Just a thought. One of the things I admire about our founding fathers is their vision. Influenced by the Enlightenment perhaps, they saw that in order to claim rights for myself I have to defend them for all others.
Perhaps Lincoln was suggesting that even though we want a bloody war to end we cannot truly long for justice and demand justice for ourselves until we require ourselves to act justly toward others?
I’m over thinking this aren’t I
If you want to claim you’re misunderstood, cos, you’ll first have to have a word with whoever’s writing your posts and thread titles for you. I mean:
“Racism Alive and Well in TN”
Sounds serious, as does your OP, in which you claimed that eight blacks abused their power as jurors to deny a white woman just requital and prevent a black woman from facing the full consequences of her actions. “obvious racial prejudice,” you called it.
Strong stuff, cos. Gutsy typing.
'Course, then it turned out that your actual evidence was that a white plaintiff got a less-than-satisfactory award from a predominantly black jury, and your source was a friend (ethnicity unspecified) who sat on the jury and disagreed with the majority decision. Obvious racial prejudice? Not merely the fact that plaintiffs never get everything they want, or that the jurors might have felt her damage claims were exaggerated, or taken account of other countervailing evidence your friend didn’t want to consider, or felt less sympathetic to the plaintiff or her lawyer, or more so to the defendant and hers, for reasons unrelated to race? Not to consider the possibility that it might be statistically less likely to find eight racists on a twelve-person jury than some lesser number (say, one).
You were quick to realize the problem, though, and started back-pedaling by post 27:
Translation: “Yes, I made a serious accusation in the OP but damn this burden of proof is heavy and why should I have to carry it?”
Your spine stiffened some in post 30, in which you claimed to believe your friend’s story was true, or maybe you were just trying to underscore the point that it was your friend’s story in an effort to get out from under your own OP. But it is in post 32 that you really shine:
You know, I used to do stand-up. I never made the big time, but I stuck around long enough to know flop sweat when I see it. Your tail would be between your legs by now if your neck weren’t in the way. You’re actually whining that people are wondering whether the story you told them is true, when you want them to just assume it is. Yes Dr. Drake did get this point, and even tried to paint a slightly prettier face on it. We got it too, we just think the issue of whether your accusation is true is actually relevant whether you want us to or not. Here’s why:
You claimed the jury was guilty of obvious racial prejudice, but it’s only obvious if you assume it’s true to begin with. That assumption, that decisions made by black persons are devoid of facts, logic, honest human emotion, or any consideration other than how much they hate whitey, is itself a negative and inaccurate stereotype. A lot of people find that repugnant, and that’s why you can’t have this discussion on the terms you want. I’ve heard there are places where you can, but I hope this never becomes one of them.
You made an outrageous accusation against eight black people, tried and failed to corroborate it, then claimed you weren’t trying to prove it, and then tried to make the rule that we have to discuss it as if it were true. What a worm.
You really are a self important pontificating gas bag. Is the OP’s title really so outrageous? Are you going to sit there and say that racism ISN’T alive and well in Tennessee? Are you seriously pretending that you are honour bound to defend the integrity of a completely anonymous jury?
Jesus, the fucking wannabe detectives around here, sniffing out inconsistencies for the “TRUTH”, Dammit! brickbacon is right, the discussion does hinge on believing the story happened as told. But simply say “I don’t buy it” if you think it sounds unreal. Don’t fucking pretend you are protecting the poor state of Tennessee from outrageous slander or that cosmosdan has to somehow corroborate his story for it to be a legit topic of discussion.
CarnalK, here’s a tip. When a thread seems to go awry, and you find yourself blaming the spoilsports who care whether the accusation that comprises the OP is actually true or not, it’s a sign that your moral compass got left in your other suit.
