREJUDICE will be the first thing said and rightfully so.
|
So is your problem with what the judge did, or that you perceive some sort of double standard exists with respect to which judges can do it?