avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Did GZ really save someone out of an overturned truck? I skipped over it thinking it was a joke or prank.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Yenrub
- Start date
Joe McGee
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The bolded is what I hold Obama to. As I said before, I went out of my way to avoid the Martin/Zimmerman issue. To me it always seemed like nothing more than a local news story, that the national media was milking as much drama out of if that they could for profit sake. Obama's comments during the whole case just seemed to me that the media was trying to milk as much as they could, even if it meant attempting to milk from the president himself.And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.
To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.
Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.
I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really justIMO, we wouldn't be wasting our breath preaching at them if we really understood their POV, we'd be helping change their perception with our actions.
But on Friday, Obama's speech was not a response to the media attempting to milk more profit producing drama from the story. On Friday, he became an activist. I probably wouldn't have much of an issue had he given that speeach during the trial. Because at least then he can leave Zimmerman's fate to the court. But to give that speeach after the verdict says the issue isn't over, as no activist ever wants the issue to be over. An activist wants the issue to remain active. As such, Zimmerman will never be free.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I heard George Zimmerman saved the stranger and the dog.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Haha. That is fantastic. It would be priceless if the family he helped happened to be black.
In still a little skeptical, but this would be awesome.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
He's a net +3
squistion
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Depending on his mood, George Zimmerman might save you from a car accident, or he might put one in your chest. Meeting George Zimmerman IRL is a high-variance event.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Millions of people will be interested in the story. That why he commented on the case initially, right?
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
How many race baiters are praying right now that the family of 4 ISN'T black?
squistion
Footballguy
Um no, I don't recall him commenting on any other high profile criminal jury trials that millions of people were interested in.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I know of one guy who lives in DC who is currently in MA and a few guys on a fantasy football message board I frequent.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Me neither. That's kind of the point.
timschochet
Footballguy
This one had everything to do with race, and as a result, there was a large concern, which thankfully turned out to be wrong, that violence would erupt after the verdict. By stating in his speech that violence was the wrong way to honor Trayvon's memory, Obama helped to stem this IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
Obama is absolutely right that he could have been Trayvon at age 16. Those who note the vast differences between Obama and Trayvon are seriously missing the point. They had one thing in common- they were both black youths. And as such, no matter what their background or upbringing or where they live or how they act, they are subject to greater scrutiny, greater suspicion, and more harassment. THAT was the point Obama was making and it is absolutely 100% correct.
The Commish
Footballguy
Personally, I can't relate to your position. I've never understood why others spend so much energy on telling everyone else what they should be doing or holding others to a standard they aren't holding themselves to. That type of energy is best used trying to affect change on your own. I don't really care what Obama said. He has his opinion just like everyone else, but I also don't hold him to a standard higher than I hold myself, so that's part of it. I think you have a lot of "political baggage" (for lack of a better term) when reading/listening to Obama. At least I hope that's what this is. I didn't take things the way you did when he said them. That's all I can really sayThe bolded is what I hold Obama to. As I said before, I went out of my way to avoid the Martin/Zimmerman issue. To me it always seemed like nothing more than a local news story, that the national media was milking as much drama out of if that they could for profit sake. Obama's comments during the whole case just seemed to me that the media was trying to milk as much as they could, even if it meant attempting to milk from the president himself.And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.
To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.
Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.
I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just
But on Friday, Obama's speech was not a response to the media attempting to milk more profit producing drama from the story. On Friday, he became an activist. I probably wouldn't have much of an issue had he given that speeach during the trial. Because at least then he can leave Zimmerman's fate to the court. But to give that speeach after the verdict says the issue isn't over, as no activist ever wants the issue to be over. An activist wants the issue to remain active. As such, Zimmerman will never be free.
Joe McGee
Footballguy
Do you ever wonder why you've been a human pinata in this thread? Posts like this are why.