But, hey. Just for a moment, let’s pretend nobody cares what’s true and you and cos can get straight to the fun part: discussing those nasty black racists and their poor white victim. Exactly where do you see the discussion going from there? What interesting insights and arguments do you expect to be spurred by this “topic” once it’s freed from the constraints of being true? Go ahead – show us the post that makes such a thread worthwhile. Show us it’s not just a half-witted and lazy attempt to for once be the side that gets to quote Jefferson and Lincoln instead of Maddox and Wallace and still get to make black people the villains by making accusations without the burden of showing them to be true.
The floor is yours.
Thank you oh so much for yielding the floor to me but I don’t really care to discuss some random non-violent incident of racism. I really just wanted to point out what an ass I thought you were. Carry on with your righteousness.
If he did think that, he was very very wrong. Or we have to redefine “injustice.” Injustice is never reasonable.
But, my modest friend, you did so much more than that. You came out foursquare in favor of the proposition that the OP’s allegations of racism on the part of black jurors in Tennessee were worth discussing regardless of whether those allegations were, you know, true. And then you proved your integrity by sticking around in the thread long enough to…decline to discuss it. That forebearance, especially in the face of such an easy and tempting target as this pontificating old gasbag/ass, looks almost like honesty, if you squint hard enough. Into a funhouse mirror.
But, your secret’s safe with me. No one should ever associate your username with any namby-pamby obsession about accusations having to be true to be a damn good time.
Sorry to see you go. Next time, someone might come up with an unsubstantiated charge of random, violent racism on the part of some black jurors – that might pique your interest enough to give us that magical post I asked for. We all know it’s in you.
I stopped reading after “But, my modest friend” because I knew it was another over-verbiaged attempt at wit and put down. You really suck at that combination. Stick to wordy soliloquies on how tough it is to be a social outcast.
cosmosdan, if you want a discussion on this you should start an IMHO thread like Dr Drake, I believe, sort of suggested. Just give a short summary of the story as it was relayed to you and ask “Regardless of whether this specific story is totally accurate, do you think this type of thing goes on a lot? Is Lincoln right that we just have to suck it up for a while?” I mean, you’ll still be accused of race baiting but at least they’d have to start a new Pit thread to do it. lol.
Thread title declares racism alive and well in TN based on second-hand information.
The OP relays the anecdote and invites us all the share in his outrage over how things can be so injust and unfair in the year 2007.
Now here’s the test: Pretend for a moment that the OP was about a mostly white jury. Pretend for a moment that the OP was about a black plaintiff seeking damages from a white person.
Question: would you be so confident in believing that racism is alive and well based on this “proof”? Would you be condeming the skeptics for their skepticism as you are now?
Honest questions here.
Yeh, I would. White person here, living in the liberal end of a very Blue state, who encounters enough casual racism to have no trouble believing that a mostly white jury could dismiss or minimize a black plaintiff’s claims out of bias. Not saying it happens all the time, or even regularly, but the attitudes to produce it are alive and well and living in the hearts of a disturbing number of people.
Yeah, like ETF, I wouldn’t have a hard time believing it. I mean come on, racism is alive and well to some degree in Sweden, Japan and Mexico. Is a former Confederate state really that hard to buy?
Are you saying that a similarly described story with races reversed wouldn’t imply racism to you? Or that you would immediately doubt the story? Also an honest question.
Really, I don’t think the OP here meant this thread to bash these specific black jurors. The question was more “Is reverse racism valid? Did whitey have it coming?”. Now I wouldn’t get into a convo like that because it is a little unseemly but when I see people come in and demand proof for something 1 step away from a personal anecdote I just got annoyed.
My simple answer to the OP would be: I’m not really sure this one anecdote is a reason to worry that whites are facing some dangerous racism blowback. To answer your specific question, reverse racism is not justified as it just agitates the situation - it does not give anyone a sense of a genuine evening the tally. I seem to remember a political philosopher say that the only way to ever truly move on from something like this is to truly forget because forgiveness simply won’t come - quite a different tactic than Lincoln suggested.
That’s not what I asked, though. I wouldn’t have a hard time believing a whole bunch of things. That’s irrelevant.
