Straight Dope Message Board

[Babale]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

Counter examples:
1 - Neighbor called the police due to 4 suspicious looking individuals, they broke into the other neighbors house before the police arrived

2 - I spotted some suspicious looking guys walking down the street as I drove past a neighbors house to work. I turned around at the next street and came back to catch them stealing neighbors bike.

3 - Neighbor (older woman) hired a handy man to work on house and my wife and I picked up some odd signals that were tough to identify, something felt off with this person, like manipulative, too friendly, and some other things. We called neighbor's daughter and mentioned our concerns that he seemed really "suspicious" and to watch out for her stuff. A few days later the cops were at the house, the guy had stolen her car, jewelry and a bunch of tools from the garage.


Ignoring data is not smart. Sure you need to try not to let bias and bigotry influence the process, but that doesn't mean you ignore all data until someone commits a crime.


fyi: all people in above examples were white, race is not automatically the issue in all cases, but I do have black friends and they tell me about how often they get pulled over, so I get there is a lot of it.

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo

Along with RaftPeople's examples, I have a bunch of my own.

A neighbor sees someone shining a flashlight into someone's window. Stopping to ask why they're doing that seems more reasonable than watching them continue or waiting to see if he really does break in.

A neighbor sees someone sitting out in the street, talking to someone on the phone. They don't go in a house. They just sit there, for an hour or more. They get up to go toward an empty house every once in a while.

A neighbor sees someone coming out of someone's yard. They are unfamiliar with them and don't see their neighbor that they are familiar with, at the house.


You're saying that the only option available is to call the police when asking might clarify what's going on.

Originally Posted by Shodan

Zimmerman called the non-emergency police dispatcher immediately upon spotting Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. And it was while Zimmerman was trying to find a house number or street address so that he could meet up with the police, who were on their way, when Martin confronted and attacked him.Same for Zimmerman. Which is why he did what he did.

Regards,
Shodan

Your whole "Martin doubled back because the dirty black man lusted for white blood" narrative has been debunkeed like 50 time now. Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. 51

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I submit this quote for the "no shit, Sherlock" observation of the year.

Yeah, it used to be conservatives would say "I'm not racist, but...."

Now it's more like "Go ahead, call me a racist. I pretty much am. Har! Har!" 52

[Heffalump and Roo]

Originally Posted by Babale

Your whole "Martin doubled back because the dirty black man lusted for white blood" narrative has been debunkeed like 50 time now. Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

That is NOT my narrative. What Martin did or did not do did not cross my mind. I don't know what happened in that situation. I only have your description to go on.

My only point is that, regardless of race, there are situations where people might ask someone in their neighborhood that they don't recognize what they're doing there. 53

[Babale]

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo

That is NOT my narrative. What Martin did or did not do did not cross my mind. I don't know what happened in that situation. I only have your description to go on.

My only point is that, regardless of race, there are situations where people might ask someone in their neighborhood that they don't recognize what they're doing there.

Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I did NOT mean to quote you and RaftPeople. Only Shodan. Sorry Heffalump 54

[Babale]

To respond to your actual point -- there are trained professionals whose job it is to respond to reports of suspicious activity. They are called police officers. If you (or, more likely, some asswipe like George Zimmerman) decides to take the law into his own hands, and ends up getting killed, that sounds like a personal problem. If you end up killing an innocent, you should got in jail. 55

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo

My only point is that, regardless of race, there are situations where people might ask someone in their neighborhood that they don't recognize what they're doing there.

Fair enough.

But regardless, better judgment needs to prevail, and if someone is carrying a lethal weapon, then they need to exercise extremely good judgment. Zimmerman was advised by the 911 dispatcher not to pursue Martin, and there's a very good reason for that, which was pretty obvious to the dispatcher but apparently not to the guy who, as it turned out, has put himself in dire financial straits even if not officially convicted. Yes, it was legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin, but that isn't the point as far as I'm concerned.

If someone is in possession of a lethal weapon, if someone possesses lethal force, they have at least a moral/ethical responsibility to exercise good judgment. I don't know if the confrontation by itself is inherently "racist", but the language that Zimmerman used in describing his encounter with Martin ("He's up to no good", "F*cking punk, etc") clearly shows that Zimmerman had some pretty strong biases against Martin. If he had seen Martin peeking through the windows of cars or homes, he might have been justified in being biased. But there's no evidence to suggest anything other than Martin was just an unfamiliar black face walking around in unfamiliar territory.

