It’s certainly possible for polls to be flawed or biased, but if the results of a poll conducted by a reputable agency contradict your personal experience then this is usually going to be because your personal experience is limited.
And I don’t just mean that you, Nzinga, Seated, have limited personal experience, but that EVERYONE’S personal experience is limited. My personal experience in 2000 was that more people voted for Nader than Bush, but that obviously says more about the kinds of people I knew then than the actual voting habits of the entire American population. The people you know aren’t a representative sample of the population. One person can only know so many other people, the people we know are likely to be similar to ourselves in significant ways, and some of the people we do know will have opinions and beliefs that they’ll never mention to us. If we could all accurately judge public opinion based on our own personal experience then there’d be no reason to have polls at all.
Yeah. I’m saying that black folks sit around laughing at what white people believe about this. The fact that OJ is guilty and that lots of blacks are happy he beat the rap is completely a part of black culture. Jokes made at barbeques, a wink and a nudge, an inside joke. Wait. Wait. Let me start all over.
Half of all blacks think OJ is innocent. Lawd ha’ mercy on our ignorant souls.
Not quite. The murders in Mexico recently are about a lot more than drugs, they are about corruption in the highest parts of government and law enforcement. For many years now Mexican law enforcement agencies have been in bed with the drug cartels thereby preventing real progress in stopping these drug lords.
Recently there have been journalists, American drug officials (helping by request of the Mexican government), honest Mexican law enforcement members, and Mexican government officials who have decided to try to put a stop to this corruption and not let these drug lords continue their crimes with government protection.
For that, these murders have been taking place as an example for those who would choose to try to change the status-quo and actually fight against the drug trade. The bloodier the better to make an example out of these people and their families to show everyone else to think before crossing them.
This is hardly the same thing as butchering two people with knives for a bad drug deal.
It is, of course, ignorant and foolish (and I think you conceded that point above) to believe in Mr Simpson’s innocence.
For that reason, I also find the 2007 40% +/- 8% poll disappointing, and I am not surprised it’s difficult for you to accept it. I don’t see my colleagues–of any color–obsessing over OJ, period. I am pleased that the number of blacks believing in his innocence has apparently dropped 30%, because I think this decrease does reflect growth. My own memory of the post-trial hysteria is that there was very vociferous support by blacks, who claimed that the evidence against Mr Simpson was weak and that he was clearly innocent. Those, at least, seem to have dissipated when the topic arises in the news. Overall I found the rapidity of the original verdict after months of evidence to be most indicative of ignorance and the behaviour of fools–in this case, the jury.
FWIW most of my colleagues have moved past simplistic black/white divisions anyway. My experience as a professional is that color is yesterday’s news and class divisions have mostly replaced it. I would not be surprised to find that educated and professional blacks are less likely than undereducated ones to believe in Mr Simpson’s innocence. I pretend no expertise with “black culture” but in professional culture, at least, my experience is that few thinking people of any background would come to Mr Simpson’s defense.
IMHO, for all those that cheered for OJ’s murder acquittal who happened to be black, I don’t think that they all believed he was innocent. When you add up all the known prejudice with black men as defendants in a murder trial who DIDN’T get a fair chance to begin with, these people cheered because there was a good sign in front of them: If they blame me for murder, it sure as hell isn’t as prejudiced as it used to be in the courtroom. Maybe it’s becoming a bit more fair.
Yes, he is guilty for the murders. Bugliosi and other analysts pointed out a lot of errors in the prosecution. Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop. And Cochran is a genius when it come to defense. Shit, when you make your closing argument rhyme, what else do you really need?
I think that if I were black, I would’ve still thought he was guilty, but I definitely would’ve cheered when I heard “not guilty.”
Hey, Chief. I want you to know that I believe a whole lot of black people think OJ is innocent. After discussing this thread with my husband he said, “Nzinga, a lot of folks are real dumb”. Blacks are no exception. I mean, speaking of polls, when I first heard about how many people in this nation were religious, I was crestfallen. So people aren’t as smart as we could be.
With that said, I wanna say something else that may seem bizarre and out of place to most in this thread, but, oh, I bet somebody needs to hear it.
I am *really, really *sorry that OJ Simpson married what was considered a very beautiful blonde white woman and beat her, hurt her and killed her. I’m sorry that he got away with that. I think it is time to let the healing begin.
ETA: No offense to religious people. It just doesn’t make logical sense to me anymore, but I’m not the sharpest knife in any drawer either.
Could it be possible that OJ Simpson was a bigger celebrity than Robert Blake and that had more to do with it? I mean I knew who OJ was when it happened, but I didn’t know who Robert Blake was.
Why what’s the difference? Drew Peterson wasn’t a beloved celebrity when he was arrested.
