# Here's your "all white jury", race hustlers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621 "2013-07-26T20:09:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/161 "2013-07-28T23:41:06Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No. For two reasons. Firstly, the only time I’ve regularly been called on to discuss ontology apart from here has been in philosophy classes (many years ago) or with acquaintances who study it, and secondly because my friends aren’t retards. Couple of lawyers among them, actually, who would no doubt agree with me on this. > > When you join a group of people, do you suddenly find an awkward silence descends, and when you leave, do you sometimes catch the hint of a relieved sigh at the edge of your hearing? Well, you’re neither amongst retards nor ontologists (fuck me if I know what you mean by this, after all that means, in logic, is the set of entities **presupposed** by a theory) – so it looks like we are both presupposing like a motherfucker. In black and white. So go ahead, don’t be be shy and keep vomiting vile. Its all you’ve done so far. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/162 "2013-07-28T23:46:35Z")
It may have to do with the bumps on a jurors head. You know, ontology recapitulates phrenology. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/163 "2013-07-28T23:48:38Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Apparently it’s not an exact quote, and now somehow it’s my problem. A cut and paste from the title of the article on Salon’s page: > [@](#): > > Did George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder? > The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true. > [@Bricker](#): > > [Slate’s William Saletan: the media are a reporting that a juror said George Zimmerman got away with murder. That’s not true.](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.single.html) The differences seem to be “says” instead of “said” and “George Zimmerman” instead of “Zimmerman.” It’s not clear to me how those changes create a problem. Can someone explain? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/164 "2013-07-28T23:50:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not clear to me how those changes create a problem. Can someone explain? “is guilty of murder” vs. “got away with murder”. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/165 "2013-07-28T23:51:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It may have to do with the bumps on a jurors head. You know, ontology recapitulates phrenology. Fuck. Just when I was about to get, like, _real_ Frothy like our mutual friend, you come ruin it all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/166 "2013-07-28T23:53:17Z")
Well, of course, the addition of the name of Mr. Saletan offers us more along the lines of being one man’s opinion. Hence, as a citation is falls a bit short of the mark, as would an opinion piece. All of Mr. Saletans “insights” could be as easily explained by awkwardness and discomfort on the part of the interviewed juror. However, in the absence of Dr Phil or a body language expert, we are not likely to be certain. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/167 "2013-07-29T02:25:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s one of those terms certain people can’t stop using when they’re talking about racial issues. (“Race pimps” is another, and so is “thugs.”) I’m not sure why that is- maybe it’s genetic? In my experience its used by people who think that racism is mostly conjured into existence folks like Al Sharpton. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/168 "2013-07-29T02:28:01Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I don’t “declare” things to be facts, to be true. I either observe them to be so, or I show them to be so, using such things as evidence, reason and logic. Not that I’ve observed. > [@](#): > > Facts, you see, are not things that are unique to one person, and are not affected by declarations. While your statement about facts is true, it is not the definition of a fact. A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. > [@](#): > > Fact and Opinion > > A fact is a statement that can be proven by **direct experience or objective verification.** \*\*A statement of fact can theoretically be checked for accuracy. \*\* > > You should know that a statement of fact may be found to be untrue. When that happens, the statement is no longer a fact, it is an error. > > An opinion is a statement of belief or judgment that cannot be objectively proven true or false. Opinions usually express the feelings, preferences or biases that a person has about a subject. > > Remember; a fact is not the opposite of an opinion. They are simply types of statements. If a fact is untrue or false, it does not turn into an opinion. By the same logic, if an opinion is believed by everyone, it does not turn into a fact. > > Opinions cannot be proved, however they can be supported with facts and other knowledgeable opinions. Facts can be proved with evidence, statistics, records, photographs, data, etc. > [@](#): > > Distinguishing between fact and opinion is a vital critical thinking and reasoning skill. To make wise decisions and solve problems effectively, you need to know the difference between what people **think (opinion)** and what people **know (fact)**; between what people believe to be true (opinion) and what has been proven to be true (fact). > > Essentially, the difference between fact and opinion is the difference between believing and knowing. Opinions may be based on facts, but they are still what we think, not what we know. > [@](#): > > The most basic difference is that facts can be proven whereas opinions cannot. When attempting to distinguish between the two, consider whether any **objective proof exists to support the statement.