None of that is to say that Martin was some sort of straight-A student who never found trouble, but that's really immaterial. Martin was killed as a result of circumstances that were wholly preventable by the person who initiated a confrontation while in possession of a lethal weapon. In a just world, there are consequences that must be paid. 56

[Knowed Out]

There's an episode of blackish that gives a hilarious take on who can say the n-word.

Here's a sample: https://youtu.be/eUQrwXdw1jw

The whole episode is worth watching, if only to alleviate some white guilt. 57

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

Counter examples:
1 - Neighbor called the police due to 4 suspicious looking individuals, they broke into the other neighbors house before the police arrived

2 - I spotted some suspicious looking guys walking down the street as I drove past a neighbors house to work. I turned around at the next street and came back to catch them stealing neighbors bike.

3 - Neighbor (older woman) hired a handy man to work on house and my wife and I picked up some odd signals that were tough to identify, something felt off with this person, like manipulative, too friendly, and some other things. We called neighbor's daughter and mentioned our concerns that he seemed really "suspicious" and to watch out for her stuff. A few days later the cops were at the house, the guy had stolen her car, jewelry and a bunch of tools from the garage.


Ignoring data is not smart. Sure you need to try not to let bias and bigotry influence the process, but that doesn't mean you ignore all data until someone commits a crime.


fyi: all people in above examples were white, race is not automatically the issue in all cases, but I do have black friends and they tell me about how often they get pulled over, so I get there is a lot of it.

Swell. In any of the cited cases, did the neighbors note down physical descriptions? Clothing? Vehicles, esp. license numbers? Snap any pics with the oh-so-handy phone cameras that damn near everybody has these days?

Neighborhood Watch means just that. Watch. Not go off like suburban vigilantes. And nobody is asking anybody to "ignore data." 58

[Wolf333]

One of my favorite bits of this whole thing is that Martin gets labeled a thug.

Which one of these two is known to have killed someone and has had several negative interactions with law enforcement? 59

[octopus]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

No, I don't think Rock is a racist.

Do you agree with Shodan that some black people ought to be referred to as the n word?

It’s funny but obviously not surprising you have that race based double standard on language. With regards to using ugly language? We are in a time where the hysterical Pavlovian response to certain words is so extreme you must be crazy to think I want to discuss something that requires maturity and nuance and honesty in the Pit.

So, in general, I think it’s best not to go through life being needlessly offensive. 60

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Wolf333

Shodan is a piece of shit racist troll who is somehow still around because he’s one of the “good” conservatives around here (how shitty is that?).

At the same time he regularly whines about moderator bias against conservatives.

Ditka is Shodan’s less intelligent little brother.

No, he and Ditka are around because they stay within the rules. Being a dishonest, amoral asshole is not in itself cause for banning as long as one observes the requirements of the forum in which one is posting, and both are scrupulous in doing so.

Incidentally both posters are, outside of threads with any political content, capable of thoughtful and constructive comment (unlike certain other recently-booted right-wing posters who were idiotic across the board).

Originally Posted by Babale

From the GD thread:Anyone know how to save a post? This one's gonna come in REAL handy next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man at 50 feet and this asshole is defending them.

It won't matter. Shodan in particular is fond of the "As long as I can concoct a post-hoc rationalization for the shooting of yet another black man it's all good" school of debate. Then he'll ignore any counterarguments or questions while blatantly misinterpreting what other people have said and blaming them for it. But as I said, he does so in a way that stays within the rules so he hasn't been banned for trolling yet. 61

[iiandyiiii]

One more point in the "Shodan is a racist" argument's favor: In many threads on the subject, I've asked him point blank if he believes that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to genetics. He's always refused to answer. Based on this (and his doth-protests in this thread), I think he actually is a bit fearful of being called a racist. Most racists (conscious or unconscious) are also at least a bit cowardly, in my experience, so this wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

And if you're reading this, Shodan, you're not too old to change. It's not that unusual for an older white American guy to have some racist inclinations. Decent folks look within themselves to try and find flaws like this so they can fix them, IMO. 62

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Babale

To respond to your actual point -- there are trained professionals whose job it is to respond to reports of suspicious activity. They are called police officers. If you (or, more likely, some asswipe like George Zimmerman) decides to take the law into his own hands, and ends up getting killed, that sounds like a personal problem. If you end up killing an innocent, you should got in jail.

