Great. No worries.
Consider this as a possibility, we have intelligent people informed by the same information who reach a different conclusion. It happens all the time. I believe it is an error on your part (an many others) to make the assumption that people who did not reach the same conclusion as you could only have done so if they are misinformed. I don't believe this is the case. Maybe instead it is a matter of perception. I chose to respect your intelligence even though I disagree with your conclusion and assume instead that we are different people who have been informed differently on a
personal level (as individuals) and that is why we have reached a different conclusion. You are welcome to disagree with me but please do not diminish me by reducing me and the life that informs my perceptions and my opinion to being nothing more than a product of media manipulation and I will return the favor.
I believe you speak of perceptual biases. If people's perceptual biases are preventing them from seeing the facts of the case (established by the jury, the FBI, and the Justice Department's non-filing of hate crimes), then we have a larger cultural problem than if the media was simply misinforming people. What about peoples' "life that informs" perception and opinion is preventing them from accurate perception? I say accurate because there is literally no evidence that GZ is racist. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting he is not, yet the perception within certain groups abounds that GZ is a racist. You say I insult you by assuming that the media has misinformed you, yet that is the less antagonistic conclusion for the particular prejudice on display. The other option is that your personal bias has prejudiced you beyond the influence of truth. Ignorance is less a malady than unreasonableness, so to speak.
Here is where our personal biases come into play. You state that the facts of the situation and the history of the individuals involved would indicate that race did not play a part. I look at those very same facts and believe there was a better chance that they
do. I also will not promote
my understanding as fact because I don't know it is merely my opinion based on the information available to me. You may be certain, I may be certain, but we do not
know whether he was motivated by racism, only he knows. Because as you say...the facts in the GZ case are somewhat less black and white.
In all honesty, I feel like claiming to KNOW is arrogant and disrespectful to the people who see the case differently. As for the facts, some people consider their opinion fact. We all have to back away and make certain we do not blend our interpretation of the facts with the actual facts.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that you acknowledge race a factor in the case. I am asking that you make an effort to understand why some would.
This tone is problematic. You call those who disagree with your opinion to be
deluded. Does it not even occur to you that if there are so many who feel this way perhaps there lives are informed by experiences you have not had that make that perception completely valid. That instead of being deluded they have first hand experiences that you have not that lead them to a different understanding?