Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Sommerswerd]

I shouldn't fuss over details but I didn't exactly agree with her, she said George was suspicious of Martin because black boys had been robbing homes in the neighborhood. Thats true, but Zimmerman started watching Martin because of suspicious behavior, not his skin color.

Again, there was no "suspicious behavior". There was only his skin color and the fact that Zimmerman didn't know him, which in Zimmerman's mind (and yours) made him "suspicious".

What exactly did she say that was racially prejudiced?

Read my comment again, you missed the point. The point I am raising is that she is defending Zimmerman, who was acting from a racially prejudiced position/attitude. The point is not that she said something racially prejudiced. The point is that Zimmerman was acting in a racially prejudiced way, and she is defending him... and you are trying to use her comment to defend him.

In other words, I am saying Zimmerman's actions were a result of his racial prejudice. You are arguing that Zimmerman was not acting out of racial prejudice, and this is proven by the fact that a black person defended him... which again is a flawed argument. Your argument is illogical because it is based on a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that a black person would never speak in defense of a person who had acted in a racially prejudiced manner against black people. This is just false on its face, as there are plenty of reasons a black person would do so. Your faulty argument that flows from this false premise is:

P - A black person would never speak in defense of a person who had acted in a racially prejudiced manner against black people. -False
F- A black woman spoke in defense of Zimmerman - True
C- Therefore Zimmerman cannot possibly have acted in a racially prejudiced manner against black people. - False

Its very simple. Your argument is unsound because your premise is faulty, and your conclusion is false because your premise is false.

A black person speaking on your behalf does not remotely prove that your actions weren't motivated by racial prejudice, especially when that particular person defending you is your friend. Also, note that the womans "defense" of Zimmerman doesn't contradict my point at all, it confirms my point. She states point blank that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because he was a "black boy" like the ones he thought were "robbing houses". So all her opinion actually does is confirm that Zimmerman was racial profiling, ie acting out of racial prejudice.

 

[metalhead]

Always? Or just in response to things being presented from Martin's point of view.

I understand Martin's view, if you read all of my post. Another reason he could have innocently cut between the buildings is to go where Zimmerman's vehicle couldn't go. If Zimmerman is not thinking "Oh, He thinks I'm a creep and just wants to get away from me" he could be thinking Martin was acting suspicious by going between the buildings.

I don't know the actual distance, maybe someone who has done more trial research can tell us. Just this 'he got a gun to go hunt black people' exaggeration stuff irks me. If it's exaggerations to counter the exaggerations on the other side, then so be it, but don't act like it's FACT.

I don't feel like Martin's point of view is ever discussed. The discussion always centers on whether Zimmerman is racist or was just acting as a concerned citizen. Zimmerman's thought process isn't really relevant, though, because if we can conclude based on the circumstances that Zimmerman is the aggressor and Martin was justified in using force to defend himself under the circumstances - and that's taking the series of events as we have them from Zimmerman's point of view only - then Zimmerman is liable for Martin's death.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't feel like Martin's point of view is ever discussed. The discussion always centers on whether Zimmerman is racist or was just acting as a concerned citizen. Zimmerman's thought process isn't really relevant, though, because if we can conclude based on the circumstances that Zimmerman is the aggressor and Martin was justified in using force to defend himself under the circumstances - and that's taking the series of events as we have them from Zimmerman's point of view only - then Zimmerman is liable for Martin's death.

Bolstering this point is the fact that Trayvon's family filed a wrongful death Civil suit for Trayvon's killing and were paid a settlement. The amount is undisclosed, but given the fact that we know they rejected a prior offer of 1 million, it stands to reason that they probably settled for more than that.

BLM stands for attacking neighborhood watch volunteers? If not, they dont support you.

Again, Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was a "neighborhood watch volunteer" so your comment makes no sense.

Thats an unkind assumption to make about black people.

You keep forgetting... I don't need to "make assumptions", because I am black, I come from a majority black suburb of a majority black city. My siblings both still live in said town and city. My High school was majority black and my family is majority black. I am part of the black community. I don't need to "make assumptions about black people", you do, and that is part of why you are consistently incorrect... because your opinion is an uninformed opinion. The fact that you conflate the terms "token" and "Uncle Tom" which have nothing to do with each other... is just another example of how uninformed you are.

