I Can't Believe it's Not Murder!

[Amake]

It's not just for the rich and famous anymore. Being white is good enough, at least as long as you're only killing lesser races. At least in Florida (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/14/george-zimmerman-acquitted-murder-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-death/).

For those curious, I Can't Believe it's Not Murder! is an alternative to murder that's almost indiscernible from the real thing. In fact the only difference is that it's not illegal. For George Zimmerman, a respectable, moderately wealthy white man in his physical prime, stalking, starting a fight with and then shooting a little boy in the face could have meant a world of legal trouble - but you could tell just from the boy's name, Trayvon, that no real crime has been committed.

So yeah, Zimmerman was aquitted by a jury of six white women. After all, they couldn't prove that Martin didn't try to fight back when Zimmerman assaulted him. (Although judging by the videos we saw back then, Zimmerman didn't have a scratch on him.) I could honestly not blame black people in Florida if they started shooting white people on sight in self defense because they obviously have no legal right to live there. Yeah, that would start a race war that whitey would win with superior firepower, I'm not recommending it, but I could understand it.

[Aldurin]

http://sadpanda.us/images/1734352-8D50FFI.gif

[Satan's Onion]

But I also know it [Florida] to be the most corrupt & profoundly degenerate state in the Union. So many of its elected officials are so openly For Sale that politics in Florida is more like an auction than a democratic process. Its Congressmen have been jailed for Felony Fraud & its Senators have routinely committed more heinous crimes than Richard Nixon was ever accused of. ... More murders & rapes go unreported in Florida each year than in Corsica & Sicily combined. The state has no Income Tax & essentially no Law. Its cities are ruled by Depraved sots & its Universities are snake-pits of cheating & random sex in Public. (http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=937848)

...

[Flarecobra]

I think the shit would've hit the fan no matter what verdict was reached.

Though if you think about it... imagine how this guy's life will be now. It certainly will not be the same as it was beforehand, and I get the feeling that he might've had a better quality of life in jail.

[Magus]

I think prosecution should have pursued voluntary manslaughter from the get-go instead of adding it at the last minute.

[Red Mage Black]

As far as I saw it and the facts I heard about Zimmerman, he was pretty damn zealous and paranoid. So, shooting may have been more of a panic response than an intended thing. By and far 'concealed carry' does not mean 'intent to shoot anything that threatens'. So, either what Magus said above or Negligent Homicide. I mean, it wasn't like he walked right up to Martin and just shot him, but I'm sure the fact he ran and hid, THEN confronted Zimmerman didn't help matters either.

No, Zimmerman shouldn't have shot him. As I said previously, it sounded more like a panic response. People do stupid shit when they panic. If I was in Martin's shoes, I would have asked the guy outright why he was following me and THEN told him I was going to visit a relative that lived around the area. At the same time, I think 'running and hiding' was also a panic response to being followed by Zimmerman. Both things resulted in a very regrettable outcome. Zimmerman was not an innocent man just trying to protect his neighborhood and yet Trayvon Martin was also not just some 'sweet innocent child' people try to depict him as. Both of them had bad histories and this is the bad thing that tends to happen when two people with such histories meet.

I myself am pretty mad about what things are being said on Twitter and Facebook as a result. Death Threats were never funny, even when the Anonymous idiots from 9gag and 4chan were doing it. I even heard news of shootings against unrelated folks in different states as a result of the verdict. Not to mention, this new Black Panthers thing? That isn't going to solve anything. More racism is never a good thing. In fact, Militant 'Anything' is never a good thing.

Y'know, I don't even believe this was a race issue in the first place, but when the media gets a hold of anything, they'll spin it that way to appeal to folks. I'd like to think the issue of racism was merely media and political related, in any manner. Either way, it was not an incident that should have happened.

As for what's happening with Zimmerman. Due to death threats and the like, protective custody and he's moving out of the country. Can't do much there, but I'm still saddened that people allowed themselves to get riled up this much about one murder/homicide/manslaughter/etc case. (Killers tend to walk free everyday and this seemed no different. Media sensationalism anyone?)

[Nique]

Trayvon Martin was also not just some 'sweet innocent child' people try to depict him as.

Irrelevant. He was an average kid.

If you want to avoid a fight you should probably not stalk people and make them feel threatened especially not any teenage boy at all regardless of race but I guess "stand your ground" only applies if you're white and win the fight by murdering someone.

