This seems to be the New York Times' designated complaint:
Talk of Race, Barred in Trial, Drives Verdict Reactions
Similarly, a week ago the NYT tried to alert its true believers to the likelihood of an acquittal with the headline:
Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court
That was a doozy of a news article, as you'll recall, reading like a parody I had written.
In other words, the jurors would have come up with the appropriate verdict if only the judge hadn't restricted the trial to mostly just the evidence. How can a jury be allowed to come up with a verdict based on facts without us explaining to them The Narrative?
Posts
27 comments:
That a vast majority of the Black
population is below the mediam White IQ is manifest in the logic-
lite bellowing by Blacks about the decison. Some of them appear to believe it was the responsibility of the Court to find Zimmermon
innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Huh? Did the NYT not see the prosecution's closing statement? Do they think the jurors not have eyes?
It seems to me that all this 'white guilt' thing in relation to the Zimmerman trial is really a means for white liberals to hide their own 'white guilt' and push it onto others. It's really a class thing whereby rich whites get to blame it all on poorer whites, even if it's a 'white hispanic'.
All this bleating from rich white liberals who write and read publications like the Nation--most poor whites and blacks never heard of it as they're too wrapped up with latest gossip on Kanye West or UFC fights--is really a form of liberal white privilege. You must be privileged to be blind to the racial reality in America. You must sit up on high on the social scale--and go on cruise tours to give progressive lectures--to maintain the illusion of America as a place where evil southern white males hunt down skittle munching Websters(Emanuel Lewis). You must have 'white privilege' to put blinders on and enjoy pontificating self-righteously about 'white guilt'. If you know the racial reality, scales fall from your eyes, that is unless you're so afraid of blacks in your community that a kind of stockholm syndrome has taken place. (Or you're a whigro and worship everything black even if it's trashy cuz it be da bomb!)
Deep down inside, rich white liberals know that they've rigged the system to remove themselves from the racial reality in America. Same in NY, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington DC, San Fran, Portland, parts of Pittsburgh, and etc. Paradoxically, one must remove oneself from black reality to sympathize with it. It's like white liberals living far from wild life bleating about how noble the wolf and cougar are. Of course, if wolves and cougars enter their neighborhood and eat their dogs/cats and harm their kids, their tune will change, or more likely, they'll move to another place safe from cougars and wolves and will start bleating all over again.
The real 'white guilt' is white liberal hypocrisy that built whitopias for the urban 'creative class' that has a clever and 'progressive' way to reduce the number of blacks in cities and keep them under wraps through greater surveillance and frisking via institutionalized racial profiling, so common and popular in NY. And the rise of homomania has eclipsed the needs of blacks(and working class whites). And urban liberal demand for browns for cheap labor, Democratic votes, and to serve as buffer between themselves and blacks has reduced black power even more and inflamed tensions between blacks and browns. So, deep down inside, 'white liberals' must be feeling kinda guilty for their hypocritical machinations. But they are too morally supremacist and narcissistic to admit that they are part of the problem. Instead, they attack the 'white privilege' of George Zimmerman whose ancestors, the Peruvian Indians, were wiped out by tens of millions by Spanish-brought diseases. But such high-and-mighty shrill accusation is a sign of white liberal privilege.
I note Obama's weighed in on the verdict, calling for calm, etc. Pretty anodyne, but that's to be expected.
Also, it's rather amusing that white liberals would play on the Webster(TV sitcom withe cuddly black kid) trope for Travyon. After all, liberals have, over the decades, promoted the gangsta style as the 'authentic' voice of the black community. They've not only featured it as social message but marketed it as cool and sexy(and raked in tens of billions of dollars), and the gangsta style has become prevalent in the black community. Young black kids wanna emulate the likes of 50 cents and other lunatics. Liberals in the music industry have spread the cool image of the black thug, but now, these same liberals blame 'white racist' America for seeing Martin as a thug than as Webster(even though Martin was indeed a thug into fighting and gangsterism). Liberal logic: black gangsta rappers are cool and the legitimate voice of the black community, but if you suspect that a black guy in a hoodie walking around aimlessly in the middle of a night is a thug instead of sweet-faced Webster, you're a 'racist'. Great logic!