Even better, she's black... You've been telling us black opinions matter more, but apparently thats just another double standard because hers doesn't. She's just a shill according to you... Funny how that works, the opinions of people who lived the experience dont matter more because other people from outside know better. Sound familiar? You've done to her what you accused me of doing to you.

Wrong again for so many reasons, as usual, but I will just focus on a few. First, what I dismiss is your argument, not her opinion. Your argument is flawed because it is 1)illogical, 2) grounded on tokenism, and 3) contradictory to your overall position. Again, I don't dismiss her opinion, I place it in context. As I just explained, her opinion on this issue proves my point in the same way that the guy quoted in the CNN article did. Her opinion makes perfect sense, for all the reasons I've already given, and furthermore I am sure that Zimmerman believed exactly the same thing that she did, and that his stalking of Trayvon was for exactly the reasons that she stated. Zimmerman believed that "black boys were robbing houses" and that gave him a justification to stalk any "black boy" he didn't recognize. That view, on Zimmerman's part is racially prejudiced. There is no inconsistency in my position. I don't ignore her opinion. Her opinion proves my point.

What you can't wrap your mind around is that it is racially prejudiced to stalk black people you don't recognize and use "some black people committed crimes in my neighborhood" as an justification. That's what Zimmerman did, that's what you support, that's what's racially prejudiced and that's what the woman was explaining. BTW, the woman didn't stalk Trayvon, Zimmerman did, and she was just explaining that this is what he did, ostensibly in his defense because she's his friend.

Second, as to the double standard... there is no double standard on my part. I do give her opinion more credence than yours, for example, on the specific issue of what its like to be racially profiled, because she is black, but as I explained, she is also speaking as a friend of Zimmerman so her opinion is likely biased in his favor. You on the other hand don't give my opinion more credence than yours because I am black. You only give any credence to black peoples opinions due to them being black when it supports your position. So you are following a double standard. Also, as I've already explained, she is a neighbor and is immersed in the same rumor-mill/paranoia as others in the town. So while being black likely does give her a much higher degree of familiarity with the issues I am raising, her comments also have to be taken in the context of her friendship with Zimmerman and the atmosphere of the neighborhood, both of which together I'd expect to cancel out her sensitivity to this subject in favor of friendship/neighbor loyalty. So again, I do value her opinion more, but I pointed out factors that make her biased. You on the other hand only value her opinion as a black person because she is convenient to your position, while dismissing the majority of black opinions that are not convenient to your position. So again, the only one using a double standard here is you.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Terry Gross is interviewing Richard Rothstein, the author of The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America on Fresh Air. It's pretty illuminating. His stories are a good reminder that racism in this country isn't always just systemic, it's often systematic. It can be useful to remember the difference between systemic and systematic when talking about racism in this country, but in this case it's academic, as housing discrimination was legal, deliberate, and transparent, and its effects are so long-lasting.

 

[Berzerker]

I listened to the testimony of Martin's friend and it doesn't sound like Martin ambushed him, sounds like he came out of hiding just as Zimmerman was returning to his truck. So he turned to face Zimmerman to ask why he was following. But Zimmerman says he passed by Martin's hiding place and he came up from behind him or off to the side.

The "creepy ass-cracka" comment led her to suggest a rapist was following Martin but that appears more in jest, or was taken as such. But she did say following their brief conversation she heard somebody being hit followed by what sounded like a struggle on wet grass and then she heard 'get off' in a quieter tone, ie Martin's headphones had fallen off.

Again, there was no "suspicious behavior". There was only his skin color and the fact that Zimmerman didn't know him, which in Zimmerman's mind (and yours) made him "suspicious".

You think Zimmerman thought he was suspicious because he was black and I think it was Martin's behavior. He was walking around in the rain looking at houses and loitering by the mail boxes. That would be enough to get my attention, burglars typically investigate homes before robbing them. That suggests Martin wasn't walking straight home but was taking a more scenic route, maybe he was in no hurry to get home. Then Martin saw Zimmerman and stared him down, approached his vehicle with something in his hand (the phone?), circled him and took off running. At what point would you react if you were neighborhood watch?

So how often did Zimmerman call the cops on black people for walking down the street? He must have seen black people walking around hundreds of times. About 1/5 of the people are black and he lived there a while. If you want your accusation of racial prejudice to stick you'll need to show he had a history of following black people. One suspicious young black male fitting the profile of burglars is not racial prejudice, its an elephant in the room. Who do you think the cops were investigating for the burglaries? Young black men... Had a cop seen Martin behaving that way he'd probably detain him. That happened to me more than once, young men are going to be profiled more because young men are committing more crimes.

