Damn straight, I’m glad we agree.
The white racism in the jury I was referring to was the weeding out of the white members on allegations of racism, though I admit I may be mistaken about that – the exact reasons why they were kicked off are a bit fuzzy right now. Regardless, towards the end of the trial especially, the underlying theme seemed to be the question of whether or not white racism (in the LAPD, in society, in the press, etc.) was bad enough to make it justifiable to let O.J. off, even though he was probably guilty. The focus on the different responses of blacks and whites to that question is what you’re talking about with the focus on the black reaction.
Well, for the ones in those examples with black criminals (which actually is only two of your examples), why shouldn’t they serve as springboards for discussions of black crime rates? Surely it’s as valid a topic of discussion as white racism, no? Do you question the agenda of anyone who would use a white-on-black crime as a starting point for a discussion of white racism?
Frankly, I don’t know that any of those crimes would be perfect springboards for discussions of black criminality, but the significant point in the context of this thread is that the majority of those crimes (five by my count, four by yours), the only famous interracial crimes you could think of, were used to explore white racism. None by my count (one by yours, if you count O.J.?) were used for discussion of black crime. Does that mean anything?
Ken Lay, not really. Jeffery Dahmer I don’t know – too young to remember. Tim McVeigh, yes (as I wrote in my post) – lots of talk about deranged white males, etc.
The more interesting thing to me is that I did mention the lack of discussion or analysis about black-on-black crime, but you have chosen to ignore this in your attempt to portray me as a racist.
To me the fact that this was his first reaction was a reflection of skewed priorities – and, in the context in which we discovered the news, it was rather tactless: everyone else was just expressing relief that it was over and sorrow for the dead, but all he could think of was racial sensitivity. (For what it’s worth, the guy was white.) For it to occur to him down the road would make sense, as I’m sure it occurred to a lot of people. But either way, his worries were unfounded: as far as I saw, the media was much more quiet about the snipers’ race and demographic than they were about the Columbine or, to a lesser extent, Virginia Tech killers’.
Cite? No. That’s why I said “impression,” not “fact.” But can you think of any famous crimes commited by African-Americans, particularly – since it is the topic of this thread, not because they matter more – with white victims, that have generated widespread, mainstream media discussion – roundtables, town hall meetings, op-eds, etc. – about disproportionate black crime rates, in the same way that some famous white-on-black crimes have generated widespread discussions of racism? If you don’t think black crimes should generate such discussions (as you seem to indicate earlier in your post), then the logically consistent position seems to me that neither should white crimes.
The only racist thing I can see in your example here is that “white society” is often referred to by default as just plain “society.” Which is in some ways racist, and in some ways makes sense considering the numerical majority of whites in the US. Is that what you’re criticizing? (As Magiver points out, you are saying that both cases the kids are seen as products of their culture.) And I’d disagree that these crimes are never explicitly linked to white culture: much hey was made during the rash of school shootings about the fact that most of them were geeky white males.
Nope, I don’t know this. As I mentioned above, I was not aware that this little table has made the rounds on these boards before. If the information is wrong or misleading, I’d welcome enlightenment. (Though why the local crime stats for North Carolina should really matter more than national stats I can’t quite see.) You’d also have to explain to me why using US Department of Justice material indicates that someone has a “racist agenda” – it’s not as though I cited data from the Aryan Brotherhood or the KKK. :dubious:
Now that we have this new policy, it should cut down quite a bit on the topics for discussion on GD! Hooray! 
Well, some citage might help here. Memories, hunches, speculations, and opinions have limited value in a debate thread. They are error prone.
Are you talking about Kobe and OJ? I’m astounded and disturbed that you would even link those cases to “black criminality”, just because the accused happened to be black and the victims/accuser happened to white. What makes those cases different from any of the thousands of cases like it that involve people of the same race? Please explain this to me.
White racism was discussed in OJ because, let’s see, white racism was an element in the trial. It was something that wasn’t just pulled out of a hat for just because reasons. Was the media supposed to pretend that all that stuff about Furhman didn’t come out in court? With respect to Byrd, the murder was not just a simple murder and there was evidence of such. Was the media supposed to pretend that race wasn’t a factor even though that was the assessment of law enforcement? With the church burnings, as I already pointed out, historical precendence in addition to the apparent targeting to black churchs led to racism being touted as the motive. Nothing unreasonable about that either.
If such discussion was started apropos of nothing, then yes. If there is evidence that racism was behind the alleged crime, then there’s nothing wrong with talking about it. Was that the case with Byrd, the church burnings, and even the Duke hoax (witnesses reported hearing the guys yell ethnic slurs)? Yes. There have been w-o-b crimes where the talk about racism has been non-existent to minimal. Jeffery Dahmer comes to mind.
Unless you can say that racism was irrelevant to those cases, then so what? This is not proof of bias.
Why do you think white racism has equal value as a discussion point as “black crime”? What the hell is “black crime” anyway? Can’t you see that the very concept of “black crime” is racist because it racializes behaviors that have nothing to do with race? OJ should have served as a springboard for “black crime” just as much as Scott Petterson and Robert Blake’s case should have served as springboards for “white crime”. Which is not at all.
Cite please.
B-o-b crime is analyzed all the time; it just happens to be portrayed as a “black folk problem” instead of a societal one like w-o-w crime is. This doesn’t point to anti-white bias. If anything, it supports the view that crimes with black perps takes on a racial flavor that is absent with crimes involving whites.