[Osterbaum]

Maybe Zimmerman isn't the devil, but fuck if it isn't entirely his fault. Yeah ok, MAYBE Trayvon Martin could've avoided being shot if he'd acted more calmly or something I guess?!? But what the hell does that even matter. I mean Zimmerman is still pretty clearly the person who instigated the whole situation (the 911 responder even tells him not to go after Martin himself). A boy was shot dead and people are sitting around contemplating how he could've avoided getting shot? It's victim blaming, plain and simple. "Didn't want to get shot? Well you shouldn't have reacted so defensively when some stalker came up to you on the street!"

[Red Mage Black]

Irrelevant. He was an average kid.

If you want to avoid a fight you should probably not stalk people and make them feel threatened especially not any teenage boy at all regardless of race but I guess "stand your ground" only applies if you're white and win the fight by murdering someone.

But the whole 'he was sweet and innocent' was the thing the media was playing up to make this a race based incident in the first place. The DA also wasn't doing itself any favors by bringing up the wrong charge. It wasn't 2nd Degree murder, but I do agree they shouldn't have brought in that other charge too late.

I don't know if you're trying to imply I'm being bigoted here. I think you might be reading too much into my analysis. As for the 'stand your ground' law and the politicians there, I don't live in Florida, so I don't know that law that well. I can only reference back to that Hunter S. Thompson quote that Satan's Onion pointed out.

Maybe Zimmerman isn't the devil, but fuck if it isn't entirely his fault. Yeah ok, MAYBE Trayvon Martin could've avoided being shot if he'd acted more calmly or something I guess?!? But what the hell does that even matter. I mean Zimmerman is still pretty clearly the person who instigated the whole situation (the 911 responder even tells him not to go after Martin himself). A boy was shot dead and people are sitting around contemplating how he could've avoided getting shot? It's victim blaming, plain and simple. "Didn't want to get shot? Well you shouldn't have reacted so defensively when some stalker came up to you on the street!"

I never said it wasn't Zimmerman's fault and I never blamed Martin whatsoever. I think you might have done the same thing Magus did. I wrote my post from a completely analytical... or is it speculative(?)... point of view. It's not like anyone actually saw what happened, so all of it is speculation anyway.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I mean, it wasn't like he walked right up to Martin and just shot him, but I'm sure the fact he ran and hid, THEN confronted Zimmerman didn't help matters either.

Jesus fucking Christ.

It is in every single goddamn way Zimmerman's fault. Do not play the victim blaming game.

and yet Trayvon Martin was also not just some 'sweet innocent child' people try to depict him as.

Don't you fucking dare start on that shit.

As for what's happening with Zimmerman. Due to death threats and the like, protective custody and he's moving out of the country. Can't do much there, but I'm still saddened that people allowed themselves to get riled up this much about one murder/homicide/manslaughter/etc case. (Killers tend to walk free everyday and this seemed no different. Media sensationalism anyone?)

You have this completely fucking backwards. Every death should be cause for grief. Every miscarriage of justice should be cause for outrage. We should never, ever allow ourselves to stop giving a shit about things like this.

[Amake]

Being a terrible person is a crime that warrants being shot down on the streets, I guess. But being a terrible person and shooting down people in the street means you haven't done anything wrong.

See that's what bothers me. I admit we don't know exactly what happened or why. That may be largely because the police has been incredibly racist and basically refused to investigate the killing but fine, we don't know for a fact that Zimmerman is a murderer and we don't want to put people in jail if their guilt is in question. But how can anyone in the entire world say Zimmerman has done nothing wrong and keep a straight face?

Look at the pictures of that racist asshole: He's not the least bit ashamed. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. He doesn't wish that anything could have been different. He doesn't have any idea why people hate him so much he's forced to move out of the country. I'm sure he could defuse a whole lot of that hate if he turned to a camera and said something along the lines of "I'm sorry that I killed this person over nothing, I shouldn't have done that", but is that going to happen? Would the idea even occur to him?

[Bum Bill Bee]

Sigh, I am just all out tired of how much time and attention this one case has taken. And what's worse is it feels like all the hype and attention by the mass media is only empowering racist dicks who would otherwise be impotent pissants. Remember Koran Burning Day? Which was invented by some dumbass preacher who had a congregation of ONLY TWENTY PEOPLE, and then the liberal mass media decides to put this previously unknown man unto our televisions and inadvertantly inspire more dumbasses to be racist dicks.....