That is correct. But self defense is a thing. So if you shoot someone who is beating you pretty good you might be doing the legal thing.

The problem with Florida’s law is that it can lead to a bad set of circumstances if two or more hot heads encounter each other. 63

[octopus]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

One more point in the "Shodan is a racist" argument's favor: In many threads on the subject, I've asked him point blank if he believes that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to genetics. He's always refused to answer. Based on this (and his doth-protests in this thread), I think he actually is a bit fearful of being called a racist. Most racists (conscious or unconscious) are also at least a bit cowardly, in my experience, so this wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

And if you're reading this, Shodan, you're not too old to change. It's not that unusual for an older white American guy to have some racist inclinations. Decent folks look within themselves to try and find flaws like this so they can fix them, IMO.

You know how those threads go. They are pointless. All group based genetic threads on this board are pointless because even defining a group or a trait or how to measure a trait are impossible. And then you got to deal with the hijacks and whining. 64

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by octopus

It’s funny but obviously not surprising you have that race based double standard on language.

I don't. If Shodan was a comedian doing a satirical bit on language and the absurdity of racism, then I'd evaluate it differently. Satirical comedy bits are different than serious assertions about the appropriate usage of hateful slurs.

With regards to using ugly language? We are in a time where the hysterical Pavlovian response to certain words is so extreme you must be crazy to think I want to discuss something that requires maturity and nuance and honesty in the Pit.

So you're afraid? We've had decent discussions in the Pit before. But if you're scared, then you don't have to take part.

Here's what I think -- the n-word (that specific slur in Standard American English -- not the inocuous slang word used similarly to "dude" in African American Vernacular English) has been used for over a century to denigrate the very humanity of black people in America. And this denigration of their humanity served a purpose -- to allow otherwise decent people to tolerate, support, and even participate in abominable acts of violence, brutality, and oppression of black people. Decent people generally are incapable of beating, raping, or lynching an inoffensive stranger. But if they're not really human, and more like vermin, then suddenly decent people are capable of being persuaded to take part (and certainly capable of tolerating and even supporting such acts and policies).

It's impossible to separate that word from that history. Every time it's used in anger as a slur, it's a reminder to the target that your forebears were bought and sold, beaten and raped, shot and hanged, just because of the color of their skin. The idea that some humans actuall would qualify for that kind of thing is terrible for our society, and just adding to the gigantic heap of shit that black people already have to deal with.

Shodan says he's not afraid. I wonder if he's "brave" enough to actually refer to black person (say, a violent criminal) by that word in the presence of any of his African American friends and neighbors. If not, why do you think that is? Is it because he thinks those friends and neighbors (I'm assuming he does actually have some black friends and neighbors) are pathetic liberal snowflakes who can't handle naughty words? Or is it because he knows that using that word really might pull up some deep-seated, awful but reasonably-held negative feelings, based on their own personal and family history, that would be wrong to instill in others, simply so that he could use a certain word he'd like to use? Assuming I'm correct, and he would refrain from doing so, I think it's because of this last reason, as opposed to a fear of violence -- because he does have some decency within him, and has no interest in causing such legitimate pain to other decent people. And thus some part of him (I'm guessing) probably knows that using that word is wrong, but another part him is too proud to let him admit it -- to liberals, certainly, but maybe even to himself as well.

So there's some "maturity and nuance and honesty", if you're at all interested. All speculation, of course -- I'm no mind reader. 65

[octopus]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I don't. If Shodan was a comedian doing a satirical bit on language and the absurdity of racism, then I'd evaluate it differently. Satirical comedy bits are different than serious assertions about the appropriate usage of hateful slurs.



So you're afraid? We've had decent discussions in the Pit before. But if you're scared, then you don't have to take part.

Here's what I think -- the n-word (that specific slur in Standard American English -- not the inocuous slang word used similarly to "dude" in African American Vernacular English) has been used for over a century to denigrate the very humanity of black people in America. And this denigration of their humanity served a purpose -- to allow otherwise decent people to tolerate, support, and even participate in abominable acts of violence, brutality, and oppression of black people. Decent people generally are incapable of beating, raping, or lynching an inoffensive stranger. But if they're not really human, and more like vermin, then suddenly decent people are capable of being persuaded to take part (and certainly capable of tolerating and even supporting such acts and policies).