I really think it’s more about exposure than it is about anything else. I can’t think of a single high profile celebrity murder case involving a white celebrity. If Mickey Rourke, Charlie Sheen or say, John Elway were to murder someone I think it’d be about the same if they got off and we all thought he was guilty.
But OJ wasn’t really a high level celeb at the time, was he? I mean, I’m not a sports fan, so I don’t know.
But I read a thread on these boards (please god no one ask for a cite that is why I started this thread in IMHO) where people actually said they watched the outcome in school! I mean, really?? That is something huge, on a level way above the Peterson spectacle.
He was a pretty well known retired sports figure and he’d been in the Naked Gun movies pretty prominently not too long before that happened.
Right, but is it because he was black or because he was a celebrity? I mean dude did start his saga with a pretty dramatic low-speed chase through Los Angeles. Everyone knew who OJ was without it being explained. I knew who he was because of Naked Gun, and his image was pretty pristine generally. He was one of those sports heroes that did PSAs. That’s why John Elway is a good example, he’s also got that clean good-guy image like OJ used to. If John Elway killed his ex-wife, I think it would be a pretty big deal.
My older sister commented that when she was growing up, she watched him score touchdowns every week, then run through many airports for his Hertz ads. They ran for years. I had a similar experience like that as well. Celebrities are one thing, but I’ve always thought that SPORTS celebrities are paid much more attention to than, say, a multi-Oscar winner.
Back in the 1970s or 1980s, O.J. made the cover of a non-sports magazine. It may have been People or something similar. The teachers is the faculty lounge were drooling over it. I think I still have my copy. He was handsome and wholesome, so we thought. Everyone loved “the Juice.” Since he wasn’t that great an actor, his popularity faded some over time, but I don’t think anybody dreamed that this hero could just butcher two people. The notion was bizarre. It wasn’t until he didn’t show up when he was supposed to that I gave his innocence a second thought.
I suppose that you think that saying “a bunch of blacks” in a prior sentence qualifies the sentence I quoted too. I find it totally insufficient for the generalizations and assumptions that followed.
And I can’t take seriously the idea of your limited experience being more accurate than a widely respected poll. Nor can I believe that so many blacks would automatically lie because they would assume that the polls are being done by the “white media.” Nor can I believe that you have psychic abilities to tell what x-number of black people think and why they think that. Nor can I believe that you have psychic abilities to tell what x-number of white people think and why they think that.
Look again at what I indicated has been discussed in Great Debates many times. I wasn’t discussing the issues of the trial, justice, or race. What has been discussed followed the colon. You have a right to your own opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.
There is a difference between a fact and an opinion. You can’t just make up things and claim that they are true. That’s why people in Great Debates require “cites” from time to time. A poster has to be able to back up facts that she or he posts.
Do you feel that you are being “spanked” when someone responds to you in a debate? Do you feel that you are in “over your head” when someone offers you information?
It’s not my position that it is not okay to be happy that OJ got off. What you believe is not a problem to me. It is when you state these beliefs as if they are facts and ridicule people who do not acknowledge your beliefs as factual. Yet you are unable to back up these facts with cites. And the lines of ridicule seem to break down along racial lines over and over again. I don’t like that when it’s done to blacks or any other race.
You are claiming that your opinion is an established fact. Your experience and the experience of anyone else posting here is called anecdotal evidence. Your experience is very limited. Being black doesn’t establish your opinion as a fact. Being from a black community doesn’t establish your opinion as a fact. I don’t get to be the authority on white people or retired people or multi-ethnic communities either.
This. I don’t care how immersed you are in black culture, you don’t come close to knowing a representative sample.
He kind of was. Heisman trophy winner from USC who was in the NFL Hall of Fame and also was acting in some very successful movies. His profile was pretty high.
My hobby is true crime. Rosa Parks, under the laws of the day, violated the law. That was the intent, and God bless her. Rodney King was a victim of police brutality, though I’d still be inclined to smack his ass. OJ murdered Nicole and Ron. If he were a MAN, he’d say, “Yeah, I iced the bitch. So what?” Instead he tried all sorts of unmanly (Sampiro, note that I did not use “faggy,” since I believe my gay brothers know the difference between what men do and what weasels do.) ruses to push the blame away from him. Pussy.
My wife worked with a woman who was convinced of his innocence. Based on her statements, Wife said, “You like him because he is handsome. Try to get beyond that by looking at the facts.” OJ wasn’t nearly as cute after that.
OTOH, this is the same Wife who dismisses the attraction of men to all sorts of losers, like Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian, as “guys are attracted to crazy women.” I choose not to point out how crazy she is. Kids, THIS is how you remain married for 33 years.