It's all about Trump, as usual

Post Reply New Topic

As for it being retribution just ask a juror who was there - not a message board.

“Juror Carrie Bess tells "OJ: Made in America" that she was among "90 percent" of jurors seeking payback“

https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juro ... dney-king/

Was it a corrupt case? Yes. It dealt more with emotions, the racially charged atmosphere of the time, and the media circus than with the facts. I also mentioned the jurors in my second post seeing that you got confused in the wording and stuck by them getting swung by a corrupt case - nothing about the trial was “business as usual.”

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Precisely. It may be a stretch today but we wouldn’t have a Black Lives Matter (or at least like it is today) if not for the LA Riots setting the stage.

It led to A LOT more than just burning their own buildings down as Ezra tried to make it out to be.

Yeah I was going by what you said.




OJ Simpson isn't mentioned in any of those.



It's common knowledge there were concerns of rioting if OJ was found guilty. However, that didn't keep OJ from being arrested and prosecuted.



I don't see how that's establishing your original statement.

Last edited by EzraS on 28 Sep 2018, 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

What I asked is what did it accomplish. Your answer was, that it scared law enforcement and the state prosecution into acquitting OJ. Then you added in a bunch of ad hominem rubbish. And what lead to the whole mess in the beginning was you trying to pigeonhole and label me.

This quoted section is what gave your lack of knowledge about it and your age away. You’re acknowledging police reform and the court system now. Prior, it was “they burned their own buildings down, but what did they accomplish?”

As noted,

GOAL: stop police and court corruption.

METHOD: LA Riots

AFTERMATH:

(1) Police reform
(2) Court system reform
(3) OJ acquitted, historical significance: an obviously guilty black man walks free like white people did, due to a jury that wanted revenge against police corruption, this was unheard of at the time which is partly why it’s a landmark case. In addition, it stands out that the court didn’t try to rig the case against OJ like they were known for doing at the time in black cases to get the verdict that they wanted (which is what happened in the high-profile Rodney King trial, these high profile cases differed in how they proceeded in a very notable way - law didn’t literally aquit OJ (doing so would be no trial or arrest), they just made sure it wasn’t slanted like they typically were against black people - this was the norm back then until the LA Riots brought national attention to the corruption).

WHO SUFFERED MOST? In the long run, it paid off since it caused a change in how black people were treated by the police and court system which the people, who participated, cared about more than property damage. Thus it isn’t a question of “suffering” since a system can’t suffer - it can only change.

To answer your next question so class can finally be over:

ISN’T ALL THAT STILL GOING ON? Yes. It was even worse pre LA Riots than it is today. So there was progress made and there is still a lot of progress that needs to be made.

Hopefully the above puts it in a more literal manner that is easier to digest.

I think the OJ verdict was affected by the LA riots but for a different reason then you. I do not think the case against OJ was intentionally botched to prevent another uprising. To the contrary I think he was framed (and guilty). I think the verdict was jury nullification ie after centuries of being framed we are owed one.

The term LA riots is somewhat of a misnomer, the uprising spread nationwide with lesser riots and disturbances in numourous big cities and small towns.

Unlike the “long hot summer” riots of the 1960s while they burned down thier neighborhood they went outside of them. Most notably Koreatown was atttacked but violence spead to Fairfax and parts of Beverly Hills also.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 28 Sep 2018, 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not "intentionally botched" by law enforcement nor the court system, just they - for once - had to play by the book rather than rigging the system, like they did in the Rodney King trial. Especially because any sign of corruption would backfire significantly.

The case itself was more botched due to the tense racial environment of the case (as you stated, jurors wanted revenge) as well as the media circus which none of the lawyers were prepared to handle.

OJ was framed (and guilty), a white supremacist whose involvement backfired and further helped a guilty man -

https://www.thewrap.com/mark-fuhrman-5-facts-n-word-spewing-cop-helped-free-oj-simpson-photos/



This is what I see as very likely within the next couple of years. All minority groups, including women, are bubbling with rage and that's only getting worse by the day. If Kavanaugh gets in - that's only going to make all of the anger that women feel toward the patriarchy worse; while we haven't really seen women rioting in recent history, I see it going the same way that the suffrage movement did and Kavaugh would push them a step further in that direction.

Or, in short, it wouldn't be all minority groups fighting as one. Rather various riots breaking out among various groups. As stated, as if the LA riots, Stonewall, Black Friday, etc. all broke out in rapid succession at once like a contagion.

The problem was you directing your comments against a person rather than sticking to the subject matter, purposely using condescending rhetoric. Maybe you thought you could win an argument through intimidation. You're not the first one who's tried that, and failed.

What's interesting is that I have never gotten that rubbish from truly older people like ASPartOfMe and Kraichgauer etc. It only seems to come from someone in their 30's. Someone here in their late 50's explained to me it was a matter of insecurity.

Last edited by EzraS on 28 Sep 2018, 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Another big factor in the OJ case is that he was a celebrity and a sports hero, rather than a common citizen. There were very many other black people who were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced in the early 90's after the riots that the general public didn't know about because they weren't front page news. The celebrity factor repeated itself in the Robert Blake case.

It was already stated that there's still progress to be made.



Do you or do you not take issue with many of the threads being negative about Trump? Yes or no.