Read my comment again, you missed the point. The point I am raising is that she is defending Zimmerman, who was acting from a racially prejudiced position/attitude. The point is not that she said something racially prejudiced. The point is that Zimmerman was acting in a racially prejudiced way, and she is defending him... and you are trying to use her comment to defend him.

Here's what you said:

There is no "elephant in the room" and I certainly haven't been avoiding talking about this. This is nothing but the same flawed, illogical, tired old refrain that (typically Republican) folks always think is some kind of great silver-bullet argument. "A black person agrees with me! So therefore there can't possibly be any racial prejudice in my argument/perspective! A black person! Look! Did I mention they were black?!?" It kinda makes me laugh a little, cause this was a favored go to of Crackerbox and civman ... they go dig up some internet article or video of a black person defending some racially prejudiced position or person and then say "Ha! A black person says it! So I'm right!"

Sure looks like you accused me there of a racially prejudiced argument (what else is new) and that I quoted her to defend it. I would have quoted any neighbor who told the truth. So what did she say that was racially prejudiced? And now I'm guilty because of 2 people you've debated in the past, 2 people who aren't here to defend themselves? I thought you condemned guilt by association.

In other words, I am saying Zimmerman's actions were a result of his racial prejudice. You are arguing that Zimmerman was not acting out of racial prejudice, and this is proven by the fact that a black person defended him... which again is a flawed argument. Your argument is illogical because it is based on a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that a black person would never speak in defense of a person who had acted in a racially prejudiced manner against black people. This is just false on its face, as there are plenty of reasons a black person would do so.

Is the truth one of those reasons? I didn't say Zimmerman was innocent because of her, he's innocent (of racial prejudice) because somebody fitting the profile of burglars was acting suspiciously. I said she accurately described the situation, the elephant in the room. All she did was confirm the profile of the burglars and you called her a shill, did she lie?

Also, note that the womans "defense" of Zimmerman doesn't contradict my point at all, it confirms my point. She states point blank that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because he was a "black boy" like the ones he thought were "robbing houses". So all her opinion actually does is confirm that Zimmerman was racial profiling, ie acting out of racial prejudice.

So why are you attacking her? That isn't racial profiling, Zimmerman didn't follow black people around. You're stereotyping black people again by making Martin their representative. Zimmerman was watching somebody who fit the profile of the burglars, a young black male behaving suspiciously, possibly casing homes. And then Martin started behaving even more suspiciously after making eye contact with Zimmerman.

 

[Berzerker]

Again, Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was a "neighborhood watch volunteer" so your comment makes no sense.

BLM knows he was a neighborhood watch volunteer. You're accusing them of supporting Martin's attack on Zimmerman in spite of having knowledge Martin may not have had. We dont know if Martin figured out Zimmerman was just a neighbor concerned by his presence, but that became apparent when Zimmerman was asking Martin why he was in the neighborhood.

I don't need to "make assumptions", because I am black, I come from a majority black suburb of a majority black city. My siblings both still live in said town and city. My High school was majority black and my family is majority black. I am part of the black community. I don't need to "make assumptions about black people", you do, and that is part of why you are consistently incorrect... because your opinion is an uninformed opinion.

But you are making assumptions about blacks, you've assumed BLM and the hoodie crowd support attacking neighborhood watch people. Do they really?

The fact that you conflate the terms "token" and "Uncle Tom" which have nothing to do with each other... is just another example of how uninformed you are.

I conflated the terms? I said at least you didn't call the woman "Auntie Tom", thats not conflation, thats recognizing a distinction between the two terms.

First, what I dismiss is your argument, not her opinion.

You accused her of shilling for Zimmerman and her argument is mine

Zimmerman believed that "black boys were robbing houses" and that gave him a justification to stalk any "black boy" he didn't recognize. That view, on Zimmerman's part is racially prejudiced. There is no inconsistency in my position. I don't ignore her opinion. Her opinion proves my point.

He was watching a young black male behaving suspiciously

What you can't wrap your mind around is that it is racially prejudiced to stalk black people you don't recognize and use "some black people committed crimes in my neighborhood" as an justification. That's what Zimmerman did, that's what you support, that's what's racially prejudiced and that's what the woman was explaining. BTW, the woman didn't stalk Trayvon, Zimmerman did, and she was just explaining that this is what he did, ostensibly in his defense because she's his friend.