The OP’s anecdote is presented as if to say “look, racism is alive and well in TN, and this is evidence!” I’m having a hard time believing that you’d just roll over and accept that whole thought process if the OP was talking about white-on-black racism. Call me stark raving mad, but I would. I’m having an even harder time believing that you would chide those who challenge the OP.
I wouldn’t accept that it as evidence of such, no. Then again, count me in the crew that thinks it’s stupid and arrogant to dismiss the findings of a jury if I’m not privy to the same exact information they are and I have no way of verifying the credibility of either the defendant or plaintiff.
This? I don’t get. Have you read the OP? There would be nothing to talk about if the anecdote hadn’t been mentioned. Nonsense is coming out of your keyboard.
Who in the hell is going to defend “reverse racism”, anyway? If the OP wanted to debate that, then he should have put this in GD.
Umm, Abraham Lincoln?
You sir are a disingenuous ass. You conveniently left of part of the thread title that, with a little thought and less ego, supports my explanation. This is just more hypocritical bullshit. You judge that conclusions I never asserted as strongly as you suggest are wrong and you have the nerve to think you can determine my intent even after I’ve explained it several times. Interestingly enough your actions are pretty identical to the ones you falsely accuse me off.
This is either intentionally misleading, stupidly wrong, or an outright lie. What I claimed in the OP was
as in, I’m simply relating a story told to me as a subject for discussion.
I didn’t call anything obvious racial prejudice. I related that that was his opinion as told to me. Maybe you fail to see the difference but fortunately a couple of posters grasped it. I can understand someone reading the OP and taking it the way you did at first, but what I can’t fathom is how you have the nerve and stupidity once it’s been explained, to still insist you just have to be right. If you for whatever reasons prefer to believe I’m retreating from some position be my guest. I don’t care. For you to come here and stamp your feet and create an this “I’m right I’m right I know I am” post is just pathetic. You have nothing to go on except your incorrect reading and interpretation of my OP. Still you post to assert that your opinion is factual while my OP is a sign of my own prejudice or some such nonsense. It reeks of hypocrisy and you just can’t see it or admit it.
A useless misrepresentation of the story I related.
My first response to BillDoor was in post #16
Bill was the first one to point out that my related story wasn’t real proof of any prejudice.
post 27 is where I continue to explain to BD that my OP was intended as an opinion up for discussion piece. It’s explaining what the OP is rather than retreating from something it is not.
This is your translation which some others don’t share. You’re welcome to it. I’ve explained it’s incorrect and no amount of semantic games from you makes your opinion more valuable or more accurate. That’s where your hypocrisy shines. To suggest that your opinion and your take on it somehow becomes evidence that you are right while demanding evidence from me about assertions I never made.
I stated the truth whether you believe it or not. I’m not about to spend my time trying to defend or prove assertions I never made. If people chose to think my friends opinion and mine are way off that’s fine.
That may explain why your posts here are such a joke.
Evidently you don’t. I don’t suppose it matters but my guess is I’ve spent as much time in solo performances on stage as you have and probably a lot more. It’ll take a lot more than this pathetic example to give me the flop sweats bucko.
People saying they think the accusation is not true and that my friend was probably wrong in his assessment are welcome to their opinion. That could be part of the discussion. Asking me to prove something that was never intended to be more than an opinion discussion is a waste of time. As Dr. D pointed out. in #24
and then the highlights of his accurate understanding in #49 {bolding mine}
I did not. It’s too bad you can’t grasp that.
This is completely faulty logic and a despicable unfounded accusation as well. {More hypocrisy} Even If I personally asserted that several black jurors were clearly racist that’s about a few specific individuals. That’s a comment on racism in human race and not the ugly unfounded conclusion you draw here.
If I said my black neighbor Charlie is prejudice that is not a comment on the entire
black race any more than noting a white person is racist concludes that all white people are. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Once again you insert your own interpretation as fact, writing as if you have every reason to be sure of your conclusion despite input to the contrary and no supporting evidence.