Look, I am quite pissed at how Zimmerman just got off the hook like that, but all the same....I wish this kind of shit would be put on trial and get done with quicker, I wish it didn't feel like mass media was inadvertantly glorifiying miserable wastes of skin who didn't deserve the time of day....

Plus, I have a black Wiccan Anarchist friend who says this is all just being hyped up so they can take attention away from more important matters like Snowden and the NSA. (He's the only individual opinion on political stuff that I listen to outside of this place).

[Red Mage Black]

Jesus fucking Christ.

It is in every single goddamn way Zimmerman's fault. Do not play the victim blaming game.

You haven't read both my posts, have you? I said two things, which I believe I do not need to quote. Read them.



Don't you fucking dare start on that shit.


More proof you haven't read my second post.


You have this completely fucking backwards. Every death should be cause for grief. Every miscarriage of justice should be cause for outrage. We should never, ever allow ourselves to stop giving a shit about things like this.

Now you're acting as if looking at this from another viewpoint is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with the law, it's the people who misinterpret it and use to it to their own ends which are to blame.

On another note: Threatening to riot over a verdict is not a valid form of grieving or getting back at an unjust law system.

Being a terrible person is a crime that warrants being shot down on the streets, I guess. But being a terrible person and shooting down people in the street means you haven't done anything wrong.

See that's what bothers me. I admit we don't know exactly what happened or why. That may be largely because the police has been incredibly racist and basically refused to investigate the killing but fine, we don't know for a fact that Zimmerman is a murderer and we don't want to put people in jail if their guilt is in question. But how can anyone in the entire world say Zimmerman has done nothing wrong and keep a straight face?

Here's the rub: I never did say he did nothing wrong. Nowhere in posts did I explicitly state or even IMPLY it. If you guys found such an implication, that wasn't my intention. The fact everyone here who has responded to my posts so far has misinterpreted them is probably my fault.

The fact is, that it's hard to remain nonpartisan on an issue without one side thinking you're defending the other. Since you have to think on both sides of the issue to even try to understand it.


Look at the pictures of that racist asshole: He's not the least bit ashamed. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. He doesn't wish that anything could have been different. He doesn't have any idea why people hate him so much he's forced to move out of the country. I'm sure he could defuse a whole lot of that hate if he turned to a camera and said something along the lines of "I'm sorry that I killed this person over nothing, I shouldn't have done that", but is that going to happen? Would the idea even occur to him?

There's a lot of hate going around, both on the internet and real life. Fearing for your life and the life of your own family when such hatred arises probably makes him not want to even appear in public anymore. So the answer to your question? I can say with utmost certainty that he will not.


On a completely different tangent, I just thought I'd say this. Every time the news comes on, I have to shake my head. The media has everyone, whether you like to admit it or not. Those emotions you feel when a report comes up about an incident like this? That's how they get you. When did people stop thinking for themselves and let the media tell them how to feel?

What's particularly hilarious(in a very macabre sort of way), that I found, is that any white on black crime was immediately a racial thing, but not black on white? Yet two people of the same race fight and that's all she wrote? The media plays it up to be bigger than it should be and it tends to stir up more and more conflict. Then militant organizations like the KKK or Black Panthers show up and nothing is ever the same.

It is in my opinion, that racism will never go away. As long as there are people who are different, it will always exist. So, what solution exists? Do we curb it and tell everyone to just 'put up with one another'? I think we've been trying that one for years and been failing miserably. So really, what is the solution or do we just not have one yet?

Sigh, I am just all out tired of how much time and attention this one case has taken. And what's worse is it feels like all the hype and attention by the mass media is only empowering racist dicks who would otherwise be impotent pissants. Remember Koran Burning Day? Which was invented by some dumbass preacher who had a congregation of ONLY TWENTY PEOPLE, and then the liberal mass media decides to put this previously unknown man unto our televisions and inadvertantly inspire more dumbasses to be racist dicks.....

Look, I am quite pissed at how Zimmerman just got off the hook like that, but all the same....I wish this kind of shit would be put on trial and get done with quicker, I wish it didn't feel like mass media was inadvertantly glorifiying miserable wastes of skin who didn't deserve the time of day....

Plus, I have a black Wiccan Anarchist friend who says this is all just being hyped up so they can take attention away from more important matters like Snowden and the NSA. (He's the only individual opinion on political stuff that I listen to outside of this place).