Was the initial point you were trying to make that there are too many Trump threads? Yes or no.

As per elsewhere, actually the root issue is you take everything too literally, which is also why you rather bizarrely thought I was going to come after you in some way (how - I can't even fathom how your mind works and got you there) and your difficulty in not understanding what the word "supporter" (which is a very simple and straight forward term) means.

As per why those in their 30s (rather than boomers) are more brash, well boomers have had a longer time to become patient.

I'll just remember to be as literally detailed with you as possible since anything else tends to lead to your confusion as it did here and repeatedly elsewhere. Also there was no win or lose since - as already stated - it all comes down to you running off after taking something that was not meant to be literal overly so (it took me a while to see where your mind was at). Since this is a world that speaks of things in generalizations instead of everything being so literal and direct, I earnestly hope you advance in these regards - while I aim to become as patient as the baby boomers are. Peace out.

Oh cool, more interrogation from grand inquisitor spooky.

I take issue with too many threads from the same person on the same topic. I've spoken more strongly about that issue regarding a couple of other people who do that, and those threads have nothing to do with trump or politics.



See above.



If you took me being worried about you coming after me seriously, then you're the one with the problem of taking things too literally.



You're the one with the difficulty in understanding as it's not the word, but rather as I stated, how liberally it's applied.



I was referring to your preoccupation over age.



What you need to remember is to focus on the topic, rather than the person you're discussing it with. Along with avoiding other logical fallacies like the strawman you just set up. Your evasiveness and backpedaling also adds to the problem. I've debated for years with people who know how to debate, so I can tell the difference between them and someone who isn't good at it.

Do you by any chance take a lot of probiotics?

(1) Can you point to any examples where you have done that to threads that weren't bent against right-wing? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? I'm open to switching that view of you, if you can show you have done that to both parties as you claim. If you have, it should be relatively easy to show and I am more than open to it.

(to clarify, you've said in the past you call out both sides for their negativity of each other. Do you have any examples in which you condemn negativity that Trump and his fans show the left? You say you call out both sides for their negativity towards one another, so if that's true there should be many fantastic examples to show your centrism)

(2) Well, that's due to the paranoid bent I've seen in you before, such as showing a paranoid level of worry over all of the negativity people are pushing towards Trump and his kind. It came off as just another element of your paranoia that was shown here and elsewhere. You say that, yet, I find that difficult to believe due to the prior.

(3) Actually, I'm on the high-end of the spectrum, where do you fall and have you ever been analyzed by anyone to see if you have paranoid tendencies?

I am excited, and open, to see what you have for #1 since it'd clear a lot up for me and anyone else interested.

I'm sure those who have been here a while know that the guy pitching an autism cure and the guy going on about college are a couple of examples. Even recently on aspie central they knew who and what I was referring to in the thread about wp. You act as if someone disliking flooding and or spamming is something you never heard of.



Considering the fact that you thought I was genuinely concerned about the idea of you coming after me, when I was being blatantly sarcastic ["Thank goodness. I was starting to break out into a cold sweat"], tells me you're not very good at gauging such things. Plus you make too many assumptions and jump to too many conclusions regarding the nature of people you barely know anything about (provided "Spooky_Mulder" is the only account you've ever had here).



Actually the professional observation of me is that I rather have tendencies towards flat effect. Your deduction regarding my level of autism seems more likely a result of you having read me talking about it rather than your ability to profile, which you haven't demonstrated being very good at.

Like I keep suggesting, stick to the topic rather than the person. You're inability to do so so far is why this thread has derailed into you interviewing me about myself.

Last edited by EzraS on 28 Sep 2018, 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I see you missed the clarification on part #1: (fault on my end)

So, as previously said -

If my judgement of you and why you're complaining it's all about Trump on this forum is wrong, you should have plenty of excellent examples of calling Trump supporters out for the negativity that they show the left. Especially since you already said that you have done that in the past.

Thus, it should be more than easy for you to refute my original assumption for why you were complaining by providing a couple of links showing that you are a true through and through centrist who's called out the negativity both sides show each other. Looking forward to those links showing me that my assumption that you took offense to is wrong.

p.s. calling out a loon for preaching an "autism cure" is one subject, Trump is unfortunately many different subject matters since like it or not he's in the white house which places him at the center of everything political.

As said though, all of this can easily be cleared up with a couple of links showing your centrism in calling both political sides out for their negativity towards one another. That'd show us all you have no bent, heck I'd even apologize for saying that you have one. Just, need those links that show you've also called the right out for their constant negativity towards the left.

That's one of the biggest strawmen I've ever seen.

All I said was,


And what I'm referring to is republicans and democrats at large, rather than my comment being isolated to this microcosm.

Your interrogation routine, although somewhat amusing, is completely asinine.

So, no links to show centrism in you ever calling both out for the level of negativity towards each other denoting as I said a bent. I kinda figured as much, but I also figured I'd give you a shot to prove me wrong in why you don't like negative threads (vilification) about Trump as usual. If you do have any links, I'm more than open to them as said and would love for my assumption to be proven wrong and for you to show yourself as a centrist with no obvious bent to show that the assumption is wrong. Anyways, have a good night, man.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 28 Sep 2018, 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.