Also, white liberals have been patting themselves on the back for being huge fans of THE WIRE, which is filled with black thugs who mess up their communities. So, liberals would have us believe that they KNOW and CARE about the stark reality of the race problem in America. But when it comes to this Zimmerman case, all they see is 'white southern racist' vs 'webster with skittles'.
It can't get any more retarded than this.
Uncle Tim Wise has chimed in:
“You remember, forever and forever, that moment when you first discover the cruelties and injustices of the world, and having been ill-prepared for them, your heart breaks open. …
So to the keepers of white supremacy, I should offer this final word. You can think of it as a word of caution. My oldest daughter knows who you are and saw what you did. You have made a new enemy. One day, you might wish you hadn’t.”
Compare this to his infamous statement after the 2010 election. Uncle Tim really has a talent for uttering oblique threats, doesn't he?
The NYT has practically every point ass-backward.
For example, a good deal of the actual evidence (from the defense side) was left out of the trial. Maybe the worst in terms of effect was the barring of the animated re-creation.
And a good deal of race stuff actually got in. Because it was essential to the prosecution's case: murder 2 down there requires evidence of "depraved mind" so time was spent trying to determine if Zimmerman was a "racist." An honest opponent of racialism would have said too much race stuff got in, that it was privileged over other evidences of "depraved mind," such as saying that teenagers are "assholes" who "always get away with it." (That's poor, too, but the point is that the NYT is saying any mention of race issues was omitted from the trial, which is a preposterous reverse of the truth.)
What the NYT means about race issues allegedly not being brought up, is that Emmett Till and the History of White Racism in America was not brought up. In other words, it wasn't a political trial - and this fact angers the self-appointed defenders of a just and equitable law system. The hypocrisy stinks. The brazenness of it is reaching TASS levels.
Why does anyone read the NYT anymore, anyway? Why does anyone even comment on it? It's like getting bent out of shape over a union newspaper or a book about extraterrestrial invasion.
Ultimately, these media voices only have the influence the public gives them. Use the NYT for toilet paper and you've gone a long way toward flushing it.
Anonymous wrote:
I note Obama's weighed in on the verdict, calling for calm, etc. Pretty anodyne, but that's to be expected.
I respond:
Actually, he blamed guns:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/Obama-Responds-to-Zimmerman-Verdict-Stem-the-Tide-of-Gun-Violence
I note Obama's weighed in on the verdict, calling for calm, etc. Pretty anodyne, but that's to be expected.
He also advised us citizens how to "honor Trayvon".
It can't get any more retarded than this.
Don't bet on it.
>Liberal logic: black gangsta rappers are cool and the legitimate voice of the black community, but if you suspect that a black guy in a hoodie walking around aimlessly in the middle of a night is a thug instead of sweet-faced Webster, you're a 'racist'.<
Yes, it's cowardly intimidation. You're intended to feel highly threatened but you are supposed to never consciously or publicly acknowledge and act on it.
You must pretend these thugs do not exist and are not threatening you, even as the thugs are pushed in your face all day and night.
Given the level of effort on the part of the regime that went into this thing, that they failed to get the result they wanted is pretty cool.
How fascinating! And yet, in any Southern trial that talked honestly about white fears of black violence, the New York Times would be the very first to scream about how "race was injected into the trial!"
If they would like the State of Florida to modify the Florida Rules of Evidence to allow race to be injected into a trial, I for one would be overjoyed!
Let us make race an issue!
Let us be permitted to note the population statistics of black ignorance, criminality and violence to explain and understand white fears.
Let's stop beating around the bush as Mr. Holder put it. Let us talk about race in EVERY trial.
Believe me, black folks get to "talk about race" when they are tried for murder. They get to argue that it is perfectly reasonable to shoot first when some black boy turns, faces them and snatches at something in his waistband.
I'm watching the news. CNN/HLN just won't let it go. Zimmerman is free. The horror, the horror. Nancy Grace will have to find some new boogyman for her audience.
I suggest to Uncle Tim Wise and his daughter to move to Detroit to save all them poor helpless Negroes from the KKK. I'm sure they'll be much appreciated.
Jury acquits George Zimmerman. NYT and MSNBC hardest hit.