Yeah, I can completely agree with you on the media bit. It's all stupid sensationalism and giving the people who don't deserve it the spotlight. My posts were more or less just looking at the two sides of the equation and my rant is more or less my own take on the mass media and the people who allow themselves to be lead by it.

[Marc v4.0]

I disagree. I think a Murderer walking free from his Murder Trial is exactly the sort of thing the Media and the public at large needs to be getting in a big goddamn fury about.

Pretending that this didn't happen by just not covering it does no one any good, and is exactly the sort of dismissive bullshit that lets things like this happen all the time.

The only thing that is really accomplished by 'not giving it attention' is that we all get to go back to pretending a belief in a more comforting non-reality, where things like this can't possibly be happening because then it would be all over the news!*


*except don't put it all over the news because I don't like seeing how fucked up everything is it disturbs my way of life.

[Amake]

Here's the rub: I never did say he did nothing wrong. Nowhere in posts did I explicitly state or even IMPLY it. If you guys found such an implication, that wasn't my intention. The fact everyone here who has responded to my posts so far has misinterpreted them is probably my fault. Yes, I did that thing you're not supposed to where you don't respond directly to someone's post but to general frustrations built up by listening to completely different people speaking on topics tangentially related to your post; aka being carried away. Sorry about that.

There's a lot of hate going around, both on the internet and real life. Fearing for your life and the life of your own family when such hatred arises probably makes him not want to even appear in public anymore. So the answer to your question? I can say with utmost certainty that he will not. There's a time honored tradition of journalists finding ways to let people speak without giving vigilantes or even law enforcement any opening to attacking them. If Zimmerman wanted to speak to the media, he could.

Those emotions you feel when a report comes up about an incident like this? That's how they get you. When did people stop thinking for themselves and let the media tell them how to feel? I'm going to guess this is no more directed at me than my outbursts were at you. But I can tell you I've made a habit of not letting anyone tell me how to think or feel, and particularly not the media, and I don't think I have any more special powers than anyone else, so it stands to reason a lot of people do think for themselves. Maybe people aren't angry at Zimmerman because the media tells us we should be but because he's exactly the unapologetic racist murdering dickfart the more reasonable media (not Fox News) tells us he is?

PS. The Justice Department are now to review the case, apparently after being pressured by the NAACP. Zimmerman is not exactly getting away yet. So that's probably good.

[Red Mage Black]

I'm going to guess this is no more directed at me than my outbursts were at you. But I can tell you I've made a habit of not letting anyone tell me how to think or feel, and particularly not the media, and I don't think I have any more special powers than anyone else, so it stands to reason a lot of people do think for themselves. Maybe people aren't angry at Zimmerman because the media tells us we should be but because he's exactly the unapologetic racist murdering dickfart the more reasonable media (not Fox News) tells us he is?


Actually, that was completely unrelated to you. Apologies for not clarifying.


PS. The Justice Department are now to review the case, apparently after being pressured by the NAACP. Zimmerman is not exactly getting away yet. So that's probably good.

I wasn't aware you could pursue the same(or related) charges twice. Isn't that double jeopardy?

EDIT: Just looked this one up. Apparently civil rights charges. Huh.

[Nique]

What's particularly hilarious(in a very macabre sort of way), that I found, is that any white on black crime was immediately a racial thing, but not black on white?

To respond to an earlier question, I wasn't implying that you are a bigot.

But I will state outright that when it comes to racial issues that you clearly don't know what you're talking about as demonstrated by your barely-veiled reverse racism arguments. You're also bristling at even hints of criticism towards your uninformed viewpoint.

I don't have the time to deconstruct everything you're saying but I did have a thought on why this case is and should be about race: The Zimmerman trial isn't about race because Zimmerman hates all black people. It is about race because Zimmerman engaged in racial profiling (which may be difficult to prove in a courtroom but is relatively clear based on the 911 call and the entire social atmosphere of America) which ultimately led to the unjust killing of a 17 year old boy whose character was called into question postmortem because of his race.

The question is not 'Is Zimmerman a racist' it's 'Would this case have been handled institutionally the exact same way if the victim were white'? The answer is, of course, 'No'. The verdict sends the message that 'Trayvon may not have deserved to die, but better to kill an innocent black kid than take the risk that they're up to no good!'

EDIT:
On another note: Threatening to riot over a verdict is not a valid form of grieving or getting back at an unjust law system.

Says who?

[Red Mage Black]

To respond to an earlier question, I wasn't implying that you are a bigot.

