Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have a theory that if MLK were alive, the same people who call Jesse Jackson a race baiter would do the same for MLK and every other civil rights leader who isn't around. However Jesse didn't really have the misfortune of being assassinated, so self hating black people, people who pretend they're black, and closet racists go after Jesse Jackson even though his message is the exact same as MLK Jr's.

I don't agree. It's not the message, but the delivery method. MLK presented his message in an inclusive way.

 

[Hatuey]

I don't agree. It's not the message, but the delivery method. MLK presented his message in an inclusive way.

If you don't like Jesse simply because he doesn't play that whole negro-spiritual bull**** angle that got MLK killed, fine, but don't play these ridiculous "I don't like your tone" games. Is Jesse Jackson wrong in pointing out the problems which the black community faces? Yes or no. It's a simple question. If he is, then so was MLK, so was Rosa Parks, so was EVERY OTHER civil rights leader who marched, wrote books, went to jail etc. If he isn't, then don't complain because you don't like the way he's speaking to you. That just makes it look like you're looking for cheap excuse to not hear the message to begin with.

I don't like Ron Paul. The reason I don't like him is not because of how he delivers his ideas - I don't like him cause I think he's bat**** insane. His message is bat**** insane. He could speak in platitudes and give me a pedicure and I'd STILL wouldn't like his message. I don't like Libertarians who find "better" ways to deliver their message. I wouldn't care about the message if some hot Libertarian chick gave me a blowjob and then explained it to me by writing "the message" on her tits. Then again, I don't really give much of a **** about how things I disagree with are packaged if I already disagree with them.

Want to try and be consistent here Capt?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you don't like Jesse simply because he doesn't play that whole negro-spiritual bull**** angle that got MLK killed, fine, but don't play these ridiculous "I don't like your tone" games. Is Jesse Jackson wrong in pointing out the problems which the black community faces? Yes or no. It's a simple question. If he is, then so was MLK, so was Rosa Parks, so was EVERY OTHER civil rights leader who marched, wrote books, went to jail etc. If he isn't, then don't complain because you don't like the way he's speaking to you. That just makes it look like you're looking for cheap excuse to not hear the message to begin with.

I will CERTAINLY complain about how a message is packaged. How it gets packaged detracts from the message. There are two components to a message... content and process. If the content sucks, it doesn't matter how the process is. If the content is good, it DOES matter how the process is. If you want someone to hear you, and you scream obscenities in your wonderful message, guess what? No one will care. Your message gets lost. Jesse Jackson may not be wrong in pointing out the problems that the black community faces, but the way that he does it often does not help with solutions. His presentation is counterproductive to his message.

I don't like Ron Paul. The reason I don't like him is not because of how he delivers his ideas - I don't like him cause I think he's bat**** insane. His message is bat**** insane. He could speak in platitudes and give me a pedicure and I'd STILL wouldn't like his message. I don't like Libertarians who find "better" ways to deliver their message. I wouldn't care about the message if some hot Libertarian chick gave me a blowjob and then explained it to me by writing "the message" on her tits. Then again, I don't really give much of a **** about how things I disagree with are packaged if I already disagree with them.

Want to try and be consistent here Capt?

I addressed this above... in a completely consistent way.

 

[Hatuey]

I will CERTAINLY complain about how a message is packaged. How it gets packaged detracts from the message. There are two components to a message... content and process. If the content sucks, it doesn't matter how the process is. If the content is good, it DOES matter how the process is. If you want someone to hear you, and you scream obscenities in your wonderful message, guess what? No one will care. Your message gets lost. Jesse Jackson may not be wrong in pointing out the problems that the black community faces, but the way that he does it often does not help with solutions. His presentation is counterproductive to his message.

What obscenities are you talking about? Is he talking about lynching white people or something? I haven't kept up to date with his speeches but he couldn't possibly have gone off the deep end like you pretend he has. Well, there that Jewish comment like 30 years ago. Actually, here I'll make it easier for you: Show us what Jesse Jackson has done that is so unacceptable that his message is irrelevant? You can't. Because you're part of the group of people who really have no interest in hearing that supposed "message". This whole "race baiter" shtick is nothing but a smoke screen to avoid the dreaded race discussion this country has been avoiding since the 1860s.

We have gone the South African way on this matter. We have chosen to pretend like "it wasn't that bad", "mistakes were made" or my personal favorite brushing the very real issue of race under the rug because we wouldn't want to remind people that it exists within the sociological, cultural and economic structure that conceived, built and maintained this country for centuries. People like you simply make it worse by shooting the messenger and pretending you actually cared about "the message" to begin with.

I addressed this above... in a completely consistent way.