It's impossible to separate that word from that history. Every time it's used in anger as a slur, it's a reminder to the target that your forebears were bought and sold, beaten and raped, shot and hanged, just because of the color of their skin. The idea that some humans actuall would qualify for that kind of thing is terrible for our society, and just adding to the gigantic heap of shit that black people already have to deal with.

Shodan says he's not afraid. I wonder if he's "brave" enough to actually refer to black person (say, a violent criminal) by that word in the presence of any of his African American friends and neighbors. If not, why do you think that is? Is it because he thinks those friends and neighbors (I'm assuming he does actually have some black friends and neighbors) are pathetic liberal snowflakes who can't handle naughty words? Or is it because he knows that using that word really might pull up some deep-seated, awful but reasonably-held negative feelings, based on their own personal and family history, that would be wrong to instill in others, simply so that he could use a certain word he'd like to use? Assuming I'm correct, and he would refrain from doing so, I think it's because of this last reason, as opposed to a fear of violence -- because he does have some decency within him, and has no interest in causing such legitimate pain to other decent people. And thus some part of him (I'm guessing) probably knows that using that word is wrong, but another part him is too proud to let him admit it -- to liberals, certainly, but maybe even to himself as well.

So there's some "maturity and nuance and honesty", if you're at all interested. All speculation, of course -- I'm no mind reader.

Afraid? No. It’s pointless. Furthermore, I don’t think personal history is a way to encourage different standards.

Anyways you almost had me suckered in! Look, iiandyiiii, you aren’t the typical forum member and even you use non-nuanced and weaponized language as a social approval cudgel. You are being disingenuous.

Therefore the discussion is pointless. I’m surprised the forum just doesn’t ban that sort of talk altogether. 66

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by octopus

Afraid? No. It’s pointless. Furthermore, I don’t think personal history is a way to encourage different standards.

Anyways you almost had me suckered in! Look, iiandyiiii, you aren’t the typical forum member and even you use non-nuanced and weaponized language as a social approval cudgel. You are being disingenuous.

Therefore the discussion is pointless. I’m surprised the forum just doesn’t ban that sort of talk altogether.

Okay, a cryptic non-response (and an accusation of dishonesty). And no idea what you mean about "personal history" -- I use different standards for satirical comedy bits than for serious assertions about how one ought to behave. I guess you weren't really interested in any sort of "maturity and nuance and honesty". I gave it a shot; it's still there if you change your mind. You can tell me where I'm wrong if you like, or just make excuses and complain about the board if you'd prefer to do that. 67

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by octopus

It’s funny but obviously not surprising you have that race based double standard on language.

C O N T E X T M A T T E R S

(I'd write that in fire, 30 feet high, if I could, but I can't, so we'll have to go with this instead.)

It's not a double standard because of context. Specifically, the context of reclaiming a slur. A black man saying to another man, "Mah Nigga!" simply means something different to a white man calling a black man "Nigger!" - specifically, the way Shodan seems insistent on using the term. I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to grasp this. 68

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

C O N T E X T M A T T E R S

(I'd write that in fire, 30 feet high, if I could, but I can't, so we'll have to go with this instead.)

It's not a double standard because of context. Specifically, the context of reclaiming a slur. A black man saying to another man, "Mah Nigga!" simply means something different to a white man calling a black man "Nigger!" - specifically, the way Shodan seems insistent on using the term. I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to grasp this.

It's even more than that -- two different words (though with very closely related linguistic backgrounds), generally used in two different dialects of English. 69

[octopus]

Well, they aren’t different words.

Ugh... must resist... 70

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by octopus

Well, they aren’t different words.

Study up (and note the differences in spelling), if you like.

Ugh... must resist...

...discussion? I know! With discussion, people can learn, or god forbid, even change their minds! 71

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by octopus

Well, they aren’t different words.

Ugh... must resist...

They're spelled differently, pronounced differently, and mean different things, but you don't think they're different words? 72

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

They're spelled differently, pronounced differently, and mean different things, but you don't think they're different words?

Yeah. And in Boston car is a different word. 73

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by octopus

Yeah. And in Boston car is a different word.

"Car" is spelled differently and has a different meaning? Could you provide a cite for this, please? 74

[orcenio]

Just a continuation of the historic "unless you're black" *wink* *wink* rule.

All Americans have a right to: bear arms, vote, freedom of unreasonable search and seizure, etc... unless you're black; then violations are to be defended to the death because...reasons. 75

[andros]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

"Car" is spelled differently and has a different meaning? Could you provide a cite for this, please?