** If so, it is most likely a fact. If not, it is most likely an opinion. > [@](#): > > Below is a list of some of the main differences between facts and opinions. > • Facts can be proven with evidence or observation > • Facts can be based on experience > • Facts are specific and certain > • Opinions demonstrate thoughts, opinions and feelings of people > • Opinions vary between people > • Opinions do not rely on evidence > [@](#): > > Next we must teach children to recognize the language of verbalizing or writing opinions. A statement using adjectives and/or adverbs with words such as always, never, should, all, none, most, least, greatest, good, better, best, beautiful, pretty, ugly, nice, mean, bad, worse, worst, tasty, tastier, and tastiest is most likely an opinion because it represents someone’s personal feelings or attitudes instead of presenting a fact that can be verified. > > Because statements of fact can be confirmed, they are almost void of descriptive adjectives and adverbs like the words in bold listed above. Newspaper articles, TV, and radio reports are factual and answer the questions of how, when, where, and to or with whom something occurred. Journalists and reporters must write news reports without bias and save their opinions for editorials and other columns that allow and encourage expressing their feelings of approval or disapproval of an event or occurrence. > [@](#): > > Take the Zimmerman case. It was a _fact_, before the trial, that no honest jury could have found him guilty based on the evidence that was in the public domain. Let’s see.. can this be verified? Is it provable? No, for multiple reasons, starting with “honest” :rolleyes:jury. Looks like you got yourself an opinion there, sir. > [@](#): > > I know it must hurt to be wrong, especially for someone as arrogant as yourself, yet too stupid to realise \*why \*you are constantly wrong. I might have some sympathy for that, were it not for the fact that you are using the things you are wrong about to try to show that an innocent man should be punished for a “crime” that never was. Frankly, it _should_ fucking hurt. Here again, you project your thoughts and feelings as facts. I’m not hurting, nor am I wrong. But the impassioned nature of your statement leads me to think that someone is both. By the way, you did make one statement I think is probably factual: nothing I or anyone else can do will ever change your very strange conviction that your opinions are facts. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/169 "2013-07-29T04:21:26Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it was a fail, based on what you said was an honest mistake, and I believe you. That’s not the same as saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or at least that’s not how it was intended. I make mistakes all the time, feel free to correct. That’s what I was trying to do here, since so many inaccuracies are tossed out in these threads (I’m not saying by you) that just hang there till they crystallize into “facts” that get quoted as gospel. > > Anyway, I don’t agree with most of your takes on this topic, and I did react to what I perceived as snarkiness in kind in our original exchange, but your posts have at least triggered a reaction worth posting. Something other than “that guy is an idiot.” In fact, my first question to you was honestly because I couldn’t follow you, and I was interested in your logic. > > So, take me at my word or not, I’ll get over it either way. My M.O. is to find a topic I like and follow that thread, responding when I think it’s worth the minute it takes to make a post. If it’s in response to one of yours, it ain’t because of any hard feelings. Here’s the problem. You said: > [@](#): > > But your statement…seems to be a fail at crafting a hyper-literal gotcha. A crafted gotcha cannot also be an honest mistake. When something is crafted, it is deliberate. Posting something as a gotcha is a deliberate act. How do you now come back with saying: > [@](#): > > That’s not the same as saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or at least that’s not how it was intended. The other problem is the fact that you didn’t feel the need to correct **Bricker** ’s inaccuracy. It was posted yesterday, yet you let it “hang there”. Even if you didn’t notice his error until my post brought it to your attention (because my posts “trigger a reaction” for you), how is it that you chose to reply to me with a no info three word rebuttal, and not immediately seek to address the original inaccuracy? I mean, what if I didn’t reply? The original inaccuracy was “crystallizing into fact”! It could have been “quoted as gospel”! Preventing that was your stated reason for posting: > [@](#): > > That’s what I was trying to do here, since so many inaccuracies are tossed out in these threads (I’m not saying by you) that just hang there till they crystallize into “facts” that get quoted as gospel. Meanwhile, while you were busy wasting time with this disingenuous nonsense, \*\*Bricker \*\*posted that it wasn’t clear to him how his changes create a problem. He asked for an explanation. And who better than you? So here’s your chance to show us that you’re all about fighting inaccuracies wherever you see them; nothing personal, no-siree-bob. If you truly think there is an important difference, you should explain it to **Bricker**. Your failure to do so shows up your reply to me as being the true “fail at crafting a hyperliteral gotcha”. