Re: Racism in America (with data)
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:31 pm
That answers that for me.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Alright, let me try to clear this up. It won't be easy, methinks.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:18 pm You were being serious? Your reply to me is the very definition of disingenuous, in my opinion. Why in God's name would a defense lawyer refer to "Jogger's Toe" in her closing arguments? That's just nonsense.
Now I'm back to thinking you're just messing with folks.
Good luck and God speed......Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:11 pmAlright, let me try to clear this up. It won't be easy, methinks.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:18 pm You were being serious? Your reply to me is the very definition of disingenuous, in my opinion. Why in God's name would a defense lawyer refer to "Jogger's Toe" in her closing arguments? That's just nonsense.
Now I'm back to thinking you're just messing with folks.
I came here today, as I do often these past 20 years, (since the days of Gone Gold, actually), but I do not often comment as someone pointed out, I just read YOUR comments and don't say much.
So, why am I commenting today? (oh, noes, he must be a racist!) Well, the truth is I saw the thread title and I happen to be a life-long resident of Kenosha, and I clicked on the thread thinking that I may have something to add about the Rittenhouse case. But I found you guys were talking about Arbery at this point.
It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.
The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.
It is not harkening back to slavery. It's not some outrageous racist rant aimed at racists on the jury. You all really seem to have this opinion, that I believe is completely incorrect. I do take issue with the addition of the word "dirty", but as I've explained you can sort of make a stretch as to why they might add that. But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist. The defense has the right, and the obligation to paint this victim as a dirty thief. It's a legit paint job. I'm disappointed that many here are so quick to jump to a racist interpretation of this.
I get this whole train but if this statement was one out of the blue line I'd agree. But in full context, it is hard to dismiss it for the racist statement it almost certainly is. This is a jury of 11 white people and 1 black person. They just need to hang the jury. That's their best play right now.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:11 pmAnd to be clear - I do believe Arbery was a victim, I do believe Arbery was also a sneaky little thief, (I have a low opinion of thieves,) and I do think the "red-necks" who ran him down are guilty; they were likely not within their rights to chase this man under Georgia State laws. And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.
Literally one person (me) mentioned that and only while citing a civil rights lawyer who I thought made an interesting comparison (look it up, it's not as flippant as you want to make it out to be). Every other person who brought it up did so in the context of "yeah, that's a stretch". So let's not try to make it sound like everyone on OO was bringing it up/agreeing with it. That is simply not true.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:11 pm
It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.
What happened to your assertion that we should all read "long dirty toenails" as just "Jogger's Toenail"?The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.
But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist.
Thus we go from "not at all racist" to "not as racist as you think".And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:36 pmLiterally one person (me) mentioned that and only while citing a civil rights lawyer who I thought made an interesting comparison (look it up, it's not as flippant as you want to make it out to be). Every other person who brought it up did so in the context of "yeah, that's a stretch". So let's not try to make it sound like everyone on OO was bringing it up/agreeing with it. That is simply not true.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:11 pm
It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.
What happened to your assertion that we should all read "long dirty toenails" as just "Jogger's Toenail"?The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.
That aside, why even mention "dirty"? Does being dirty make you slower due to wind drag, and thus out the window goes any defense tactic saying he was out jogging? (note: i'm not arguing that he was out jogging. but as even you believe, cornering a suspected thief and brandishing guns at him is wrong)
But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist.
To some, it is. What makes you right and them wrong?
Thus we go from "not at all racist" to "not as racist as you think".And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.
But at the end of the day, I think we agree on the important issues at stake here. But for some reason, you seem angry about that.
Some people see racism, some don't.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:11 pmAlright, let me try to clear this up. It won't be easy, methinks.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:18 pm You were being serious? Your reply to me is the very definition of disingenuous, in my opinion. Why in God's name would a defense lawyer refer to "Jogger's Toe" in her closing arguments? That's just nonsense.
Now I'm back to thinking you're just messing with folks.
I came here today, as I do often these past 20 years, (since the days of Gone Gold, actually), but I do not often comment as someone pointed out, I just read YOUR comments and don't say much.
So, why am I commenting today? (oh, noes, he must be a racist!) Well, the truth is I saw the thread title and I happen to be a life-long resident of Kenosha, and I clicked on the thread thinking that I may have something to add about the Rittenhouse case. But I found you guys were talking about Arbery at this point.
It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.
The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.
It is not harkening back to slavery. It's not some outrageous racist rant aimed at racists on the jury. You all really seem to have this opinion, that I believe is completely incorrect. I do take issue with the addition of the word "dirty", but as I've explained you can sort of make a stretch as to why they might add that. But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist. The defense has the right, and the obligation to paint this victim as a dirty thief. It's a legit paint job. I'm disappointed that many here are so quick to jump to a racist interpretation of this.
And to be clear - I do believe Arbery was a victim, I do believe Arbery was also a sneaky little thief, (I have a low opinion of thieves,) and I do think the "red-necks" who ran him down are guilty; they were likely not within their rights to chase this man under Georgia State laws. And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.
Hepcat, I literally said to you "I'm not going to answer all of your misinterpretations of what I've said so far." And you responded with, "I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted." It's not one or two things, it's about half of everything I've said, you've gotten wrong, and I do not at all want to go through it point by point with you.