Joe McGee
Footballguy
The President should have followed your advice.Personally, I can't relate to your position. I've never understood why others spend so much energy on telling everyone else what they should be doing or holding others to a standard they aren't holding themselves to. That type of energy is best used trying to affect change on your own. I don't really care what Obama said. He has his opinion just like everyone else, but I also don't hold him to a standard higher than I hold myself, so that's part of it. I think you have a lot of "political baggage" (for lack of a better term) when reading/listening to Obama. At least I hope that's what this is. I didn't take things the way you did when he said them. That's all I can really sayThe bolded is what I hold Obama to. As I said before, I went out of my way to avoid the Martin/Zimmerman issue. To me it always seemed like nothing more than a local news story, that the national media was milking as much drama out of if that they could for profit sake. Obama's comments during the whole case just seemed to me that the media was trying to milk as much as they could, even if it meant attempting to milk from the president himself.And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.
To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.
Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.
I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just
But on Friday, Obama's speech was not a response to the media attempting to milk more profit producing drama from the story. On Friday, he became an activist. I probably wouldn't have much of an issue had he given that speeach during the trial. Because at least then he can leave Zimmerman's fate to the court. But to give that speeach after the verdict says the issue isn't over, as no activist ever wants the issue to be over. An activist wants the issue to remain active. As such, Zimmerman will never be free.
The Commish
Footballguy
ok?The President should have followed your advice.Personally, I can't relate to your position. I've never understood why others spend so much energy on telling everyone else what they should be doing or holding others to a standard they aren't holding themselves to. That type of energy is best used trying to affect change on your own. I don't really care what Obama said. He has his opinion just like everyone else, but I also don't hold him to a standard higher than I hold myself, so that's part of it. I think you have a lot of "political baggage" (for lack of a better term) when reading/listening to Obama. At least I hope that's what this is. I didn't take things the way you did when he said them. That's all I can really sayThe bolded is what I hold Obama to. As I said before, I went out of my way to avoid the Martin/Zimmerman issue. To me it always seemed like nothing more than a local news story, that the national media was milking as much drama out of if that they could for profit sake. Obama's comments during the whole case just seemed to me that the media was trying to milk as much as they could, even if it meant attempting to milk from the president himself.And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.
To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.
Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.
I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just
But on Friday, Obama's speech was not a response to the media attempting to milk more profit producing drama from the story. On Friday, he became an activist. I probably wouldn't have much of an issue had he given that speeach during the trial. Because at least then he can leave Zimmerman's fate to the court. But to give that speeach after the verdict says the issue isn't over, as no activist ever wants the issue to be over. An activist wants the issue to remain active. As such, Zimmerman will never be free.
timschochet
Footballguy
If that's the case then I'm proud to be a pinata. And I feel sorry for those who aren't one.
Do you ever wonder why you've been a human pinata in this thread? Posts like this are why.
Last edited by a moderator:
lod01
Footballguy
What is the FFA record for pages of useless drivel? I believe this thread has a shot at it.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The bolded is what activists do. It's exactly what Obama did on Friday.Personally, I can't relate to your position. I've never understood why others spend so much energy on telling everyone else what they should be doing or holding others to a standard they aren't holding themselves to. That type of energy is best used trying to affect change on your own. I don't really care what Obama said. He has his opinion just like everyone else, but I also don't hold him to a standard higher than I hold myself, so that's part of it. I think you have a lot of "political baggage" (for lack of a better term) when reading/listening to Obama. At least I hope that's what this is. I didn't take things the way you did when he said them. That's all I can really sayThe bolded is what I hold Obama to. As I said before, I went out of my way to avoid the Martin/Zimmerman issue. To me it always seemed like nothing more than a local news story, that the national media was milking as much drama out of if that they could for profit sake. Obama's comments during the whole case just seemed to me that the media was trying to milk as much as they could, even if it meant attempting to milk from the president himself.And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.
To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.
Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.
I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just
But on Friday, Obama's speech was not a response to the media attempting to milk more profit producing drama from the story. On Friday, he became an activist. I probably wouldn't have much of an issue had he given that speeach during the trial. Because at least then he can leave Zimmerman's fate to the court. But to give that speeach after the verdict says the issue isn't over, as no activist ever wants the issue to be over. An activist wants the issue to remain active. As such, Zimmerman will never be free.
