- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
This tells us more about your prejudice than his...
prejudice against who?
This tells us more about your prejudice than his...
This tells us more about your prejudice than his...
Well, I have to admit. You might be right about this. I teach at a University, so the liberals and conservatives I know would NEVER EVER think anything of the sort.
That includes my 18 year old students.
Maybe this whole thing is in worse shape than I thought.
By "this whole thing," I mean America.
No. They're both irrelevant. I'm just asking how you know he is not. You seem to be dodging the question. How do you know he's not a tea partier?
Or why not just say "white"?Isn't it interesting that they keep saying that Zimmerman is a white Hispanic? Why not just say "Hispanic"?
I think you may overestimate the people you know at your university, particularly among the student body.
As to the country at large, well, reactionaries are hardly new, but not being aware of the type of person who would do this is pretty naive. Witness, for example, the immediate blame laid for the Giffords shooting. If you think that many of the same people who participated in that didn't also assume that Zimmerman was probably a conservative Republican and a racist, then I don't know what to say.
Absent any evidence that he's TEA party, why should I think that he is? Let's say he was though, would your initial response to a thread making an issue of that be exactly what it was in this thread?
his personality is stereotypical Tea-Bagger.
over-compensating, over-stepping his boundaries, wanna-be cop, angry at women, angry at youth, etc etc.
his personality is stereotypical Tea-Bagger.
over-compensating, over-stepping his boundaries, wanna-be cop, angry at women, angry at youth, etc etc.
I sure seem to remember that kook that shot giffords being a republican and that **** was rammed down my throat for 2 months.
his personality is stereotypical Tea-Bagger.
over-compensating, over-stepping his boundaries, wanna-be cop, angry at women, angry at youth, etc etc.
Absent any evidence that he's TEA party, why should I think that he is? Let's say he was though, would your initial response to a thread making an issue of that be exactly what it was in this thread?
No, but with the Giffords shooting, there was the obvious possibility because she was a Liberal political figure, serving in her capacity as a representative. If martin were a political figure it would make some sense. Just as it is, I can see no connection between the attack and party affiliation.
But ANY time ANY political figure ANYWHERE is attacked it is reasonable to first assume that it was a political attack.
I know lots of liberals, and plenty conservatives, too. And I can assure you that no one I know has made any such claim.
And I would laugh in their face if they did.
I sure seem to remember that kook that shot giffords being a republican and that **** was rammed down my throat for 2 months.
Ok, I was asking with sincerity and I believe your answer.
Is your response that this is somehow worse/better because he's a Democrat?
Not really, and even it were, to assume the political leanings of the attacker is not reasonable. Is it reasonable to assume that any assault against a Jew must be a Muslim?
Well, I'm not a mind reader, so I don't really think much about this kind of thing. And even if I did, I certainly wouldn't be willing to defend it as true.I didn't say they made the claim. It wasn't about that; it was about thinking it.
No. Is your response that this is somehow worse/better because he's a Democrat?
No, absolutely not.
This is an awful analogy. If you don't see why political parties and religions are different in what they represent and how they interact with one another, there is not enough time and space on these forums to begin to explain it. And I certainly don't even have the energy to try.
My point was only that it is reasonable to assume (and when I say "reasonably assume" I mean something like generate a first stage working-hypothesis) that when a politician is attacked--in their capacity as a politician, that the attack is a political attack. If Giffords was attacked in her home, it might be a reasonable question to ask, bot not necessarily a reasonable assumption.
Well, I'm not a mind reader, so I don't really think much about this kind of thing.
And even if I did, I certainly wouldn't be willing to defend it as true.
Last I checked murder is murder. I doubt the political leaning of the murderer is of great importance. Now views on things like RACE....
Well it depends on the killing. The assassination of a president is without a doubt almost always political. The killing of some kid in the middle of the street is hard to prove as being political unless we are a paradigm of actual political unrest. If we were South Africa or Argentina in the 80s, I'd have no doubt that there may have been politics involved. However, the relevance isn't there for this case.
My apologies, I worded that incorrectly. Case by case motives are different. I agree political leaning had no effect here. However, I do believe it was racially motivated seeing as Zimmerman "Felt threatened and acted in self defense" against an unarmed teenage eating skittles.
I think what is relevant to this being racial is the fact that Zimmerman had a history of racial profiling. That he killed a kid eating skittles doesn't really do it. What does it for me is that he'd go around the neighbourhood telling people to be suspicious of black males who didn't look like they belonged. I'm not even sure what the hell that means - I've lived in the middle of nowhere Vermont and I stuck out like a sore thumb. Never had any of the locals aim a gun at me and be threatened by me. Then again, I'm pretty relaxed around most people.