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/170 "2013-07-29T10:04:19Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Here’s the problem. You said: > A crafted gotcha cannot also be an honest mistake. When something is crafted, it is deliberate. Posting something as a gotcha is a deliberate act. Because it _was_ a deliberate act. Do you disagree you attempted to craft a gotcha, based on (what you thought was) a hyper-literal comparison? The honest mistake is that you crafted it on a false premise. BTW, crafting a gotcha isn’t some evil crime, in my book. Some people are asking for it. I’ve crafted plenty. > [@](#): > > The other problem is the fact that you didn’t feel the need to correct **Bricker** ’s inaccuracy. It was posted yesterday, yet you let it “hang there”. Even if you didn’t notice his error until my post brought it to your attention (because my posts “trigger a reaction” for you), how is it that you chose to reply to me with a no info three word rebuttal, and not immediately seek to address the original inaccuracy? I mean, what if I didn’t reply? The original inaccuracy was “crystallizing into fact”! It could have been “quoted as gospel”! I didn’t notice it until you posted your response. And I didn’t notice Bricker’s “miss” till you pointed it out and it was already clear (I rebutted your assertion by clicking on the link and reading it). At that point, there was nothing to “take up with Bricker” or to point out. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, while you were busy wasting time with this disingenuous nonsense, \*\*Bricker \*\*posted that it wasn’t clear to him how his changes create a problem. He asked for an explanation. And who better than you? Someone answered it, by the time I saw his question. God almighty, I am not on this board 24/7, like some people. You are strenuously searching for offense and bad intent where a simpler explanation–e.g., I didn’t see his question till after someone answered it–is obvious. See, this is where you keep going off the rails. Instead of simply accepting something as a misunderstanding, you start frothing at the mouth and tossing out phrases like “disingenuous nonsense.” You find offense where none was intended or could be reasonably inferred. You need a thicker skin if you’re going to post around here. > [@](#): > > So here’s your chance to show us that you’re all about fighting inaccuracies wherever you see them; nothing personal, no-siree-bob. If you truly think there is an important difference, you should explain it to **Bricker**. An important difference with what? What are you going on about? Bricker asked a question and it was answered. Should I answer again? Here’s the option I think I will take. I will assume the horrible shame of not being a poster who meets your exacting standards. I’ll say it again, you have too much emotion invested in this stuff. So, you don’t like me, some guy you don’t know on a message board. I can live with it. I’m certainly done providing an explanation to someone who simply won’t accept one. ETA: BTW, I notice that Terr answered Bricker 2 minutes after he asked his question. Sorry I didn’t swoop in in the interim and let this hang for so long. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/171 "2013-07-29T13:16:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > … an all-white jury … the all-white jury … all-white female jury … an all-white jury … > … an all-white jury … the all-white jury … all-white female jury … an all-white jury … > … an all-white jury … the all-white jury … all-white female jury … an all-white jury … Kind genius, can you condescend to enlighten us what your point is, if any? Oh, we’re in the Pit? WTF you talking about, you blithering dolt? AFAICT, you’re making a big deal of the factoid that B29 is Puerto Rican, not “white.” I’m sure distinguishing beyond a binary black/white distinction strains many minds, but only an imbecile would call an Hispanic non-white in a white-Hispanic vs black context. Am I to believe you’ve babbled stupidly about GZ for months and never noticed he self-describes as Hispanic? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/172 "2013-07-29T13:23:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “is guilty of murder” vs. “got away with murder”. Oh. That. That’s…really bizarre. By that I mean I cut and pasted both sentences, looked at both of them, and literally did not comprehend that difference was there. How very weird. In any event, yes, point well taken. That’s also a difference, and indeed one with a substantial meaning. My apologies to all concerned. