Irony: Trayvon Martin
-
djtenacity — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 10:17 PM)
That's a lot to tackle. I wasn't necessarily saying that things weren't any better, now, than they were "back then", but the idea of "equality", I believe, is simply not true on anything more than a superficial level.
Yours is a well-stated argument, though, and I will attempt to address some of your other points, when I have more time. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 12:23 AM)
Well, I will address the idea of it being equality on just a superficial level. I believe you are making a pointless argument, and as such, and if ever acted upon seriously as a big problem, will only be more dangerous and unjust for everyone. Let me explain why. No one is going to say any life circumstance does not make it easier or harder for anyone to be equal. In fact, simply because parents, and certain people only being in some areas of the world, giving entirely different community/family experience just for their presence, everyone is unique.
And thus, no one can ever be equal. So I guess, we are unavoidably superficial. Such is the nature of everyone. Going to push laws to make everyone equal in that way is insane (microaggressions, 'unconscious bias', etc). It cannot be done, and trying to enforce it will only make more inequality.
Superficial or not, is not the point at all. The point is whether they are on the surface equal. There is nothing directly prohibiting any one of them from making the life choices they need to be very, very well off for themselves. Or any white man from making a disaster of their life. Not one thing. The more we push for equality on the surface, as we have it, and make it known that is the only acceptable way of doing things, that is all we should do. Or else it will become a Tyranny under the guise of the superficial equality, which really boils down to a form of Marxism. The unattainable thing everyone may wish for, but can never get to without hard changes, and if those changes are implemented to do anything about it, would require something that will take over to be very bad (We can already see the influence of this in the SJW/PC culture). Starting to see the parallels here with a certain other ideology, that seems to be a great idea for a perfect society?
Do you see the danger of your reasoning now? Rather, you will always see me standing against cries of these superficial things for the sake of preserving the liberty of everyone. And what should be true equality.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 04:39 PM)
a few, token black people in high positions of office
How dreadful that you have such low regard for those in the black community that work hard, exhaust every effort, and succeed. Should these people not be your role models? Why do you have such a negative view of them?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
djtenacity — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 10:20 PM)
I think you misunderstand my use of the word "token". I don't mean it to say that those people are any less worthy of respect as individuals. Perhaps I should have phrased it better. What I mean is that some people look to a few people of color in high office, and think of them as indications that things are "equal". Having people of color in high office doesn't necessarily mean that things are equal, because it - on its face - tells nothing about what those people might have had to do (or how their early lives might have been different than others), to help them get to where they are. I'm merely saying that there is a lot of context to be considered, when trying to paint the picture that having some people of color in high office is a sign of "equality". There are many variables to such a thing.
-
Fanamir — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 04:51 PM)
OP is misguided by "not getting into the details." He's already started an argument, and is now refusing to give any evidence to back himself up.
What he's referring to is this: witnesses say that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting, and Zimmerman was bleeding afterwards, apparently having been struck on the back of the head.
What seems to have happened is this: Zimmerman was following Trayvon, Trayvon jumped him, Zimmerman shot Trayvon.
That's not to say Zimmerman's not an beep he was absolutely racial profiling and stalking some kid through a neighborhood, and handled the situation extremely poorly. He's also been extremely insensitive in the aftermath.
Trayvon, meanwhile, was a scared kid who did something incredibly stupid.
OP is right that Trayvon's innocence was played up in order to rile people up. At least, that's my take. -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 05:10 PM)
Well, afaik, the innocence thing was about the fact that Martin hadn't done anything, and was being racially profiled and stalked.
Since we only one of the two people involved is alive, we'll probably never know the exact truth about what happened before Zimmerman shot Martin. If Martin attacked Zimmernan, it could be that he attacked him for no real reason, or it could be that he attacked him out of self-preservation. The only thing that is pretty much clear, is that Zimmerman is a dick. It's not exactly hard to imagine what the situation looked like, simply based on his idiotic behaviour after.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 05:52 PM)
You state that "Martin hadn't done anything, and was being racially profiled and stalked," asserting that this is a "fact." Where did you get this information? Was it not the narrative spread by numerous media sources? For a case that had not yet been tried, where did they get the information?
