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:
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
…I’ve made no attempt to try and prove anything. I’m just repeating a story as told to me and we’re discussing it. Do you have any reason to believe there wasn’t any prejudice involved?
[/QUOTE]
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:
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
…I don’t give a flying fuck if you find the story credible or not. I posted it here to discuss as is, an anecdotal story.
As in “if this is what happened then what do you think?” If you don’t want to discuss it under those terms then kindly piss off.
[/QUOTE]
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.