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/173 "2013-07-29T15:00:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course. But my point is ordinary carelessness would suggest random errors would go in random directions. But I’m not insisting that it was all ordinary carelessness. I think it’s plausible (although not proven) that NBC was acting with unprofessional and unethical carelessness and was more likely to accept and report facts that supported a narrative, in which case they’d be far more likely to make mistakes in one direction than the other. But that’s a world away from the kind of explicit conspiracy you’re talking about. In this era in which (a) every moment of every broadcast ends up on youtube to be replayed and reviewed repeatedly, and (b) everyone has a cell phone in their pocket and could be recording anything anyone says; I find it incredibly unlikely that there was a meeting at NBC in which someone literally and consciously decided that they should lie and claim that the jury was all-white when it was not. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/174 "2013-07-29T15:11:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Depending on how one reads that sentence, one might conclude that Zimmerman was intimately familiar with the black race… He should be, since he’s part black. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/175 "2013-07-29T15:20:37Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But I’m not insisting that it was all ordinary carelessness. I think it’s plausible (although not proven) that NBC was acting with unprofessional and unethical carelessness and was more likely to accept and report facts that supported a narrative, in which case they’d be far more likely to make mistakes in one direction than the other. But that’s a world away from the kind of explicit conspiracy you’re talking about. In this era in which (a) every moment of every broadcast ends up on youtube to be replayed and reviewed repeatedly, and (b) everyone has a cell phone in their pocket and could be recording anything anyone says; I find it incredibly unlikely that there was a meeting at NBC in which someone literally and consciously decided that they should lie and claim that the jury was all-white when it was not. To the extent that my comments imply an explicit, spoken, direct conspiracy, with the orders being issued by memo or by explicitly verbal direction, I agree that’s probably not the case. But Tony Soprano doesn’t say, " Paulie, you and I must enter into an agreement - a conspiracy, in fact and law – to murder Valery, a Russian crime figure. I am directing you to tell Christopher Molisanti to join you in killing this individual and burying his body so that it won’t be found." Instead, he says, “Paulie, Valery’s trouble. Take care of it.” And because Paulie, and everyone around Tony, are well-attuned to the nuances of his meaning, Valery ends up dead, which is precisely what Tony intended. In the case of NBC, an explicit agreement is not necessary. People in an environment develop an understanding of what’s expected and what’s not. NBC deliberately fosters that environment by issuing only half-hearted “retractions” only when the circumstances leave them little choice. Undoubtedly an investigation, or interviews with NBC staffers, would reveal dozens of little signals that mistakes of this type were tolerated but mistakes that lean in the other direction would be subject to intense scrutiny and analysis. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/176 "2013-07-29T15:29:38Z")
By golly, convinced again! How can we meaningfully discuss the issues around Z’s possible guilt until we resolve the all important question of liberal media bias? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/177 "2013-07-29T16:08:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’m an atheist. I’m sure that an American jury would rule against me pretty much no matter what the evidence is. If some Californian version of Zimmerman killed me I’m sure the jury would find “evidence” that let the killer off the hook. _Especially_ if he used a gun to kill me with. Goddamn you’re a fucktard. Please do the world a favor and never leave your moms’ basement. It’s bad enough you are allowed on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/178 "2013-07-29T16:14:34Z")
… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/179 "2013-07-29T16:31:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’m an atheist. I’m sure that an American jury would rule against me pretty much no matter what the evidence is. If some Californian version of Zimmerman killed me I’m sure the jury would find “evidence” that let the killer off the hook. _Especially_ if he used a gun to kill me with. If a jury decided to leave the box and pelt you with rotten fruit as you sat on the witness stand, it wouldn’t be because you were an atheist, **Der Trihs** , but because rather they had gotten to know you just as we have. And if someone in the jury had the foresight to bring rotten fruit. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621/180 "2013-07-29T16:48:04Z")
Well, soon as we’re done discussing **Der** ’s abrasive personality, can we get back to the crucial issue of liberal media bias? Focus, people! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heres-your-all-white-jury-race-hustlers/664621.md?page=10)