I find that repugnant and I find you assuming that to be a factual representation of what I’ve presented to be a disgusting lie.
If I had to choose between worm and the traits you’ve demonstrated in this thread I’d prefer worm. Fortunately I have other choices. I’ve made no accusation against 8 black people. I made no attempt to corroborate it but clearly defined it as an opinion discussion.
Since I started the thread I have every right to make requests of other posters if I see them derailing the thread with irrelevant BS.
Perhaps you entertain yourself with this kind of crap. Not on my time any longer.
Fix your screen name…you misspelled Shit.
It took me a minute but Hey…this is pretty dam funny. 
ftr my OP wasn’t about reverse racism but just racism in general. Note that earlier I asked a poster if reverse racism was equality. If the races were flipped in the story I told it would be the same thing. Racism. I just told the story as it was told to me.
I would find it just as disappointing and tragic if the races were flipped and sadly, just as believable.
YWTF I think you also are missing the point. I’m not surprised in the least that some people find the OP hard to accept as factual and remain skeptical about it’s content. Nobody is chiding anyone for not accepting it as factual. The problem is people demanding proof for an anecdotal story is a waste of time in a thread intended to be just an opinion discussion.
CarnalK I appreciate your participation. I wondered where to post this and I guess I chose incorrectly. I think it’s hopelessly derailed at this point and I hope you won’t be offended if I request the mods close it.
Mods, that’s my official request, unless others express enough interest to keep it open, I’ve lost mine.
I don’t people are demanding evidence as much as they are questioning whether you’re jumping to conclusions based on hearsay from a source that may be under the influence of as much bias as the jurors being talked about.
Hmmm. I don’t agree with racism, even reverse racism. I’m not surprised though. When I was stationed in Fort Campbell I thought I had been transported back into the 50’s whenever I went to Clarksville. My motorcycle was stolen and when I called the police the first thing they asked me on the phone was “Are you colored?”.
No surprise I never got my bike back.
Perhaps,
as I said, I realize many posters here don’t know me, but I tried to explain why I found this jurors story believable. He’s an old friend of good character who is not prone to casual accusation or exaggeration.
even so I readily admitted his his opinion was only that.
I’m not jumping to anything or asking anyone else to. An anecdotal discussion does not require a hard and fast conclusion and hearsay is exactly what anecdotal means correct???
I think it is fair for the OP to say he thinks racism is alive and well in Tennessee, especially since he lives in fucking Tennessee. If he wants to open a thread to discuss a certain anecdote about racism than that’s his prerogative. I hate you fucking nitpickers who ruin every interesting thread by beating your chests and wailing that the OP isn’t specific enough, or is too specific, or only has anecdotal evidence, or only has statistical evidence. Shut the fuck up! I can certainly tell you that racism is alive and well in California, and that it works all ways. Of course, if I was the OP someone must now demand that I present all my evidence so that they can pick it apart (watch my hands - what tripe) and then when I say (truthfully) that it is just my personal experience, accuse me of backpedaling. Personally I believe the OP’s friend’s story, because of my own experiences. The OP has not and is not backpedaling at all! That jury was most likely influenced by race - their own and the parties involved.
Now as to whether or not it was a conscious decision for each person is certainly questionable, and to me is the most interesting part of the situation. It is hard enough for intelligent people to recognize their own internalized racism, let alone your average moron. I imagine many of them probably had other reasons in the forefront of their minds as to why the woman didn’t deserve any compensation. It was only a few in the jury that recognized what was going on. That’s the thing about racism - it is so very insidious.
Wow!! As if your race has any relevance on a theft. Coming from the northeast I’ve been stunned by racism coming from quite a few races. It all hurts.
{i’d like other posters to note that I didn’t ask Roger to provide more proof for his accusations about the Clarksville police force. That’s how an anecdotal discussion works. Not too difficult is it?}