I imagine he's getting caught up a bit both on the derivation of "nigga" as the non-rhotic AAVE pronunciation of "nigger" and as a reclamation of a slur. The one derived from the other; they are no longer the same. 76

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by andros

I imagine he's getting caught up a bit both on the derivation of "nigga" as the non-rhotic AAVE pronunciation of "nigger" and as a reclamation of a slur. The one derived from the other; they are no longer the same.

Even if they were, the context matters. Just like with literally every other piece of language. 77

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Dacien

us if the perplexing racial categorization of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" had been abandoned completely.

There's nothing perplexing about it. He's a white man with Latino heritage. The vast majority of lighter skinned Latinos identify as white. The US census has race and ethnicity separate specifically because of this.

And, FYI, we are aware of the "just asking questions" concept. You are in fact making insinuations about people on the left. You're taking a normal term (which you would have known about simply by Googling it) and implying it really meant something else. 78

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by BigT

There's nothing perplexing about it. He's a white man with Latino heritage. The vast majority of lighter skinned Latinos identify as white. The US census has race and ethnicity separate specifically because of this.

And, FYI, we are aware of the "just asking questions" concept. You are in fact making insinuations about people on the left. You're taking a normal term (which you would have known about simply by Googling it) and implying it really meant something else.

Believe it or not but Euros migrated to Latin America as either conquers, immigrants or refugees. Both the legendary TV host Don Francisco and legendary footie Announcer Andres Cantor has relatives fleeing Nazi Germany. Mexican beer was developed by central Euro immigrants. 79

[K2500]

Originally Posted by andros

I imagine he's getting caught up a bit both on the derivation of "nigga" as the non-rhotic AAVE pronunciation of "nigger" and as a reclamation of a slur. The one derived from the other; they are no longer the same.

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Even if they were, the context matters. Just like with literally every other piece of language.

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

They're spelled differently, pronounced differently, and mean different things, but you don't think they're different words?

As BPC notes, context is everything. I can assure you that both forms can be spoken to mean the exact same thing. 80

[septimus]

Originally Posted by pool

... I don't think I would have been racist or in the wrong to shoot such a person if I didn't think or know that they would stop. I agree with Shodan but I don't expect most posters on this board to agree with me.

In your worldview, pool trying to urinate in private, and Zimmerman confronting a stranger with hostility are comparable events? Did you take your gun with you hoping to have an argument?

Originally Posted by Babale

At the end of the day, an unarmed black kid who was not committing any crimes before Zimmerman came on the scene is dead. Before we move forward, can we just agree that this is a bad thing? That even if Zimmerman was right to fear for his life, it was tragic that Trayvon ended up dead? Because as far as I can tell, neither you nor HurricaneDitka ever acknowledged this.

I'm also curious whether Hurricane and his ilk would be capable of acknowledging this in their hearts. But I don't think their responses in the thread would answer this one way or the other. They might be happy a nigger was killed but pretend otherwise to keep up their "I am not a racist" charade. Or, they might understand that the manslaughter was a tragedy but fear that to admit it would undermine their case.

What we can agree on is that they take great pride in being ruled by their amygdalae and reptilian brains. While liberals are dawdling to make assessments of guilt or innocence, Hurricane and his ilk will have bravely shot all the possible "bad guys" dead, leaving God to sort them out. 81

[andros]

Originally Posted by K2500

As BPC notes, context is everything. I can assure you that both forms can be spoken to mean the exact same thing.

"Can be," certainly. "Nigga" admittedly exists in a liminal space of derivation; I would argue that it has clearly moved past simply being a variant of "nigger." 82

[K2500]

Originally Posted by andros

"Can be," certainly. "Nigga" admittedly exists in a liminal space of derivation; I would argue that it has clearly moved past simply being a variant of "nigger."

But still a variant, and still very context dependent. They're close enough that for me, among the whitest of whites, the chances that that divergence will be recognized by the listener are so small as to be indistinguishable. Of course it could just be the delivery, I'm well known for being so dry its hard to tell humor from seriousness. 83

[iiandyiiii]

What a shock that Shodan, who thinks it's sometimes okay to call black people by the n-word, makes a GD quasi-pitting thread about a black Democratic US representative, baselessly implying incest and implicitly spreading baseless and slanderous conspiracy theories about her.