I’m critizing your view that b-o-b crime is not analyzed and critiqued. It is and in a way that “white crime” is not.
Cite? I’m eager to see any evidence that “white culture” has been blamed for these crimes. There should be articles somewhere about this, if it was as pervasive as you’re making it out to be. And I’m talking about articles in the mainstream press, not some ramblings on a obscure blog with a 3-person readership.
The crime alleged in the Duke case took place in NC. That’s your first clue. The second clue is that blacks are a significant minority when you look at the US; but not as much as in NC. So the rate of black victimization will be detectable whereas it won’t be when you look at national figures.
Because folks with affiliations to racist organizations use that table to make some of the same kind of arguments that you’ve been making in this thread. That doesn’t make you racist, but it does give you that appearance.
So shut up or I’ll label you a racist by association.
That’s my two-second synopsis of one of ywtf’s favored rhetorical devices (I think Socrates first employed it), just to summarize for those who haven’t had the pleasure before.
Meanwhile, it sounds the disgusting details of the murders – the ones that made conservatives say the lack of coverage was outrageous reverse-racism – are being disputed by the police and the parents of at least one of the victims.
All my posts have been qualified by the caveat that there are no absolute scales for comparing complex real-life scenarios and subtracting out all variables. This is true even when there are some “hard” data points (cf. how many debates people have had about whether GWB is “stupid,” despite the fact that there were real-world data points in the form of grades and SAT scores suggesting that, say, Al Gore was not much “smarter” – none of which are or can be dispositive of the issue).
What kind of “baseline” is it that you would look for before something can be a “good debate?” As others have suggested, it seems that in the limit the truism that “we can never know for sure what would have happened” morphs into “so we should never discuss any topic for which there is not mathematical proof.”
I see sports reporters discussing whether Barry Bonds would receive better treatment if he were white, and speculating that that is why no one wants him to break the HR record. Doesn’t make sense to me, as he’d be taking it from another black man, and as because we could all name dozens of well-liked black ballplayers – but those are the counter talking-points – I don’t view them as proof positive that the “debate” should never have taken place at all.
Seriously, anyone who has taken the nothing-to-debate-here position care to set forth some bright-line rules for the quantum and nature of “evidence” that has to be advanced or available before adducing a premise or opinion for debate in GD? At one end of the spectrum, most will agree that “I Think The Pixies On Neptune Are Purple, Not Blue” would not generate much useful light, even if it generated heat. At another extreme, I assume/hope GD was not created merely as a place to assert and prove absolutely-provable/absolutely-falsifiable factual statements but using more heated language than in GQ
I noted earlier that one of the Wiki sources – a dubious one indeed as it seems to be an article from a white power publication – had questioned the mutiliations.
Here’s the updated Wiki blurb, FWIW.
"It really makes me question the agenda and motivations of anyone who would [cite accurate government factual data X], because I assert [w/o cite] that other people who did not repudiate such data were 'racists.
Furthermore, racists are notorious for breathing air. Now you’re admitting you breathe air. What’s really going on here? I’m not saying you’re a racist, but you’re sure not doing yourself any favors, air-breather."
Ad nauseum.
Something with the tiniest amount of facts? This thread and the Arnold Palmer thread seem to be borne of the same impulse.
Translation: I’m going to distort my opponent so people don’t take her seriously, won’t check out her posting history, and thus will not see how easy it was for her to beat the crap out of all my shitty arguments regarding the usefulness of race-based statistics.
I don’t understand. I thought, given your name, and given the fact that all I’ve seen you post to are threads about poor mistreated white people, that you were sort of labeling yourself as such.
Is that wrong?
What a fey little disingenuous dumbass way to start.
Boy, you really don’t have anything other than name-calling, literally, in your bag-o-tricks? We’ve done to death the “Huerta88 must be a racist because of his handle” canard – do you have no substance at all? Salvator Rosa had a great painting in which he inscribed in Latin “It is better to remain silent unless what you have to say is better than silence.” It’s in the National Gallery in London – you might want to check it out and ponder its significance to your posting.
Really? REALLY? Well, if you’re blind, it’s hardly my fault, but it’s no excuse for you to so grossly mischaracterize my posting record. Again, the move of someone with not much of substance to go on.
Here’s a hint. The board has a search feature:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=2570959&pp=25&page=1
Or perhaps you have some private filter that dis-ables you from seeing my hundreds of posts which have nothing to do with “poor mistreated white people” or anything of the sort?
Yeah, it’s wrong, and it would be wrong in a very stupid way, if I didn’t know you were being intentionally obtuse. As such, it’s just pointless cheapness on your part.
Moderator’s Note: Huerta88, tone it down or take it to the Pit. There can be a fine line between “That argument is stupid” and “You are stupid”; at the very least, you’ve got several toes over and are kind of leaning your upper body over it.
(And Hentor the Barbarian, I’m not going to have to warn you for looting and pillaging and whacking people with an axe, am I?)
Hentor the Barbarian, Huerta88, and you with the face, back off on the personal observations. The default assumption for anyone for whom one does not have solid evidence is that the poster is arguing in good faith.
My default assumption for ad hominem and well poisioning posts is that the poster has accidentally opened GD believing this is the Pit. It is not and there is no reason to attack a poster or the question the person of a poster.
Posters not named in this post should not think that that their behavior is not being reviewed.
Everyone cool it.
[ /Moderating ]
That will teach me to let in the cat before hitting “submit,” but the observation remains.