White dude get's pummelled for using the n-word

Post Reply New Topic

Just because zimmerman wasn't convicted doesn't mean his actions were legal. The law gets bent all the time when it suits an agenda. Beating the drum that Trayvon was murdered "legally" is more of the same double standard. Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten into trouble if he weren't stalking trayvon in the first place.

Now, before someone else says it, I'll save them the trouble. "Oh, so you're ok with some violence but not other violence? Isn't that hypocritical?" Well, yes I am, and no it isn't. If the degree of violence is equivalent to that experienced by engaging in sports, and occurred for unique and singular reasons, I am ok* with it. No blood, no bruises, no problem, with a few caveats.

DEADLY force is a different trip. Saying "watch your step or you'll get shot" is garbage. That just gives people an excuse to go looking for trouble, and then justifying opening fire when the find it. Provoke people into action, and then use that action as an excuse to escalate. Which is a tactic used all too often against minorities and POC.

It still amazes me, when people say "we shouldn't make assumptions" before immediately making assumptions. "WE don't know what happened", but will still assume it's unprovoked. "WE don't know what happened", but still blame the black guy entirely. "WE should be impartial", and then side with the white guy. That's how racial bias works. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, the assumption still tilts the guilt towards one party over the other. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, people will come up with the most imaginative excuses known to man to rationalize why the white guy must be innocent, but even something as simple as "maybe he said the N word before the filming started" is somehow a pill to big to swallow. People will suspend their disbelief and buy into the most insane explanations to preserve the integrity of the white guy, but even the most simple and reasonable explanation gets scoffed at as absurd if it defends the black guy. It's somehow easier to believe that the black guy just goes around decking white people for lulz, and the white guy is saying "sorry" cos he's panicked and desperate or whatever nonsense, than it is to believe that he did in fact do something or say something to illicit a not entirely undeserved reaction, and he's saying sorry cos he knows he messed up. Getting upset with POC for how they react to being mistreated, without understanding the history and extent of their mistreatment, is like being offended that someone is yelling at you, while ignoring the fact that the reason they're yelling is cos you parked your car on their foot.

It's both disgusting and infuriating.

People in sports consent and get paid.

Assault is illegal and never ok. It can very easily lead to death and very quickly. More people are killed by hands and feet then by rifles every year. One good punch can kill someone.
What if they’d killed this guy. Would you still be defending them?

If you beleive what people say , do or how they dress can prevalent people to attack them then you’re in the party of people who think how women dresses causes them to get raped.

I don't even know where to begin untangling the double standards and false equivalency. Not all people who play sports are professionals, or get paid. In amateur sports things often go unexpected and people get hurt, without consent. That's life. If assault is *never* ok, then how come boxing is legal? They're literally assaulting eachother. If payment and consent is all that separates them, then how come assisted suicide is illegal? Assault *can* lead to death the same way walking and chewing bubblegum *can* lead to death. Not everyone is one-punch-man, and single strike kills are usually the result of disproportionate force, or movie plots. A gang of bodybuilders dogpilling a small child is literally exactly the same as a grown man lightly jabbing another grown man once or twice? Not all "assault" is equal. The definition of assault is REALLY loose, and even includes threatening language in many areas. In some places, fistfights are not considered assault at all. Police only respond to make sure it doesn't escalate to deadly force. Other than that, they watch, and leave. Yes, in America. King County Washinton allows disputes to be settled by fistfight. Comparing just-deserts to victim blaming is another low. "What if they'd killed the guy?" That's a really big what-if. He didn't kill the guy, wasn't trying to kill the guy, wasn't likely to kill the guy, barely hit the guy. That's over over-exaggerating of the situation, like calling it a "beating" or "brutal". He got slapped around a little. Absurd hypotheticals serve no purpose other than to further muddy the issue. Its just more philosophical backbending and straw clutching to villify the black guy. IF the black guy HAD been "brutally" beating him, then no, I would not still be defending him - but he DIDNT "brutally pummel" the guy - he merely bonked him around a little, and BECAUSE all he did was bonk him around a little, and didn't ACTUALLY hurt him, I'm willing to defend him. Your what-if is therefore meaningless. Black dude could have taken the white guy apart if he'd wanted - but he chose not to. HE chose to merely put a little fear into the guy, for being a dummy. If that interaction was ever so deadly, then how come MMA is legal at all, consent or otherwise? Murder is still illegal, even with consent. If you wanna get really technical, calling someone the N word could be construed as verbal assault. In which case, feeling threatened, the black guy was totally justified. And depending on where he was, it could have been completely legal, too. Making it about what people say or how they dress, without looking really closely at the specifics, is willful ignorance. A girl who dresses provocatively may do so for many reasons. To assume she wants attention is presumptuous. But, for example, a guy who wears a shirt that says "kill all n---ers" is not sending an ambiguous message. To act like those are the same thing is false equivalency at best. This guy wasn't wearing the shirt, but giving the black guy at least SOME benefit of doubt that just maybe the white dude did call him a n---er, even if under his breath, on the phone, being willing to use that word still sends a very unambiguous message that right now, is a really really stupid message to broadcast, and if dude said it under his breath, he knew it was a dumbass thing to say and was hoping to get way with it covertly - all in all a passive aggressive form of bullying in itself, using hurtful and dehumanizing language like that - but yes, lets keep focusing on how eeeeevil the black guy is, while doing more mental gymnastics to "impartially" take one side over the other. More and more false equivalency.