Zimmerman didn't "stalk" black people and she didn't say anything to support your opinion. She said black boys were robbing homes and thats why Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin - he fit the profile of the burglars.

You on the other hand don't give my opinion more credence than yours because I am black. You only give any credence to black peoples opinions due to them being black when it supports your position. So you are following a double standard.

I give my opinion more credence than yours because I have a better grasp of the actual facts, skin color aint got nothing to do with it. Course you think skin color has everything to do with it and facts to the contrary dont matter.

You on the other hand only value her opinion as a black person because she is convenient to your position, while dismissing the majority of black opinions that are not convenient to your position. So again, the only one using a double standard here is you.

The majority of black opinions where? Blacks living in that neighborhood or blacks who watched NBC tell them Zimmerman murdered Martin?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Blacks living in that neighborhood or blacks who watched NBC tell them Zimmerman murdered Martin?

As usual the issue is being missed.

Why do so many black people take NBC's word on such a thing? Because it fits their own experience. Just like the citizens of Ferguson didn't respond to a dead kid in the street and a cop standing over him with "well that was probably justified" because their own experience with the FPD made it seem likely enough that an FPD cop could just shoot a kid. Just like the citizens of Baltimore didn't respond to a dead black guy in the back of a police van with "well our cops would never just throw a guy in for a dice cup ride to the station" because in their experience their cops could and would do exactly that. If you live in a city where the cops (or neighborhood watchin' good ole boys) have created such an impression then you live in a powder keg...and what sets it off may turn out to be a totally innocent and justified event.

 

[Berzerker]

Why do so many black people take NBC's word on such a thing? Because it fits their own experience.

Same reason I took NBCs word for it, the media shapes opinions with their 'reporting'... I dont know many blacks who've been killed attacking neighborhood watch volunteers, but looks like Zimmerman is the scapegoat for the sins of the white man. A part black hispanic no less...

 

[metalhead]

You realize there are no qualifications for "neighborhood watch volunteer," right? Why do you keep saying this like it means something? How many "neighborhood watch volunteers" use it as an excuse to walk around and peep in windows?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Here is a very simple example that probably everyone can relate to... You wake up in the morning and reach for phone/keys/wallet/watch, whatever, lets say keys... on your bedside table, but its not there. So you start looking for them, all around the table then you start searching the room, the dresser, etc... then you leave the room and start looking through the house, can't find them, maybe then yiou start looking outside in the driveway, on the walkway, sidewalk etc... So now your wife/girlfriend/mom, whoever says "STOP looking for those keys! You're gonna be late! Go get dressed for work/school", whatever... So you start heading back for your bedroom to get dressed. Now on the way back to your bedroom...

Do you stop looking? Of course not, you're still in full search mode all the way back to your room... still scanning the ground, still looking at every surface you pass to see if you happen to spot the thing you were looking for... and it would be absolutely preposterous to suggest that you would say "Oh well, mom told me to stop looking, so on the way back to my room I'll just divert my eyes to the ceiling and think about Ravens game instead of continuing to look for what I was looking for on the way back to my point of origin. "

Everyone is familiar with this situation, and everyone knows that this is exactly how it works when you are looking for something. So the idea that Zimmerman ever "stopped looking" for Trayvon is just not the least bit credible. Obviously he was still actively searching for Trayvon, even as he was heading towards his truck, and since Trayvon was watching him, he would have seen that Zimmerman was still a threat and still searching for him. He would have no idea where Zimmerman was headed, even if we believed Zimmerman's self serving story that he was headed back towards his truck intending to give up the search (which I don't). Trayvon had no idea where Zimmerman was going, only that he was still being hunted.

As I've explained, any claim that Zimmerman had "stopped looking" is completely preposterous on its face, maybe he was headed back in the direction of his truck, but he was possibly (probably) just doubling back to retrace his steps as part of his efforts to locate Trayvon. The fact that he was walking in the general direction of his truck is in no way proof that he intended to stop looking. Retracing your steps and/or doubling back the way you came to see if you missed something is a tried and true part of the process when you are searching for something.

 

[Ryika]

Why do so many black people take NBC's word on such a thing? Because it fits their own experience.

For some that's most certainly true, but to paint it as the only reason for it is ridiculous. The only thing you need for people to take someone's word for something is for it to be something that they want to believe is true. First and foremost, it's a victim narrative, just like any other, so of course people will buy into it because "muh victimhood!"

