WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Just a quick yes or no: Do you think that calling Martin a 'violent thug' is using charged and biased words, where the sentiment can be expressed just as easily without? I am not interested in getting into a drag out fight over the court details, it just ain't worth it.Plunkies said:
By your own admission you're being redundant. If the point behind the redundancy isn't driving home the word 'thug' then why do it? 'Thug' is a commonly used pejorative against black people, or when you want to associate someone with the stereotypical 'black urban culture of violence'. You could easily just as say that Martin had a history of violence and drug use, it's much less charged than calling him a brutal minded, violent, drug addled thug[footnote]Not your exact words, just driving home a point.[/footnote]
Stalking in the colloquial sense applies here, though yes, it is also a charged and biased word.
I think the redundancy is 'violent', rather than 'thug', because thug means a violent criminal.Jux said:
By who?
It's based one's criminal activities, regardless of race.
No, that would be a 'gangsta', as Martin referred to himself in his text messages [http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/index.html].
I said "acting like", I didn't call him anything. And, once again, the issue was whether or not the words were false. I stated that a word was "charged" or "biased" because it was a false representation of events used solely for the purpose of exaggeration or artificially strengthening his own argument without needing evidence or facts. He specifically used "stalking" over "following" because the former implies nefarious intent by definition. It was a sneaky way of bolstering his bad argument.Jux said:
A thug is a violent criminal. The word "violent" was redundant, not thug. And I couldn't just as easily say any of those things because you misquoted me in the first place. I wasn't talking about his history or who he was at all in that sentence originally. I would also hardly need to use the word "thug" to connect Martin with stereotypical 'black urban culture of violence' when his own text messages in his own words would do the job far better.
I certainly hope "thug" isn't now considered a racist term, because I can probably name a dozen video games with "thugs" as enemies.
And, once again, it does not. Not in any sense. Not in a legal sense, not in a colloquial sense. Zimmerman wasn't hunting, he wasn't harassing, he wasn't stealthy, and he had no nefarious intent as evidenced by the fact that he was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher at the time. The only reason to use the word is to imply ill-intent where no evidence can otherwise support.
No. I was going to accuse you of either being an irrational racist motivated by emotional hate for white people or some irrational mouthbreather with a persecution complex who watches too much of what passes for "news" these days, but I decided against doing so (I even edited my post), not only out of a fear of being banned but also out of respect of the fact that I don't really know you enough to jump to those conclusions.JimB said:
And no, I didn't ask, because where your ignorance comes from is irrelevant, and I don't care.
So you're miffed that I made an unfounded accusation in "implying" that you were a liar, and then you overtly accuse me of going on a crusade to gain moral superiority over you. Congratulations on being the most blatant hypocrite I've ever seen.JimB said:
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. Just don't spew your faith to others like it was fact.JimB said:
He was the instigator of the attack when he decided to start pummeling Zimmerman's face in. Zimmerman could have spewed the most racist pejoratives ever to Martin's face; that doesn't justify the violent assault Martin committed whatsoever.
Right, because it's not like there was a trial or anything where the prosecution failed to provide any meaningful evidence to the contrary or rebut basically any of Zimmerman's claims or disprove any of his evidence. The fact that you think there is even a question of doubt shows a lot about your willingness to self-delude.JimB said:
Projection, much? I'm not the deluded one, here.JimB said:
Blah blah blah blah...JimB said:
I don't really care that you need an absurd strawman just to make your point coherent, just don't do it around me. It's pretty damn insulting that you think that will fly with me.
Y'know he was a drug addict, right? And in fact a fan of a particular cocktail called "Purple Drank" or "Lean" whose symptoms include psychotic breaks and paranoia, the kind that might make you lash out at a random passerby over a perceived harm? The ingredients to which he happened to be carrying with him at the time of the incident and had most likely gone to the store to purchase?
You know, also, that he had repeatedly violent altercations with people from school? Specifically for "snitching" on him?