The Commish
Footballguy
so you're suggesting that he's just telling people they should look at things from the AA point of view but he's not doing that himself? I'm confused, but again....I didn't take from his comments what you did. And again, I don't really care what he's saying at this point. I do find theThe bolded is what activists do. It's exactly what Obama did on Friday.Personally, I can't relate to your position. I've never understood why others spend so much energy on telling everyone else what they should be doing or holding others to a standard they aren't holding themselves to. That type of energy is best used trying to affect change on your own. I don't really care what Obama said. He has his opinion just like everyone else, but I also don't hold him to a standard higher than I hold myself, so that's part of it. I think you have a lot of "political baggage" (for lack of a better term) when reading/listening to Obama. At least I hope that's what this is. I didn't take things the way you did when he said them. That's all I can really sayThe bolded is what I hold Obama to. As I said before, I went out of my way to avoid the Martin/Zimmerman issue. To me it always seemed like nothing more than a local news story, that the national media was milking as much drama out of if that they could for profit sake. Obama's comments during the whole case just seemed to me that the media was trying to milk as much as they could, even if it meant attempting to milk from the president himself.And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.
To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.
Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.
I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just
But on Friday, Obama's speech was not a response to the media attempting to milk more profit producing drama from the story. On Friday, he became an activist. I probably wouldn't have much of an issue had he given that speeach during the trial. Because at least then he can leave Zimmerman's fate to the court. But to give that speeach after the verdict says the issue isn't over, as no activist ever wants the issue to be over. An activist wants the issue to remain active. As such, Zimmerman will never be free.
entertaining every time he opens his mouth. What's gotten even better is the increased irony of those talking about prejudice and how others shouldn't be approaching things that way, yet those same people have already determined what Obama said/meant before he spoke the words. So I've got that going for me.ETA: Genuine question...do you consider yourself an "activist" against Obama?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/22/viewpoint-the-bravery-of-obamas-trayvon-speech/
The political risks in the President speaking at length about Trayvon Martin and his feelings about the continuing challenges of being a black man in modern America were innumerable.
This is radioactive stuff. It doesn’t matter that he’ll never again be up for election. Obama still has years left in office and a hyper partisan political environment to navigate. He’s become something of an invisible hand president, often working back channels, because if he sticks a flag in the ground and demands action then Congressional Republicans see greater incentive in defeating it. There was no policy proposal attached but race remains such a key part of American political life that speaking about it so bluntly and at the same time with great nuance, could widen the already vast political chasm. Validating black pain and asserting that profiling is real and saying that history is not an excuse but an honest part of why we are in the place we’re in is dangerous stuff when one party depends on a multiracial coalition and the other is almost entirely white and the demographic trends of America show whites becoming a minority within a few decades.
It was a treacherous speech politically because for one part of the divide the answer to black pain is: get over it, as Rep. Andy Harris recently said. Racism is in the past, white privilege is a myth, profiling is a ghost: doesn’t Obama’s election prove we’re beyond all that? The President knows better. He asked, in his 19 minute address, that black pain be acknowledged, that internalized bias be taken seriously, that history be understood as not done with us yet.
The assertion that blacks are hallucinating or excuse-making or lying when we talk about the many very real ways white privilege and racial bias and the lingering impact of history impact our lives is painful. It adds insult to injury to attack all assertions of racism and deny its continued impact or existence. The right acts as though decades of rejection of the vast majority of the black electorate is evidence of some sort of plantation thinking rather than the inevitable response to the Southern strategy and policies and rhetoric blacks find insulting. What do you mean Stand Your Ground or voter ID or immigration reform or the entitlement debate have racial tones? You’re injecting race! Playing the race card! It is like signal jamming: attack the transmission because you cannot win an argument that admits its existence. To these folks Zimmerman is a victim (several essays have spoken of all this as the lynching of George Zimmerman. To them race had nothing to do with this trial and now Obama has become the race-baiter-in-chief. Now he can be attacked on entirely new ground: as an apologist for black victim hood or a shameless stoker of racial division or maybe a neo Black Panther.
Politically speaking, Obama took that risk because the spiritual or moral risk of saying nothing was too great. To have the microphone and the intellect and the personal experience and a community of citizens in pain—to have all that and say nothing would be a dereliction of duty. It would mean that the black president had somehow been cowed into not speaking deeply about blackness at a moment of national strife because it was, what, too controversial? Perhaps Zimmerman’s acquittal was the only verdict possible given the paucity of evidence and the jury instructions shaped by Stand Your Ground which give so much leeway to self-defenders who feel afraid even if, as the judge instructed, “the danger is not real.”