To make a very obvious example of that happening in another group: When the end of the year draws near and the right wing media starts talking about the War on Christmas again and makes ridiculous examples, then tons of Christians who totally feel oppressed for their religious views will believe them, even if the example is clearly fake news, and even if most of them never actually experienced anything that can come close to be "oppression" because of their religious views.

You wouldn't make the argument that they believe it because "it fits their own experience", or maybe you would (after all, experience is subjective), but you most certainly wouldn't say their experience represents reality. Something doesn't need to be true for people to feel that it's true, and pretending as if any black American who buys into the victim narrative that was spun by NBC must totally have experienced that sort of oppression themselves and are therefor unquestionably justified in their beliefs is a denial of reality in favor of an extremely one-sided view.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For some that's most certainly true, but to paint it as the only reason for it is ridiculous.

But of course he never said it was the only reason right? That's just you shoehorning in a strawman that you want to pet-peeve about isn't it?

The only thing you need for people to take someone's word for something is for it to be something that they want to believe is true. First and foremost, it's a victim narrative, just like any other, so of course people will buy into it because "muh victimhood!"

To make a very obvious example for that happening in another group: When the end of the year draws near and the right wing media starts talking about the War on Christmas again and makes ridiculous examples, then tons of Christians who totally feel oppressed for their religious views will believe them, even if the example is clearly fake news, and even if most of them never actually experienced anything that can come close to be "oppression" because of their religious views.

You wouldn't make the argument that they believe it because "it fits their own experience", or maybe you would (after all, experience is subjective), but you most certainly wouldn't say their experience represents reality. Something doesn't need to be true for people to feel that it's true, and pretending as if any black American who buys into the victim narrative that was spun by NBC must totally have experienced that sort of oppression themselves and are therefor unquestionably justified in their beliefs is a denial of reality in favor of an extremely one-sided view.

There is no "victim narrative spun by NBC". The reality is that what Tim describes is accurate for the average black American. I base this not only on University level study (I have a degree in the subject and did my Thesis on this topic), but also on personal, firsthand experience, as a black person, who grew up in a black family, in a black neighborhood, and went to a black high school, in a black suburb of a majority black city. What Tim describes is fact, and is supported, not only by my own research, study and personal experience, but endless scholarly work on the subject. This reality is inconvenient to the ideology you have chosen to adopt, but your self-serving, uninformed, inexperienced, gut-feelings, just aren't credible or dispositive. Its what you want to believe, but what you want to believe is inaccurate and has no factual or empirical basis.

One of the problems with your argument, is that you are actually doing exactly what you claim Tim is doing... You want to believe that the experience of the average black American does not fit what Tim is describing because it cuts against your ideology. However, your belief in this regard isn't based on any experience or expertise in the subject matter. Its based purely on your own self-serving confirmation biases. In other words, you want to believe "Meh, all this oppression of blacks stuff is just a bunch of overblown excuses, victimization, melodrama", so you do believe it.

 

[Ryika]

(I have a degree in the subject and did my Thesis on this topic)

Can I read it?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Can I read it?

Of course. That was a weird question but I just assumed it was genuine and looked it up:

Theses from 1924-2012 are in paper format or are on microfiche and can only be viewed at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library.

https://faq.library.princeton.edu/a.php?gid=1059&qid=11167

So if you are planning to visit the library, just shoot me a PM, we can exchange contact info and I will give you the personal info you need to look it up.

 

[Ryika]

Bummer. I had hoped for an anonymized backup-pdf or something like that.

I guess that's not how things work.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wish I still had a copy, but that was almost 20 years ago.

EDIT: Whoa... that was trippy... I just accessed the database and looked up my name ( I had never bothered trying before) and BAM, the archive info came up with the title, my advisor etc... gave me chills. I was so angry back then. That really took me back, thanks for that Ryika. No digital file though, sadly. You have to visit the library in person to view the document.

 

[Berzerker]

another correction, Zimmerman wasn't on NW patrol... He was heading to the store when he spotted Martin

 

[metalhead]

So then he wasn't a "neighborhood watch volunteer" at all, he was just a dude in a truck.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Which as you've already pointed out, is exactly the same thing anyway.

 

[Lexicus]

He was walking around in the rain looking at houses and loitering by the mail boxes.

Except...he wasn't. He was walking home from the convenience store.