No. You absolutely haven't. You're engaging in the same pretentious an patronizing debate tactings you normally engage in when somebody refuses to play the Stinger Shuffle with you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What obscenities are you talking about? Is he talking about lynching white people or something? I haven't kept up to date with his speeches but he couldn't possibly have gone off the deep end like you pretend he has. Well, there that Jewish comment like 30 years ago. Actually, here I'll make it easier for you: Show us what Jesse Jackson has done that is so unacceptable that his message is irrelevant? You can't. Because you're part of the group of people who really have no interest in hearing that supposed "message". This whole "race baiter" shtick is nothing but a smoke screen to avoid the dreaded race discussion this country has been avoiding since the 1860s.

The "obscenities" comment was nothing more than an analogy. And I never said his message is irrelevant. I said that how HE presents his message detracts from the message and makes it less likely to be heard. And don't pretend to know whether I have interest in hearing the message or not.

We have gone the South African way on this matter. We have chosen to pretend like "it wasn't that bad", "mistakes were made" or my personal favorite brushing the very real issue of race under the rug because we wouldn't want to remind people that it exists within the sociological, cultural and economic structure that conceived, built and maintained this country for centuries. People like you simply make it worse by shooting the messenger and pretending you actually cared about "the message" to begin with.

If you want a message heard, how you present it is just as important as the message. Your over reactions to this are noted, but this does not change the reality of how things are.

No. You absolutely haven't. You're engaging in the same pretentious an patronizing debate tactings you normally engage in when somebody refuses to play the Stinger Shuffle with you.

You disagree with me, yet you have done ZERO to demonstrate how I am incorrect. Do you think that MLK and Jesse Jackson present their message differently? I certainly do. And if you are taking what I am saying in a patronizing way, that's on you. I think you know me well enough to know when I am being patronizing... and this ain't it.

 

[Hatuey]

The "obscenities" comment was nothing more than an analogy. And I never said his message is irrelevant. I said that how HE presents his message detracts from the message and makes it less likely to be heard. And don't pretend to know whether I have interest in hearing the message or not.

Then as I said, you're only looking for a cheap excuse to not hear the message. Jesse Jackson is no different in his "packaging" than MLK Jr or any other 60s civil rights leader HE, unlike you or I, actually stood with. He's not an advocate of violence. He doesn't call for riots. He doesn't sit in a church with a gun. Be honest with yourself, if you don't like the message - don't find ways to pretend you would have heard it if you just liked the tone of voice the person on the other side of your TV was using.

If you want a message heard, how you present it is just as important as the message. Your over reactions to this are noted, but this does not change the reality of how things are.

You disagree with me, yet you have done ZERO to demonstrate how I am incorrect. Do you think that MLK and Jesse Jackson present their message differently? I certainly do. And if you are taking what I am saying in a patronizing way, that's on you. I think you know me well enough to know when I am being patronizing... and this ain't it.

I already adressed your double speak earlier. They're not different in any meaningful way. They're not ideologically different. They don't advocate different kinds of political activism. They didn't even have any philosophical differences seeing as how Jackson actually worked UNDER King. However, if I remember my civil rights history correctly, one was tall and slim, the other was short and plump. If that is what you mean by "different presentation" then sure - but they're not on opposite sides of the spectrum.

If anything - the debate we're having is representative of the lack of actual understanding or willful ignorance so many have about the civil rights movement. If we were discussing whether MLK and Malcolm X had philosophical or "presentation" differences, I'd agree. However they, MLK and Jesse Jackson simply do not. MLK was confrontational much in the same way Jesse Jakson is. If anything else Jesse Jackson is far LESS confrontational because there days of race based legislation are pretty much gone. Actually, if anything there are less grounds to call Jesse Jackson a "race baiter" because he influences far less people than MLK.

The first problem is a simple one: You can't explain why MLK and Jackson are so radically different. You can't explain it from an academic perspective. You can't even explain it from a logical perspective so you pretend that they're different because you don't like how they spoke to you even if they were telling you the truth. The second problem is a little bit more complex. It pertains to this false level of discourse you want to hold knowing full well you don't really agree with "the message" to begin with. I bet you couldn't name a single "packaging" difference between MLK and Jesse Jackson. You can point at instances where he has been wrong - but can you actually point at 'how" he said it in a wrong way? Of course you can't because you only apply that silly doube standard to messages you disagree with. :shrug:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Then as I said, you're only looking for a cheap excuse to not hear the message. Jesse Jackson is no different in his "packaging" than MLK Jr or any other 60s civil rights leader HE, unlike you or I, actually stood with. He's not an advocate of violence. He doesn't call for riots. He doesn't sit in a church with a gun. Be honest with yourself, if you don't like the message - don't find ways to pretend you would have heard it if you just liked the tone of voice the person on the other side of your TV was using.