But Obama knew we cannot understand the pain many feel around this verdict by narrowing the lens and seeing this as an isolated incident, isolated from American history, isolated from American racial norms. We are in pain now because once again we’ve been told black bodies are worth less and we are not full Americans and fear of black bodies is reasonable and it’s our problem to manage. Obama delicately touched on all that so there’s deep, cathartic power in the president reaching down for his perch to say I could have been Trayvon, any of us could. And perhaps unsaid though, not unheard, is this: he could’ve been me. No one would’ve thought Barry from the Choom Gang would become president. Who’s to know what Trayvon would’ve become? I am optimistic about the brother’s imaginary future even as I admit that institutional racism would’ve been an anchor weighing him down. But I’m growing more cynical about my country. Even as a boy lies dead and a president says I too have been profiled, part of the nation still speaks of race as a flimsy playing card they rebuke. Forgive me for wondering if Obama was right when he said we’re moving forward.
The political risks in the President speaking at length about Trayvon Martin and his feelings about the continuing challenges of being a black man in modern America were innumerable.
This is radioactive stuff. It doesn’t matter that he’ll never again be up for election. Obama still has years left in office and a hyper partisan political environment to navigate. He’s become something of an invisible hand president, often working back channels, because if he sticks a flag in the ground and demands action then Congressional Republicans see greater incentive in defeating it. There was no policy proposal attached but race remains such a key part of American political life that speaking about it so bluntly and at the same time with great nuance, could widen the already vast political chasm. Validating black pain and asserting that profiling is real and saying that history is not an excuse but an honest part of why we are in the place we’re in is dangerous stuff when one party depends on a multiracial coalition and the other is almost entirely white and the demographic trends of America show whites becoming a minority within a few decades.
It was a treacherous speech politically because for one part of the divide the answer to black pain is: get over it, as Rep. Andy Harris recently said. Racism is in the past, white privilege is a myth, profiling is a ghost: doesn’t Obama’s election prove we’re beyond all that? The President knows better. He asked, in his 19 minute address, that black pain be acknowledged, that internalized bias be taken seriously, that history be understood as not done with us yet.
The assertion that blacks are hallucinating or excuse-making or lying when we talk about the many very real ways white privilege and racial bias and the lingering impact of history impact our lives is painful. It adds insult to injury to attack all assertions of racism and deny its continued impact or existence. The right acts as though decades of rejection of the vast majority of the black electorate is evidence of some sort of plantation thinking rather than the inevitable response to the Southern strategy and policies and rhetoric blacks find insulting. What do you mean Stand Your Ground or voter ID or immigration reform or the entitlement debate have racial tones? You’re injecting race! Playing the race card! It is like signal jamming: attack the transmission because you cannot win an argument that admits its existence. To these folks Zimmerman is a victim (several essays have spoken of all this as the lynching of George Zimmerman. To them race had nothing to do with this trial and now Obama has become the race-baiter-in-chief. Now he can be attacked on entirely new ground: as an apologist for black victim hood or a shameless stoker of racial division or maybe a neo Black Panther.
Politically speaking, Obama took that risk because the spiritual or moral risk of saying nothing was too great. To have the microphone and the intellect and the personal experience and a community of citizens in pain—to have all that and say nothing would be a dereliction of duty. It would mean that the black president had somehow been cowed into not speaking deeply about blackness at a moment of national strife because it was, what, too controversial? Perhaps Zimmerman’s acquittal was the only verdict possible given the paucity of evidence and the jury instructions shaped by Stand Your Ground which give so much leeway to self-defenders who feel afraid even if, as the judge instructed, “the danger is not real.”
But Obama knew we cannot understand the pain many feel around this verdict by narrowing the lens and seeing this as an isolated incident, isolated from American history, isolated from American racial norms. We are in pain now because once again we’ve been told black bodies are worth less and we are not full Americans and fear of black bodies is reasonable and it’s our problem to manage. Obama delicately touched on all that so there’s deep, cathartic power in the president reaching down for his perch to say I could have been Trayvon, any of us could. And perhaps unsaid though, not unheard, is this: he could’ve been me. No one would’ve thought Barry from the Choom Gang would become president. Who’s to know what Trayvon would’ve become? I am optimistic about the brother’s imaginary future even as I admit that institutional racism would’ve been an anchor weighing him down. But I’m growing more cynical about my country. Even as a boy lies dead and a president says I too have been profiled, part of the nation still speaks of race as a flimsy playing card they rebuke. Forgive me for wondering if Obama was right when he said we’re moving forward.
