It was also 1992 in LA. It’s been 20 years, there’s less racial tension than there was, and African-Americans have more to lose now than they did then.
Plus, since the initial media coverage, I think most African-Americans harbor doubt now about Zimmerman’s guilt.
The racist part is the constant assumption that black people are going to riot and aren’t capable of using other forms of protest like the rest of us. Nobody asked if white people were going to riot if McCain or Romney lost, I don’t remember anyone asking if Latinos were going to riot if immigration reform failed, and the list goes on. From what I’ve seen, only one group of people are the subject of this assumption. And please don’t tell me about the Rodney King riots again or quote crime statistics at me. We’ve seen this predictions made and fail to materialize over and over, and yet the question keeps getting asked. The reason is pretty freaking obvious.
You’re off base a tad here. The Zimmerman riots, should they occur, will be based not on the fact that Z shot the kid, but on the fact that he won’t have received the punishment the black community thinks he should (being burned alive). Therefore, those future riots, like the Rodney King riots, will spring from a perception that white authorities (the judicial system) will not have protected/respected the rights of blacks (in this case, upholding Martin’s rights by “properly” punishing his killer).
Of course, this is a persistent feeling in the black community, almost a trope if you will, but riots have broken out after what the black community has felt were particulrly egregious examples of injustice. There’s also the persistent trope that injustice when a black person either is the victim of or has been accused of a crime is automatic.
If the black community has matured to the point where they can accept a not guilty verdict as the true and honest product of a fair process and of the decisions of a jury of their peers, I will be truly surprised and will duly note that evolution on their part. In a way, it’s a pity that he’s going to be railroaded into a guilty verdict (possibly on a lesser charge), because I would have liked to see that I’m wrong about black riots resulting from an acquittal–such acquittal being the only possible result of a fair trial.
Well, somebody certainly has issues about accepting a verdict. Are you going to riot if Zimmerman is convicted?
And as we all know, nobody is more informed about the views that prevail among members of “the black community” better than some white guy!
Did I ever say that I wouldn’t “accept” (whatever that means) a guilty verdict? I did, in fact, say that I thought a conviction was likely.
It’s obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebrum and even rudimentary knowledge of the law that the prosecution’s case is far too weak to merit a conviction. Martin clearly leapt on and beat the crap out of Zimmerman. The only way this would be a murder (in the eyes of the LAW) would be if Zimmerman drew on Martin and Martin’s reaction was to leap on Zimmerman in self-defense. Aside from the fact that this would have required superpowers on Martin’s part, it seems an unlikely reaction to having a gun drawn on you. Therefore, Martin acted first. No murder. Not even manslaughter.
Would I riot or commit any act of civil disobedience if Zimmerman was convicted? No, because incorrect verdicts are a flaw we accept in our justice system. Besides, there aren’t any stores nearby that I want to loot.
And as we all know, hyperbole is a finely honed debating tool :rolleyes:
Exactly how are the views of the black community so obscure and unfathomable that a white guy can’t understand them (it’s not as if Al Sharpton hides his light under a bushel basket)? Sounds like a racist statement to me.
So I repeat, is it racist to point out the pretty freaking obvious: that the Watts and Rodney King riots were instigated and participated in by blacks? Is it racist to conclude that since one trial verdict resulted in black rioting due to perceptions of white injustice, that similar rioting might occur if a similar verdict were handed down today, in an equally charged atmosphere?
Did white people burn down buildings, assault firemen and truck drivers, and loot shops when the OJ Simpson criminal verdict was announced? There’s a reason why only one group of people is subject to the assumption you mention.
You don’t have to make some kind of racial judgment to draw the conclusion that blacks could riot if Z isn’t convicted. You just have to look at recent history. Does this mean, as you state, that saying that is also saying that blacks can’t use other forms of protest like the rest of us? Of course not. The vast majority would simply grumble about it; a few might even accept it. You might be foolhardy to order a Quarter Pounder in a black neighborhood for a few weeks afterward, but most blacks’ reactions will be completely peaceful even if Z is acquitted on all charges.
Yes, you do. It’s a conclusion about a racial group based on stereotypes and cherry-picked examples, and this thread shows that the predictions are pretty much immune to evidence. Since the prediction is that the group will riot if they’re unhappy, that’s more than enough to sustain the description of racism.
gee, I don’t know. maybe because what you so blithely term “the black community” actually comprises millions of people distributed throughout every region of the country, none of whom particularly enjoy interacting with you?
Actually, many of my friends, and two of my business partners, are/have been black. I believe these eight people do, in fact, enjoy my company. But that’s neither here nor there in addressing your silly assumption.
Observing, commenting on, and even predicting the behavior of a given racial, cultural, or ethnic group isn’t racism, even if such observations, etc. are unflattering. You can bolster your calling it racism by trying to refute the observation, thus proving (in your mind) that the observation isn’t a true one, but rather, a manifestation of the person in question’s prejudices.