If you accuse someone of being disingenuous and misinterpreting you repeatedly, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to try to understand why that is.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:19 pmHepcat, I literally said to you "I'm not going to answer all of your misinterpretations of what I've said so far." And you responded with, "I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted." It's not one or two things, it's about half of everything I've said, you've gotten wrong, and I do not at all want to go through it point by point with you.
We don't disagree on much of any substance here; we just have both misinterpreted some of each other's posts and I suspect that we don't see eye to eye on the matter of race; we don't know each other's standpoint on the issue of race; yet you seem very suspicious of me and I am certainly very suspicious of your stand.
I'm of the opinion that people who see racism around every corner, behind every bush and up every telephone pole are inherently BAD for America and are making race relations in this country decidedly worse. We weren't doing this ten years ago.
Racism is around every damn corner, but it's not behind every bush nor up every pole. I was pushing back on the notion that "dirty long toe-nails" was inherently racist because I do not want to see the race card being over-played, I just don't see the racism in that at all, and it troubles me that you, and others here do.
I don't think that you see the nasty rate at which the race card is being played and how much damage the misplays of that card are having on society.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... e-updates/Prominent white supremacists Richard Spencer, Jason Kessler and Christopher Cantwell and others engaged in a conspiracy to intimidate, harass or harm in advance of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017, a jury has ruled.
The jury did not reach a verdict on two federal conspiracy charges, but did find that every defendant was liable for civil conspiracy under Virginia law.
The jury then awarded a total of $26 million in damages against the 12 individual defendants and five white nationalist organizations on trial. More than half that money is owed by James Fields, who is serving a life sentence for ramming into a crowd of counterprotesters with his car during the rally and killing Heather Heyer.
The 11 jurors needed only to find “a preponderance of the evidence,” rather than the higher bar of “beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal trials. But they deadlocked on two federal claims of a race-based conspiracy, while agreeing that there was a conspiracy under Virginia state law and that the victims were entitled to compensation.
Since you asked, I don't normally wander out of the "Video Games" forum at all when I come here. I like to read people's opinions about games here, but for opinions about "Religion and Politics" or "Everything But Gaming" I generally go somewhere else on the internet. I didn't realize you guys lean so far to the left on these issues, or maybe it's just that the conservatives here mostly know not to wander into a thread of this nature and title.
Were there calls about the numerous other people caught on video trespassing on the site?
BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- Jurors in the trial of three white men charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing watched security camera videos Thursday that show other people entering a home under construction in the months before the 25-year-old Black man was chased and gunned down after running from the site.
They saw two white boys with bicycles walk into the open garage to drag away plywood. They watched a clip of a white man and woman strolling into the home at night, the man carrying a small bag in one hand.
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:19 pmWere there calls about the numerous other people caught on video trespassing on the site?
It’s a plot out of Dickens with a ring of dirty street urchins going into construction sites.Among the people seen entering the site on separate occasions: A man and woman, a man and even children.
All those times on camera, did any ever see him take anything? Was anything ever reported missing from the house?
Yup. This came up during the trial several times and the prosecutor referred to this in her close. This is the problem when information is coming from "trusted" sources that ultimately often have an agenda. I have no idea about this Nate the Lawyer guy but if he is downplaying the racial aspect of this case then he isn't telling the whole story.hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:19 pmWere there calls about the numerous other people caught on video trespassing on the site?
You give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.
"Nothing was ever stolen from the English property," the statement said. "Even if theft or damage had occurred, however, the Englishes would never have wanted a vigilante response. The Englishes did not know the McMichaels. The Englishes never enlisted the McMichaels to do what they did and do not want to be part of any effort to justify the McMichaels' actions."
Graddy said English told officials he didn’t think Arbery was doing anything wrong that day and may have come onto the property to get a drink of water.
English also offered his condolences to Arbery’s family.
Hepcat and I have never been seen in the same room but I assure you we are 2 different people. But still claiming #fakenews and a source of truth who is essentially a YouTube channel? Think it's time to dig up the 'Just asking questions' meme.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:15 pmYou give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.
Why do you care what I think about the other people? They aren't dead. I've never referred to them at all. What's your opinion of why Arbery was in there so many times? It does not matter whether he stole anything from that building or not. I never said he stole anything from that building. I said that I think he was a thief. I stand by it. I think the man was a thief, what do you think he was? He was clearly, in my opinion, looking for stuff to steal and if you don't see it that way, I dunno what to say to you.
Heh, I didn't even notice Hepcat had posted there, I thought that was your link.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:39 pmHepcat and I have never been seen in the same room but I assure you we are 2 different people. But #fakenews and a source of truth who is essentially a YouTube channel? Think it's time to dig up the 'Just asking questions' meme.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:15 pmYou give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.
How about answering the question about *all the other* people who did the same thing?Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:52 pmHeh, I didn't even notice Hepcat had posted there, I thought that was your link.malchior wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:39 pmHepcat and I have never been seen in the same room but I assure you we are 2 different people. But #fakenews and a source of truth who is essentially a YouTube channel? Think it's time to dig up the 'Just asking questions' meme.Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:15 pmYou give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.
As to your #fakenews and my "source of truth" - This entire sub-thread is about my OPINION, nothing else. I've explained to you why I think he's a thief; would you explain to be why you think he's not a thief? Why is he in the building if he isn't scoping it out, looking for things to steal, what's your OPINION on that. I have only heard the story that he was looking for a drink of water, and I'm not buying that, are you?