Watching this comedy of a trial over the last weeks, it struck me that just about all the black talking heads, from the president of the United States on down, come down on the side of Trayvon long from the get go. I have not seen a single black person of note that come out and say the just words.
Reading even the CNN comments, this will back fire big time against them. In the short term, with popular opinions against them, they are less likely to rent a place, get a job etc compared to the other groups. This is how whites (and maybe other groups) retaliates against their actions. In the longer term, America is doom anyways. Our criminal system will increasingly resemble the balkanized society at large. Already, people who committed crimes are being let go because "the black community are short of black young males who are not criminals".
The next few decades will be interesting indeed.
Compare this to his infamous statement after the 2010 election. Uncle Tim really has a talent for uttering oblique threats, doesn't he?
I thought the post-2010 piece was rather explicitly threatening.
I love the logic here that a jury ruling that a brown man killed a black man in self-defense is down to "the keepers of white supremacy".
There is literally nothing that cannot be blamed on YT, and somehow it is not "racist" or pathological to do so. The Nazis were never anywhere near this bad.
Actually, he blamed guns:
That's it. Guns are racist!
"Compare this to his infamous statement after the 2010 election. Uncle Tim really has a talent for uttering oblique threats, doesn't he?"
It's what people pay him to do. Nice work if you can get it.
"I love the logic here that a jury ruling that a brown man killed a black man in self-defense is down to "the keepers of white supremacy".
I guess Wise sees Zimmerman as Mussolini to the wasp Hitlers of America.
George should fly to Peru, he will be safer from vigilantees and the feds can't get to him.
"That's it. Guns are racist!"
That's why we need to ship all them guns to Syria. Give up your racism and dump it on Syria.
In the short term, with popular opinions against them, they are less likely to rent a place, get a job etc compared to the other groups. This is how whites (and maybe other groups) retaliates against their actions.
That's a good point. The logic isn't complicated: "Okay, if a thug comes into our neighborhood and attacks a guy who is checking on his suspicious behavior, and we can't shoot him in self-defense because he's black, then how can we protect ourselves? By not allowing even his well-off relatives into our community so he has no excuse to be here in the first place."
If upper- and middle-class blacks who supported Martin out of racial solidarity find themselves feeling less welcome in various communities, they'll only have themselves to blame.
The NYT pointing and spluttering about race elsewhere deflects from the NYT turning a blind eye to Manhattan being turned schwarzerein.
"George should fly to Peru, he will be safer from vigilantees and the feds can't get to him."
No he shouldn't. He should get lots of sun and get his face on TV as much as possible.
The NYT has practically every point ass-backward.
That's their whole God-damn raison d'etre, ain't it?
Gubbler,
Excellent comments once again. On the other thread you said white liberals have their own version of 'speaking in tongues.' Another way they are like their religious counterparts is they take an entirely natural, pleasant impulse and treat it as something evil that has to be surmounted. For Christian moralists this is sex, for white liberals it's ethnocentrism.
With a gun to their heads Christian moralists might allow that, sure, sex is pleasant and it's understandable that people would want to indulge in it, but think of the consequences for society if were to allow people to have sex whenever, with whomever, and however they wanted to! The white liberal with a gun to his head might concede that ethnocentrism is natural and that people really do seem to enjoy the company of their ethnic or racial fellows much more than they do the company of ethnic or racial outsiders but just think of the consequences for society if were to okay these feelings!
White liberals, in their delirium, seem not to grasp that genocide is to ethnocentrism as rape is to sex - you can't have the former without the latter, but the latter doesn't necessarily lead to the former.
And just as you can sometimes needle Christian moralists into confessing they don't really believe their own doctrines you can do the same with white liberals. (A totally loving God created a place called Hell, where he punishes for all eternity (!) those of his 'beloved children' who used the brains he endowed them with to doubt his existence? Really?) Give the white liberal the choice of being able to either spend the rest of this days in the company only of whites or the rest of his days only in the company of blacks and ask which he'd choose and watch him sweat bullets as he attempts to wriggle out of answering. (They can answer they'd prefer whites, but that they would prefer Diversity over either choice. That's fine, because then you can start in on the delusions that surround the whole mass diversity mythos.)
Post a Comment