You're wrong. It's easier for YOU, perhaps to believe that I don't like the message, because you can't see the distinction... or choose to not see the distinction between the two and how they conducted themselves, packaged their message.

I already adressed your double speak earlier. They're not different in any meaningful way. They're not ideologically different. They don't advocate different kinds of political activism. They didn't even have any philosophical differences seeing as how Jackson actually worked UNDER King. However, if I remember my civil rights history correctly, one was tall and slim, the other was short and plump. If that is what you mean by "different presentation" then sure - but they're not on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Then you didn't listen to what I said. It's not the type of political activism they had. It's how they presented it.

If anything - the debate we're having is representative of the lack of actual understanding or willful ignorance so many have about the civil rights movement. If we were discussing whether MLK and Malcolm X had philosophical or "presentation" differences, I'd agree. However they, MLK and Jesse Jackson simply do not. MLK was confrontational much in the same way Jesse Jakson is. If anything else Jesse Jackson is far LESS confrontational because there days of race based legislation are pretty much gone. Actually, if anything there are less grounds to call Jesse Jackson a "race baiter" because he influences far less people than MLK.

Then you don't get what the term "race baiter" means. Jackson creates a racial issue... or brings race into an issue that really is not about race... and at times jumps to these conclusions without evidence. The Duke lacrosse player situation is a good example. Why did Jesse Jackson get involved? Because the accuser was black. He created a racial issue out of something that was not, helping to charge the situation moreso.

The first problem is a simple one: You can't explain why MLK and Jackson are so radically different. You can't explain it from an academic perspective. You can't even explain it from a logical perspective so you pretend that they're different because you don't like how they spoke to you even if they were telling you the truth. The second problem is a little bit more complex. It pertains to this false level of discourse you want to hold knowing full well you don't really agree with "the message" to begin with. I bet you couldn't name a single "packaging" difference between MLK and Jesse Jackson. You can point at instances where he has been wrong - but can you actually point at 'how" he said it in a wrong way? Of course you can't because you only apply that silly doube standard to messages you disagree with. :shrug:

I already gave an example, above. Your assumptions are incorrect, of course. You have no evidence to back them up. Just you raging for the sake of raging.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I have a theory that if MLK were alive, the same people who call Jesse Jackson a race baiter would do the same for MLK and every other civil rights leader who isn't around. However Jesse didn't really have the misfortune of being assassinated, so self hating black people, people who pretend they're black, and closet racists go after Jesse Jackson even though his message is the exact same as MLK Jr's.

I would call that one hugely misinformed theory. Jesse Jackson is a race pimp. Scumbag. Lowlife extortionist. He doesn't hold a candle to Dr. King. Show us all how Jesse has the same message as Dr. King. Inquiring minds want to know this foolishness.

 

[cpwill]

yes, millions of Latinos are white. I have met many of them.

I thought most Latinos were Mestizo? Given Spain's heavy genetic influence from Arabia and Northern Africa, and the Hispanic populace's equally heavy influence from Native Americans and less heavy influence from Central Africa...


can we please just push the "nobody cares anymore" button and stop defining people by race already? sh-- is getting confusing

 

[cpwill]

trying to untangle the identity group math here:

With a name like Zimmerman, we can assume some jewish background, so that's bad, but he doesn't appear to be particularly pro-israel, so it's effect is negligable, but he is hispanic, which is good, unless he votes republican like the cubano's which is bad. he killed a teenage black male, which is bad, but he's hispanic, so it's mitigated and may not be as racist as if Zimmerman were anglo-saxon. hmmm...

okay, so net-net, Zimmermans' actions are half-racist, unless he turns out later to be a homosexual, in which case the two Victim Identity Groups (Hispanic, Homosexual) plus the act of aggression equalize the single Victim Identity Group (Black) and single Victim Action (Got Shot) points earned by Martin.

did I get that right?

 

[StillBallin75]

trying to untangle the identity group math here:

With a name like Zimmerman, we can assume some jewish background, so that's bad, but he doesn't appear to be particularly pro-israel, so it's effect is negligable, but he is hispanic, which is good, unless he votes republican like the cubano's which is bad. he killed a teenage black male, which is bad, but he's hispanic, so it's mitigated and may not be as racist as if Zimmerman were anglo-saxon. hmmm...

okay, so net-net, Zimmermans' actions are half-racist, unless he turns out later to be a homosexual, in which case the two Victim Identity Groups (Hispanic, Homosexual) plus the act of aggression equalize the single Victim Identity Group (Black) and single Victim Action (Got Shot) points earned by Martin.

did I get that right?