But I will state outright that when it comes to racial issues that you clearly don't know what you're talking about as demonstrated by your barely-veiled reverse racism arguments. You're also bristling at even hints of criticism towards your uninformed viewpoint.

I don't have the time to deconstruct everything you're saying but I did have a thought on why this case is and should be about race: The Zimmerman trial isn't about race because Zimmerman hates all black people. It is about race because Zimmerman engaged in racial profiling (which may be difficult to prove in a courtroom but is relatively clear based on the 911 call and the entire social atmosphere of America) which ultimately led to the unjust killing of a 17 year old boy whose character was called into question postmortem because of his race.

Regardless of race, regardless of what type of murder it is, race or not, both the victim and the murderer will be scrutinized based on past history. Now, I have no doubts his was more closely done due to racist sentiment. I get it.

I also know Zimmerman had a bad history of domestic disputes and alcoholism, which lead him to be fired from a security job. Got it, the guy was a complete asshole.

The question is not 'Is Zimmerman a racist' it's 'Would this case have been handled institutionally the exact same way if the victim were white'? The answer is, of course, 'No'. The verdict sends the message that 'Trayvon may not have deserved to die, but better to kill an innocent black kid than take the risk that they're up to no good!'


I... have no actual response for this one. Just filler since I quoted the other part of the post.


EDIT:


Says who?

Two wrongs don't make a right, were you ever taught that? Violence breeds violence, etc etc, but seriously for a moment, the answer isn't chaos. In a riot, people who aren't involved get hurt and property gets damaged. Racial hate does not need to be answered by chaos. If they were planning a protest, I wouldn't give two shits, but stating intent to riot over a hate crime is insanity.

I'd think it would put more burden on Trayvon's family. "We did this for him!"

[Marc v4.0]

I don't think his family would really care who is rioting for what reason. They lost a child, and his murderer walked free.

Protests are nice, when they work.

When the media ignores every protest, politicians and lawmen do as they please despite the overwhelming forces pushing against them, sometimes gleefully spiteful of the issues at hand and those they harm in the process...well, when protests and diplomacy fail, there is only riot and revolution.

[Loyal]

On another note: Threatening to riot over a verdict is not a valid form of grieving or getting back at an unjust law system.As far as I can tell the "rioting" has been basically an invention (or overplayed to the point of being an invention) of the media who would just love such a ratings spike.

Anger, demonstrations, and protests are perfectly justified here, and I fully support any instance of it being used as speech, even in cases where I disagree with the message.

If they were planning a protest, I wouldn't give two shits, but stating intent to riot over a hate crime is insanity.Nobody's threatening to riot over a hate crime. They're threatening to riot over a hate crime once again going unpunished by the justice system even despite having a massive media floodlight over it.

Or! It's just angry people being angry. It's not like everyone or even a majority of the angry people share this sentiment (or we'd be hearing it), and so we shouldn't succumb to sensationalism and act as if it were. There's plenty of reason to riot in the US these days, but, sad to say, if it hasn't happened yet I don't see it happening over this.

[Osterbaum]

Two wrongs don't make a right, were you ever taught that? Violence breeds violence, etc etc, but seriously for a moment, the answer isn't chaos. In a riot, people who aren't involved get hurt and property gets damaged. Racial hate does not need to be answered by chaos. If they were planning a protest, I wouldn't give two shits, but stating intent to riot over a hate crime is insanity.
Non-violence for the sake of nonviolence or some sort of perceived liberal or middle-class ideal is ineffective. What get's results is a diversity of tactics and strict non-violence is often a way for certain people to monopolize the power in a movement and render the movement essentially ineffectual.

How Nonviolence Protects the State (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state) is an anarchist text, but is an informative and interesting piece regardless of if you subscribe to anarchist ideas or not.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Want to know precisely how unbiased 1/6 of the jury was? (http://gawker.com/george-zimmerman-juror-b37-hates-media-called-trayvon-787873533)

Here you go!

EDIT: Also, turns out Stand Your Ground laws lead to more people getting killed! (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide)

Who would have thought?

[Azisien]

I've been too busy to do much research on the new revelations of this case, but this is how I've interpreted things:

Zimmerman was acquitted because the prosecution had a terrible case, that is, they didn't really have much evidence to go on, since their main witness was Martin. Because of this, the trial basically came down to Zimmerman's word, in which he claimed Martin attacked him and he defended himself.