I wonder if Shodan thinks she qualifies to be called by the n-word? Also, I wonder if he's not too cowardly to actually say whether he thinks so or not? 84

[Shodan]

Didn't read the cites, did you? Ah well.

Regards,
Shodan 85

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Didn't read the cites, did you? Ah well.



Regards,

Shodan

I read all your cites, actually. But I take it you are, in fact, afraid to tell us if you feel Omar qualifies as the N word? Just a yes or no would suffice. 86

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Didn't read the cites, did you? Ah well.

Is this the entirety of what you're basing your accusation of incest upon?

During the investigation, the Omar committee provided responses explaining that after Rep. Omar won the primary for Minnesota House of Representatives District 60B in August 2016, a blog posted an article with allegations that Rep. Omar was not married to the person she referred to as her husband, and that she was actually married to her brother as part of an immigration scheme. The Omar committee created a crisis committee to respond to the allegations.

Based on what you have presented, there's more sourcing to the allegations that a pizza parlor in DC is actually a secret child sex ring run by the Clintons. 87

[iiandyiiii]

There is no evidence put forward in any of the cites, or in Snopes, that Omar married her brother. It's an evidence free smear. 88

[Gyrate]

It's Shodan's new SOP - make a claim that people didn't read his cites (regardless of whether they did or not), add a hefty serving of snide insinuation that they therefore haven't rebutted his points while carefully avoiding actually saying that to avoid having to defend his position, and then ignore all material follow-up questions. It's his new method of "who, me?" trolling.

He used to be much more circumspect about his approach but he's definitely creeping over the line more and more these days. 89

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

It's Shodan's new SOP - make a claim that people didn't read his cites (regardless of whether they did or not), add a hefty serving of snide insinuation that they therefore haven't rebutted his points while carefully avoiding actually saying that to avoid having to defend his position, and then ignore all material follow-up questions. It's his new method of "who, me?" trolling.

He used to be much more circumspect about his approach but he's definitely creeping over the line more and more these days.

This is a guy who thinks that "Hispanic" is a race, as per his first post in this thread saying that Zimmerman was "half Hispanic/half white". You can't fix stupid. 90

[iiandyiiii]

And he's warned about it, with the thread closed: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4&postcount=27 91

[WillFarnaby]

I agree that Zimmerman should be held responsible for Martin’s death because he stalked and killed an unarmed individual who was not committing aggression against person or property.

That said, there is no evidence that he acted the way he did because he is racist or harbored racist feelings towards Martin or “black” people in general. That part has been fabricated out of whole cloth. Even if Zimmerman was shown to be a racist before and after the murder, there is no way to say if that is what caused him to kill Martin.

I don’t understand the racist angle in the case to be so important to the anti-Zimmermans. It will only provoke knee-jerk reactions and an inability to discuss the case. 92

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

This is a guy who thinks that "Hispanic" is a race, as per his first post in this thread saying that Zimmerman was "half Hispanic/half white". You can't fix stupid.

This is a guy who thinks race isn’t a social construct, therefore “Hispanic” could very well be a race just as easily as “black” or “white”.

Please tell me more about your scientific approach to race identification. 93

[Buck Godot]

nm 94

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

This is a guy who thinks race isn’t a social construct, therefore “Hispanic” could very well be a race just as easily as “black” or “white”.

Please tell me more about your scientific approach to race identification.

Fuck off, troll. 95

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

This is a guy who thinks that "Hispanic" is a race, as per his first post in this thread saying that Zimmerman was "half Hispanic/half white".

It's apparently not just my cites - you people don't appear to read anything, like the OP of this thread, which said, referring to Zimmerman

Because he's a white man, and using a gun in "self defense", and so is beyond reproach.

You can't fix stupid.

Apparently not.

Regards,
Shodan 96

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It's apparently not just my cites - you people don't appear to read anything, like the OP of this thread, which said, referring to Zimmerman
Apparently not.

Regards,
Shodan

So says the certified troll.

Disregards... 97

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It's apparently not just my cites

Which cites of yours provided even a shred of evidence that Omar married her brother? 98

[Ravenman]

Hey, can someone post something accusing Shodan of being a goat fucker, so we can all follow him around the message board noting that he's an accused goat fucker? 99

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Which cites of yours provided even a shred of evidence that Omar married her brother?

So you didn't read the title of my OP either.

Regards,
Shodan 100