Recognize that many people's perspective of this case is highly parallel to the narrative that was portrayed in the media. Their entire view is strictly set to the narrative that they were presented, to the point that many still picture Martin as only a small child.
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 06:07 PM)
That Zimmerman was stalking Martin, is taken from the 911 call - where Zimmerman acknowledges that he is following Martin, and is told that he doesn't need to do that.
He also talks about things like "he's [Martin] on drugs or something", and that "he looks black".
Those are things that are part of the actual evidence of the case.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 06:17 PM)
Did Zimmerman continue following Martin after acknowledging "ok"? How much more time passed before the incident occurred? Who initiated the final encounter?
"he's [Martin] on drugs or something", and that "he looks black".
Did the dispatcher ask Zimmerman to describe the suspect? Are these descriptive?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 06:25 PM)
Did Zimmerman continue following Martin after acknowledging "ok"?
Somehow they met up, and I get the impression that you think that it's reasonable to think that a 17 year old guy who was stalked by a guy with a gun, suddenly got the urge to run back and attack that guy with his bare hands.
No, there is no irony here. It's just another case conspiracy theory, like the X amount of other conspiracy theories that just "happen" to infest this show.
I think we're done here.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 06:39 PM)
Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend," remember?
At trial
, on the witness stand, Martin's girlfriend Jentell[?] testified that Martin made it to the back of his house. She then said that Martin said that he saw Zimmerman walking across the top of the "T." Then, she stated that Martin
went back out
to confront Zimmerman. She said that she heard Martin say, "You got a problem" [or similar]; at which point, she heard what sounded like a fight before the call terminated.
In answer, according to his "girlfriend," yes, it is. This isn't a conspiracy. It's what
she
said happened. Now, will you accept it?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 06:19 PM)
NONE of which would have happened had Zimmerman simply stayed in his vehicle until the police arrived. Since no laws were being broken when he called the police, since no crime was in progress, there was absolutely no reason to exit his vehicle. What's the worst that would have happened had he stayed in his vehicle? The worst that would have happened would be the Trayvon Martin would have gone inside and stayed inside, and the police would've showed up, found that no crime had occurred and gone on their way.
-
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 06:31 PM)
Stepping out of your vehicle is not a crime.
Assaulting a person is a crime.
If Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, then he is a victim, yes? Why are you blaming the victim?
What is the difference between your post and telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have worn a short dress?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 06:51 PM)
I'm not disputing that stepping out of a vehicle is not a crime. But it was an unnecessary action on Zimmerman's part that directly instigated and escalated the entire situation. No it's not a crime. It's also not a crime for me to scream at you and call your wife a whore. But is it advisable? Of course not.
I said nothing that would defend Martin if he did indeed assault Zimmerman. IF that was the case, then Zimmerman would have had the right to defend himself. The problem though, is that you have to use the word "if" in your question. We don't know exactly what transpired between Martin and Zimmerman once they were face to face. We don't know that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. But going back to my original point, we can easily surmise that no assault would have taken place had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle since he did not have cause or any urgency to exit. You can agree to that, can't you?
Your analogy is interesting because I see it actually applying to MY point. A woman should be able to wear a short dress without having anyone rape her. Just like a man should be able to walk home without a complete stranger following him home and calling the police on them when they're not committing any crime.
The problem with your analogy is that you assume Zimmerman is the "victim" when you don't actually know who assaulted whom first. But hopefully you're intelligent enough to know that neither would have been assaulted if Zimmerman had just done what the dispatcher told him to do.
No crime was taking place.
Police were on the way.
No reason to get out of the vehicle.
No consequences for staying in the vehicle.