I have no trouble believing that Trayvon Martin, in a drug-fueled rage, attacked a random passerby who he perceived as some kind of threat, given his history of substance abuse, the presence of drugs in his system, the ingredients for the drug cocktail he was addicted to located on his person, and his history of resorting to violence to solve his problems in the past. Meanwhile, I have considerable doubt that Zimmerman attacked Martin first or even ever threw a punch, given that Martin was on top of Zimmerman the entire time as evidenced by the state of Zimmermans clothes, and given the state of the injuries on Zimmerman's face and Martins knuckles (from beating on Martin) and the lack of any other injuries anywhere else on either person, and given the lack of any reason to believe how or why Zimmerman would even remotely consider attacking Martin. Given George Zimmerman's history of association with black people, I believe even less that he was some racist white supremacist who provoked a tall and well-built black teenager into attacking him just so he could have the pretext to shoot him literally seconds after calling the police to report suspicious activity, as some apparently are implying.
As such, since there is in fact overwhelming evidence leading to the conclusion that Martin attacked Zimmerman and in fact his actions led to serious and possibly life-threatening harm to Zimmerman, who was well within his legal and moral right to defend himself using lethal force. That is, I come to the same conclusion that the jury came to when they were presented with the above evidence.
What the fuck do you base your conclusion on other than speculation? And why ignore reality in order to speculate? What possible motivation do you have to deny what is in front of you? And you wonder why I'm suspicious here.
By all means, cop out. Post a half-assed reply disparaging me and my posts, but don't even give me the decency of an argument, why don't you.JimB said:
Yes, that is exactly what I intend to do; which probably sounds sarcastic, but I mean it. I don't owe you an argument, and I'm not going to give you one because you're not interested in an argument. You want a fight. I do not choose to give you one. Call that a cop-out by all means, but I'm curious to know what you think I would gain from such a conversation with you that makes it worth my time and effort.DjinnFor said:
I edited out a bunch of stuff that didn't really belong here and that I only included because of my fear of the low content posting rules. This remaining paragraph might not be enough to escape moderator wrath, but screw it; it was all beside the point, and I don't want it here.
I did not say I don't intend to "argue with anyone." I said I don't intend to fight with you. The words mean different things. That is why I used them. Based on the anger in your tone when you defend a man who needs no defense from me because I can't threaten anything he possesses, I don't think an argument--a debate--is what you want from me. I think you want to take revenge on me for offending your sensibilities; to punish me for whatever crimes I've committed against you by calling me names. Though I do love hearing myself speak, that enjoyment does not overcome the distaste I have for your methods, and I do not see any compelling reason to give you the fight you want.DjinnFor said:
I love looking at the different types of angry people in this thread.
There are the ones who are sniveling at home trying to hold back tears while letting everyone know that they won't be reading this insignificant comic that they totally didn't even care about anyway.
There are the people who deride the comic as nonsense, and then go on to basically personify everything the comic is making fun of in the first place.
There are the people crying about a straw man, in between posts that look like they are being made by actual members of the White Guy Defense Force.
Don't forget those who quickly point out how the strip is a totally obvious flamebait...yet can't help but take a bit for themselves.
One of my favorites are the people addressing the creators directly and demanding some kind of reply, assuming that of course the creators will read the forty pages of people complaining about the strip and personally respond to them, unless of course they're just too scared.
Finally you have the people just flat out ignoring the parody and actually trying to defend the habits being targeted by the comic, raving about how incredibly innocent Zimmerman was, how black people really do complain about racism too much, etc.
I consider the length of this thread a measure of success,
There are the ones who are sniveling at home trying to hold back tears while letting everyone know that they won't be reading this insignificant comic that they totally didn't even care about anyway.
There are the people who deride the comic as nonsense, and then go on to basically personify everything the comic is making fun of in the first place.
There are the people crying about a straw man, in between posts that look like they are being made by actual members of the White Guy Defense Force.
Don't forget those who quickly point out how the strip is a totally obvious flamebait...yet can't help but take a bit for themselves.
One of my favorites are the people addressing the creators directly and demanding some kind of reply, assuming that of course the creators will read the forty pages of people complaining about the strip and personally respond to them, unless of course they're just too scared.
Finally you have the people just flat out ignoring the parody and actually trying to defend the habits being targeted by the comic, raving about how incredibly innocent Zimmerman was, how black people really do complain about racism too much, etc.
I consider the length of this thread a measure of success,
Just like tumblr society justice warriors types. They don't really care about equality they just care about looking like it and hypocritically be horrible racist/sexist as see it ok since "whites, and men" can't be victimsKissingSunlight said:
Basically its this.
Take those three dudes and change there race or gender whatever. Now read the comic as "Black Guy Defense Force" or "Jewish Guy Defense Force"
Sounds horrible doesn't it?
