Trayvon Martin.

You're helping THOSE peolpe? Man, screw you.

/sarcasm

 

I appreciate that you care and that you devote yourself to the things that you do. But i hope you can see that minimizing someone's opinion who obviously cares by implying that because they are not discussing what you think is important at that particular time is neither fair nor productive. No, talking about racial issues is never easy...not even here. I've become quite accustomed to being told that what i see as important does not exist. That i feel guilty because i am white. That every negative aspect of being a minority in america is self-perpuating. And to then be told because some of us see relevance in the martin/zimmerman case that we're not caring about the right racism...sorry, but that is a little rich. I care. I've always cared and i've said so explicitly and it hasn't always made me popular around here. If you don't agree with what's being said then fine, just say so. But please spare us the delusion that we care about this to the exclusion of every other fucked up racial reality happening out there. Believe me, we care.

 

Can't believe I typed all that on my phone w. no typos. At least I don't think there are typos.

And for the record, my comment wasn't directed just at you, borla. If that were the case, I would have addressed you directly. There were a chorus of suggestions flying around on this thread.

 

No, it was directed at me, at least in part. So now I get to explain.

That little title beneath my avatar is my curse for volunteering here - so let's defuse that bomb with "this is my opinion and has nothing to do with the site or any rules."

Apparently because Bodkin expressed his opinion then mistook my attempt at levity as a personal insult, I'm A Problem. Apparently when I disagree with you and Bodkin and others about the nature of racism and specific issues within that nature, I'm A Problem. And apparently my Problem lies in my lack of posting new threads or in responding in others. I'm sorry, but the last time I checked no one appointed you the Chief Measuring Stick of How Much People Care. So you don't get to diminish my opinions or tell me that I'm being shitty because I chose to share them - or not. Even if I were a half-witted moron - jury's still out, so it's not official - my opinion still holds as much validity as anyone else's. Reading back my biggest mistake was sinking to Bodkin's level when he decided to try to paint Borla in a corner with his little Rosa Parks dig - which, by the way, was a particularly shitty little strawman.

At the end of the day, you and Bodkin are more than welcome to express your opinion, just as everyone else is. That's what TFP is for, after all. But you do not get to tell anyone - either explicitly or implicitly - that they "don't care" about an issue, especially in comparison to someone else. You don't get to measure the level of someone's devotion to a cause based on the number of posts in relevant threads and then try to belittle that opinion on that metric. And you sure as shit don't get to dictate who does or doesn't get to post in this or any thread. I completely disagree that your first response "had to be said", mainly because you're attempting to completely invalidate anyone's disagreement with you. This has now gone from - in my opinion - a discussion of where the Martin/Zimmerman trial fits in the greater pantheon of race relations to a dick-measuring contest about who cares about race relations more. Put away your fucking ruler.

 

Not if it's caught on tape.

Sick White Teens Beat Black Man & Run Him Over for Fun (VIDEO) | The Stir

 

I don't know how you came across the video, Joniemack... but I do know there is a difference between someone that makes a dead cat joke and another person that links videos of cats being killed.

You don't need to show me that the world is an ugly, cruel place.

 

Perhaps if jurors were required to be of a certain intelligence. If you're too stupid to deliberate based on the evidence presented and your only contribution to the process is your perception that the defendant "has a good heart" you shouldn't be doling out justice.
--- merged: Jul 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM ---

Be glad I didn't reach around while I was twisting your arm, Plan.

 

Oh, I didn't watch the video. I always assume you're trolling with nasty porn.

Part of being Web savvy is never clicking on anything posted in a forum.

 

The video is grainy security camera footage taken at night and at a distance.

I wouldn't subject you to blood and gore.

 

I've been away from here for a while and didn't read through this whole thread (obviously -- it's 34 pages long). I did read the OP, though. Very restrained and sober, I must say, especially in light of the media circus that has since grown around the case.

FWIW, I don't know a single lawyer of any political stripe whom I have spoken with about how the trial went who thinks the State had much of a case here. I'm a civil litigator, not criminal, so some of the details of the proceedings probably flew right past me, but I do recall criminal cases from back when I clerked in federal court (more years ago than I care to think about). I was surprised the State put some of those witnesses on, and based on how the State's own witnesses testified, I was surprised they took the case to trial.

None of what I'm saying has anything to do with the kind of larger questions that got bandied about with respect to this case. I'm looking at this narrowly, as a lawyer. But I'm sure everyone here would want and expect that if they got caught up in the legal system they would want a narrow focus on their case and their case's evidence, rather than to be made a symbol of someone else's agenda.

 

I didn't take it as a personal insult. I just thought you were lashing out because you were pissed off. If you could have seen my face when I responded to your "failed levity", you would have seen me: one eyebrow raised, eyes pointed to the left all like "check out this triple decker irony." Though you have to admit, given the contempt you apparently have for me, a reasonable person could probably be forgiven for reading what you said as a personal insult.

I'm not quite sure how we disagree about the nature of racism or what you mean by "specific issues within that nature". I try to clarify your opinion and you just get pissed off at me.

And where exactly is my level? You've never not been on my level. You just occasionally delude yourself into believing that your shit doesn't stink. Because *NEWSFLASH* we're all on the same fucking level.

Who is doing any of these things?

Weren't you the guy in the "people who care about Trayvon Martin are less concerned about fixing racial problems then me because I know about black on black crime" camp? I mean, if anyone brought out the ruler, it was Borla, with his appeals to proportionality.

 

I object to Plan9 getting special status as a "protected class"...the dude is well armed and can take care of himself responsibly.

 

Plan gets special status solely due to the smooth spot he sports.

 

What's Plan9 armed with?

 

gravitas, baby.

 

I think I made my point in that post pretty clear, Mr. Hyperbole. Of course, it is irrelevant that I felt like my opinion and that of Bodkin's (whom I happen to agree with) was being invalidated on this thread. I'm sitting here wondering how I should address this overblown mess and, you know, I'm tired and I had a shitty day. I don't think I have anything more to say.

 

Like a badge? We don't need no stinking badges.

 

Relevant - Black Man Kills White Kid, Nobody Gives A Hoot Because It Was Legit

Good for him. Seriously.

 

I don't know the case, don't have time this morning to chase down the full story but at first glance I see that another young man is dead at the hands of a "concerned" neighbor who found it necessary to confront a would be thief with a deadly weapon. The property in question wasn't even his own. Then it appears he gets to call foul when he finds himself in a position where the weapon can be of some use in protecting him from the consequences of his own actions. Sounds pretty much like the Zimmerman case in that respect and makes a damned good case for discouraging citizens from taking these matters into their own hands when there's a deadly weapon in them. But of course, that means we have to talk about conditions and possible limitations on the use of firearms and we're not allowed to go there without being labeled anti-gun nuts by the over-bearing opposition.

The fact that it was a black man killing a white kid makes little difference to me. The fact that there might have been an actual crime in progress is also irrelevant. This guy had no business confronting those young men armed. The chances that he'd find himself in a position to have to use his weapon (kill a kid so I car could live) were too great no matter how remote they were. It's called vigilantism and not what anyone should be supporting or advocating for.

But like I said, the article you posted gives very little in the way of detail and this is a first impression.