And an extra special starfish raspberry for you, for implying that since I believe that actions and behaviors have consequences, I must be someone who believes that girls deserve to be raped because of how they dress. That's a particularly low ad hominem angle to play, and you can kindly get bent for implying it. It's more double-talk. It's the leap of assumption. The leap of logic from a girl being dressed provocatively to assuming it means anything other than she likes to dress provocatively, is assumption and supposition. It goes beyond the obvious. But if a guy uses racial slurs, it's not a wild assumption to assume he uses racial slurs, since he just did. No additional assumption needed. Also, a guy raping a girl, and two grown men having a small altercation because one of them mighta said something genuinely universally inflammatory and stupid, are hardly the same thing.

The one big assumption you are making here:
The only actual evidence in this case (as opposed to hearsay) was the footage of the attack. There was no recording of anything offensive having been said, nor (as far as I am aware), any footage of the telephone call that was supposed to have initiated this.

Taking an objective view, the only physical\electronic evidence (as opposed to hearsay) put forward (that I have seen - happy to was what (in the absence of other evidence) appears to be an unprovoked attack. Maybe something was said, making something was mis-heard, maybe there was no telephone call.

As more evidence comes forward, I'm happy to change my opinion (although an attack like that is no way to respond to words spoken at any time, either way), but I'm not going to assume the absent evidence exists in order to make assumptions regarding what happened (nor would any judge\jury).

Sadly, it's too easy for people to to see what they want to see, adding things for which no evidence exists, rather than taking an objective view of the evidence that exists. The fact that a review of the footage from the store indicates it was unprovoked would also indicate a high probability that there was no telephone call, given that this is what the attacker was leaning on as a "defence" for their actions.

I'd also suggest that it could be considered racist to assume that a PoC would resort to violence for believeing they were called a "name" - Unless, of course, that is expected and acceptable behaviour from anyone, regardless of race, placed in a similar position?

Assault is sometimes justified. You don't know how many bullies decided I was a bad target after they got f****d up. Even better, it doesn't just resolve issues with the bully who left in an ambulance; news travels quickly and changes the cost/benefit analysis for those who didn't receive a physical correction because they know it can just as easily be them.

You forget, when it's a PoC using force they'll always be portrayed as brutal and irrational and the person on the receiving end will always be made out to be a victim by those who use racial stereotypes to determine who they're sympathetic towards.

Eventually Zimmerman will encounter a hero who stands their ground and aerates his insides for the benefit of all humanity.

Didn't he also threaten to kill Obama and Hillary? not mention beat up his girlfriend, he clearly has a screw loose...

He's also gotten into fights at bars after bragging about being a killer. America will be a safer place the day Zimmerman gets caught (brrt).

And yet, in the absence of evidence, you'll still make assumptions in favor of the white guy. Double standards. Still beating the same drum, "don't make assumptions", but then assume the attack is unprovoked, assume the rest of the black guy's story must be a lie. In the absence of evidence, the black guy is still automatically as guilty as possible, and thew white guy is definitely as innocent as possible.

I believe that any ethnicity is capable of violence when properly threatened. I would applaud any minority that stood up for themselves in such a way. I do not believe it is a behavior specific to any particular race gender nationality or other affiliation. I believe that I support people standing up for themselves, even when it ruffles other people's jimmies. So yes, I do find it expected and acceptable behavior from anyone, regardless of race, placed in similar positions.

Now, this is the part where you or someone else invents a totally different situation and call it a "similar" situation, in order to create another false equivalency that ignores significant social realities, and naively assumes that everything is completely and totally 100% equal to everyone and always has been.

You can try to spin me as the bad guy all you want, but it won't work. This is hilarious. People are inventing whole new realities to make excuses for the white guy to absolve him of any wrong-doing, while reprimanding people to be more "objective".

You're being reasonable in response to the typical attempts by some posters here to always spin racism away.

The store footage taken by the police shows an unidentified white man wearing a mask and speaking on a cellphone inside a Macy’s department store at the Genesee Valley Center mall when a black man approaches him and punches him.

The missing audio relates to what the masked white dude said over the phone after the black guy mistook him for a salesperson.

My experience is when I mistake a member of the public for a salesperson is the person gets irritated with me although its usually because they are dressed like a sales staff often wearing some uniform.

My gut feeling is this black guy wouldn't be randomly beating up white men unless he thought he was provoked.

This happens to me all the time, despite the fact that I'm usually dressed more like homeless people than sales people. It happens more often when I have a lanyard with my car keys on it, despite the fact that my lanyard has a kubaton and a plush Charmander hanging from it.

I get that a person probably gets irritated if too many people ask them which isle is toilet paper or how much is this shirt. They have keep saying the same thing....sorry I don't work here.

My guess the white dude was on some important phone call and the fact the black dude interrupted him triggered his irritance and saying something under his breath he probably regretted saying 10 seconds later.

If that was an 'appropriate' reaction within his brain at that moment I've got zero sympathy for how he felt after the consequences. It's not even that he used it (for me), it's that he used it to insult a stranger for something trivial like annoying him for an instant.

And yes, that's a bigger deal than Cage taunting Eminem with 'You wanna kill me n***a?' in a song.