In point of fact, I believe the instigators of these riots (past and future) are a subgroup of blacks that I could refer to as “urban black thugs,” a group that is not representative of blacks as a whole. But the black community–and yes, there is such a thing–hasn’t condemned the Rodney King or the Watts riots (even though those riots set back the black cause by years, if not decades), which amounts to tacit approval.
Not really, since they have rioted before when they were unhappy about pretty much the exact same thing. As for being “immune to evidence”: how can a PREDICTION be subject to evidence in the first place before the triggering event actually happens? You can call a prediction wrong once it proves to be so, but logically, not before then. (You keep dodging this simple point.)
You can, I suppose, label my prediction that what has happened before will happen again as racism because that prediction involves an ethnic group. Labeling someone a racist because they say something–anything–unflattering about an ethnic group has been the soup du jour of pseudointellectuals and weak minds for decades now. Doing so makes such people feel all warm inside and good about themselves. Righteous indignation is better than crack cocaine, and it’s cheaper to boot!
Sure it is. You just described racists’ favorite passtime.
Really, you’re so knowledgable about “the black community” that you think they want Zimmerman “burned alive”?
What gives you such insight.
Do you have friends who have friends who know blacks?
Do you live in a “black neighborhood”?
Do you work at a place that’s predominantly “black”?
Do you have a sister with a black boyfriend or do you have a black girlfriend or a black boyfriend?
I posted a couple of examples - more recent than yours - where no such thing happened. Care to comment on those?
You could reconsider the issue and realize your prediction is based on bad data, which, to this point, the people who are predicting riots have been loathe to do. that. For example people keep mentioning Rodney King in this thread - and you’re now talking about the Watts riots in the 1960s - while ignoring more recent and more comparable situations where there was no rioting. I’ve already gone on about this in detail, but there were no riots related to the Diallo case, none related to Sean Bell, and as someone else mentioned, there were no riots during the interval between the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the arrest of George Zimmerman. So there’s no reason to think there would be rioting if Zimmerman is acquitted.
And the intellectually lazy and bigoted have been whining “it’s not prejudice, I’m just telling it like it is!” for just as long, if not longer. Such is life.
Yes. But step back for a moment–just a moment–if you can–if you’re intellectually capable:
You are criticizing me for citing examples where riots occured and using those examples to predict that a future riot will happen (if a given event comes to pass). You say this is incorrect because in similar situations, riots have also not occured.
Now, stay with me here. I’m about to suggest a line of reasoning that does NOT assume that your arguments are superior to others’:
You assert that riots will not happen, based on incidents when they did not. However, you ignore incidents when they DID happen. Isn’t making such an assertion the exact equivalent of the error you accuse me of, i.e., confirmation bias?
Obviously, I’m well aware that mass black riots have been unusual occurences in US history. However, I view the triggering event (a Zimmerman acquittal) to be as potentially infuriating to the black community as, yes, the Rodney King verdict. I have also observed that the Zimmerman trial is viewed by black commentators as a racial referendum: if Zimmerman walks, that ipso facto will prove that the oppression of the black man continues. (Never mind whether or not he’s guilty; that’s utterly irrelevant.)
Are you capable of recognizing confirmation bias in your own arguments when you accuse me of having that same bias? I believe I’ve addressed why I think this case is unusually volatile. I despair of educating you that I’m not saying “blacks always riot”; I’m saying that “in the past, blacks have rioted when a verdict in a racially charged court case has not been to their liking.” The latter statement is the basis of my prediction.
I have black friends. Who have black friends. And white friends. And Hispanic friends. Who are also friends of mine.
My neighborhood is about 40% Asian, 40% white, 10% Hispanic, and 10% black.
I am self-employed, but my last workplace was about 20% black. My supervisor was black, and so was his supervisor.
My sister has had black boyfriends in the past. I have dated black women, but never had one I considered a “girlfriend.”
Now, how in the name of sweet holy motherfuck did my answers to those question have anything to do with anything, and how would any completely different answers I might have supplied made any difference in your opinions?
I’m guessing it means whatever it meant when you used the same phrasing in the quote I was responding to.
[QUOTE=You]
If the black community has matured to the point where they can accept a not guilty verdict as the true and honest product of a fair process and of the decisions of a jury of their peers, I will be truly surprised and will duly note that evolution on their part.
[/QUOTE]
{my emphasis]
Your level of hypocrisy is so goofy I want to believe you’re trolling. Out of one side of your mouth you’re blathering about true and honest products of a fair process and on the other you’re demanding that Zimmerman be acquitted based on a trial that isn’t even half over and that you aren’t actually at.
What should we assume about your cerebrum and knowledge of the law when the defense moves for a dismissal at the close of the state’s case, and it’s denied?
From wikipedia:
“Tralfamadore is the home to beings who exist in all times simultaneously, and are thus privy to knowledge of future events.”
Oh dear. I take it all back. 