They saw it wrong. Starting with Christo, but Ivan as well, IMO.So how was Obama "pandering to prejudice" then? It appeared like he was using this as a teaching moment.....helping different groups of people understand how others' experiences influence their perceptions. I didn't see this as Obama justifying the mindset.....but rather explaining context. Evidently others saw it differently.
I referenced the novel A Passage to India earlier, which I can't recommend highly enough. Obama was channeling E.M. Forster from the grave. He certainly wasn't endorsing anything (other than peaceful protest.)
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I pointing out that he is pandering to the AA's predudism of Martin as being an appropriate response to the AA's experience and history of being vicitms of predudism.so you're suggesting that he's just telling people they should look at things from the AA point of view but he's not doing that himself? I'm confused, but again....I didn't take from his comments what you did. And again, I don't really care what he's saying at this point. I do find the
I'm an activist against almost anyone with a (D) or an ® after their name. Most everyone who has gotten anywhere in either party has done so because of the support of very corrupt people.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is mind-boggling tim doesn't understand this.Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
timschochet
Footballguy
You know Christo it's gotten to the point that I'm proud whenever I earn your laughter. It means that I've made such a brilliant post that it's impossible for you to come up with a written response.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
But if you reduce it to skin color, ethnic background or "race" then being as Zimmerman was a Latino/Hispanic with black heritage as well and someone with a "darker" skin tone to boot, what the heck is the point of bringing up the profiling at all?
timschochet
Footballguy
I understand it. I just don't agree with it.It is mind-boggling tim doesn't understand this.Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Sharpest knife <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You
timschochet
Footballguy
Racial profiling is based on how somebody looks. Zimmerman would not be profiled as a young black man. I don't even know why you would bring it up.
The Commish
Footballguy
And how much of your latter comment influences the former?I pointing out that he is pandering to the AA's predudism of Martin as being an appropriate response to the AA's experience and history of being vicitms of predudism.so you're suggesting that he's just telling people they should look at things from the AA point of view but he's not doing that himself? I'm confused, but again....I didn't take from his comments what you did. And again, I don't really care what he's saying at this point. I do find the
I'm an activist against almost anyone with a (D) or an ® after their name. Most everyone who has gotten anywhere in either party has done so because of the support of very corrupt people.
timschochet
Footballguy
You don't become non-prejudiced just because you admit that you are prejudiced.If your intention was to get into a semantic squabble, then so be it. But in my experience, it plays out exactly the opposite. It's the people who do not understand how their background colors their interpretations that are most prejudiced.Okay, I see that you just responded to some quotes that Christo provided. My fault on that.I'm not the one changing the definition. You are.You don't get to change the definition of what a word means.He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Edit: You're the one who quoted the parts of the speech in which Obama identifies the prejudices that he believes some black Americans brought to this case. You don't get to "strongly reject" the only accurate descriptor of those passages.
Also, I haven't quoted any part of Obama's speech.
Still, when somebody says "I come from the following background, which colors how I interpret X," they are conceding that they are prejudiced when it comes to X. That's what the word means.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
This thread is a trainwreck in which the same guy, our fearless Tim, is hit by the train every day. It's hard to look away.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm sorry did you just say that a hispanic with some "darkish" skin coloring (sad we're still reduced to this) would not and could not be profiled at all growing up and living in Manassas Virginia and Orlando Florida?
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Why are we discussing the profiling of George Zimmerman? I feel like I'm in Bizarro World. Trayvon Martin is the one who was racially profiled. Obama was racially profiled as a young black men. Young black men get racially profiled all the time, every day of the week. Whatever GZ's background, he's not a young black man.
These two statements are contrary to sound logic.I understand it. I just don't agree with it.It is mind-boggling tim doesn't understand this.Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well I sure hope my logic is sound. I would never want to be accused of unsound logic.These two statements are contrary to sound logic.I understand it. I just don't agree with it.It is mind-boggling tim doesn't understand this.Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