The reports I have read describe Zimmerman as a multiracial Hispanic man. No racial group is completely free of racist attitudes. Some of the most anti-black folks I know are Asian and vice versa.

 

[cpwill]

I live in Japan. Next to perhaps the Russians these people are the most xenophobic major nation on the planet.




....But they got bombed by America in WWII, which makes them victims, which makes us bad, which makes them good, which means their racism is really just an outgrowth of our abuse, which makes it negatable unless the victim holds a higher rung in the Victim Status Scoresheet.

gotta keep this stuff straight, or you can get into a whole pile of trouble.

 

[StillBallin75]

I live in Japan. Next to perhaps the Russians these people are the most xenophobic major nation on the planet.




....But they got bombed by America in WWII, which makes them victims, which makes us bad, which makes them good, which means their racism is really just an outgrowth of our abuse, which makes it negatable unless the victim holds a higher rung in the Victim Status Scoresheet.

gotta keep this stuff straight, or you can get into a whole pile of trouble.

Out for a nice troll, are we?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Out for a nice troll, are we?

Its a far better argument than you have made. :roll:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Out for a nice troll, are we?

Its a far better argument than you have made. :roll:

Moderator's Warning:

Both of you stop.

 

[StillBallin75]

Its a far better argument than you have made. :roll:

Then by all means do point out where my argument was lacking, and where Will actually made an argument.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Then by all means do point out where my argument was lacking, and where Will actually made an argument.

LOL .. you decided to label Will a troll. T'is you who got a whole lot of 'splainin to do.

OBTW, when a lib says "jump", I do not say "how high". I say "you're a friggin lib .. WTF" !!

 

[StillBallin75]

LOL .. you decided to label Will a troll. T'is you who got a whole lot of 'splainin to do.

He was trolling, he wasn't even making a serious argument. That's something that's painfully obvious to everyone except you apparently, including will himself.

OBTW, when a lib says "jump", I do not say "how high". I say "you're a friggin lib .. WTF" !!

Nice to know you're on a debate site for the express purpose of not defending your own claims.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

GENTLEMEN. Reread post #90. Understand it. Live it. Or you will be thread banned by it.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Moderator's Warning:

GENTLEMEN. Reread post #90. Understand it. Live it. Or you will be thread banned by it.

Well Cap'n, I did not see your post. However, one poster insulted Will. My reply was not an insult, but rather was merely a support for Will's argument. From all that I see, Will and I were playing by the rules. Had I seen your post I would have told you to do a better job Moderating.

Cheers.

 

[cpwill]

Out for a nice troll, are we?

the term you are looking for is Satire. The intent was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the unspoken assumptions of much of our chattering class as regards "identity group / victim" status in assigning the "racist" label.



Later Edit: Mods, if this post intercedes in ya'll doing your thing by "referencing a post after mod action" or etc, please delete.

 

[StillBallin75]

the term you are looking for is Satire. The intent was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the unspoken assumptions of much of our chattering class as regards "identity group / victim" status in assigning the "racist" label.



Later Edit: Mods, if this post intercedes in ya'll doing your thing by "referencing a post after mod action" or etc, please delete.

The use of sarcasm/satire can exist in conjunction with trolling. It happens all the damn time. Frankly, you were simply making fun of an argument that few (at least on this board) are actually making.

 

[Thunder]

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman...

as I said in another thread, the headline of this article, appears to be a LIE.

nowhere in the interview, does the guy say he saw Martin attack Zimmerman. he only saw Martin on top beating Zimmerman.

he does NOT mention who started the physical altercation.

Zimmerman could have easily came up into Martin's face, grabbed him, and then Martin got the upper-hand.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

as I said in another thread, the headline of this article, appears to be a LIE.

nowhere in the interview, does the guy say he saw Martin attack Zimmerman. he only saw Martin on top beating Zimmerman.

he does NOT mention who started the physical altercation.

Zimmerman could have easily came up into Martin's face, grabbed him, and then Martin got the upper-hand.

Sure. And it could have happened other ways as well. Right now we have evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense. We do not have evidence that Martin acted in self defense. Is the current evidence not supportive of the liberal meme ?

 

[Thunder]

Sure. And it could have happened other ways as well. Right now we have evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense. We do not have evidence that Martin acted in self defense. Is the current evidence not supportive of the liberal meme ?

sure we do. we know that Zimmerman was stalking him, contrary to the instructions of the Sanford PD.

we know that Zimmerman was of an aggresive state of mind.