Based on that, I'm not so sure I can even blame the jurors, the judge, or the court for what happened. To find Zimmerman guilty would have been to do the opposite of the laws governing this trial, given what was presented. Based on THAT, the primary thing that is broken are the laws themselves. In conclusion, focus your anger mainly on the laws, and the broken system as a whole, not the small pawns more or less doing their job in this trial.

But yeah I'm sure there's details I'm missing and such.

[Nique]

I've been too busy to do much research on the new revelations of this case, but this is how I've interpreted things:

Zimmerman was acquitted because the prosecution had a terrible case, that is, they didn't really have much evidence to go on, since their main witness was Martin. Because of this, the trial basically came down to Zimmerman's word, in which he claimed Martin attacked him and he defended himself.

Based on that, I'm not so sure I can even blame the jurors, the judge, or the court for what happened. To find Zimmerman guilty would have been to do the opposite of the laws governing this trial, given what was presented. Based on THAT, the primary thing that is broken are the laws themselves. In conclusion, focus your anger mainly on the laws, and the broken system as a whole, not the small pawns more or less doing their job in this trial.

But yeah I'm sure there's details I'm missing and such.

This is somewhat reasonable. However, let's remember that 1/2 of the jury was for Murder 2 or Manslaughter at some point in the deliberations.

This case defies all common sense, but is probably doing so in large part because 'stand your ground' defies all common sense and becomes a playground for ambiguity, subjective and outright bigoted application.

What I also hate is everyone complaining that anyone who has a problem with this verdict is 'pretending to be a legal expert' which is not the case - it takes an average amount of critical thinking skills to see that the verdict is wrong IN SPITE of the law, not because of it. In that way, Az is totally right; 'The Law' is wrong here because it allows something like this to happen.

[Osterbaum]

It's a racist system letting a racist go free. A state run by a racist governor with a racist justice system and a racist police force. Even if every single person in there isn't a racist, that doesn't make the system as a whole any less racist.

This blogpost (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/15/18739873.php) makes a good point about the whole 'stand your ground' thing:
Evidence was shown at the trial of injuries to Zimmerman that may or may not have been the result of a fight between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. A law used on behalf of George Zimmerman was Florida’s racist 2005 “stand your ground law”, which gives the right to kill instead of retreating even when retreat is a possible alternative. Even if Zimmerman’s injuries weren’t created after the fact, the question arises, at what point of pursuit by a scary “creepy-ass cracker” by car and on foot did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his ground? Obviously, the law doesn’t apply to Black people being stalked for no reason by dangerous cop wannabes in Florida.

[Azisien]

More than that, the powers that be (the media, and through them, the government, and through them, the corporations/lobbyists, and through them, the gold/DNA-seeking transdimensional reptiles) are also 100% fluffing up this case in the media to cause a moral panic (standard populace-controlling doctrine, not even creative or new) and get our attention away from the fact that the United States and probably every other powerful country in the world is completely ignoring the privacy of all of its citizens and spying on every single electronic thing you do.

Not to detract the current thread, or downplay this case, but that's what's happening.

And it's working.

[Aerozord]

Non-violence for the sake of nonviolence or some sort of perceived liberal or middle-class ideal is ineffective. What get's results is a diversity of tactics and strict non-violence is often a way for certain people to monopolize the power in a movement and render the movement essentially ineffectual.

Yea I mean just look at Martin Luther King or Gandhi and how their non-violent protests failed to accomplish anything.

Contrast that to China and North Korea and how their underclass revolution resulted in fair treatment for everyone

[BitVyper]

Attributing the entire civil rights movement to MLK is an insult to everyone else involved in the civil rights movement. Furthermore, even the nonviolent movement just kept its protests nonviolent. They had to be willing to arm and violently defend themselves in places like Mississippi because groups like the KKK were attacking them. This is saying nothing of the not-so-nonviolent side of the movement.

Everyone oversimplifies things to "and then MLK came along and did some nonviolent things and everyone had civil rights forever." It was not that tidy at all. Quoted from http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/62/the-civil-rights-movement-in-mississippi-on-violence-and-nonviolence :

"Well, our strategy was we always did carry our weapons out there. ...And so, when they came over that Wednesday night and started to shooting, and when they got down there about half a mile, our people opened fire on them. And so, they turned around, and come back that a-way. And when they come back that a-way, the people on that side started shooting over they heads. And [when they] got in town, they said, "We not going to go back out there no more." And said “Them niggers got all kinds of machine guns out there.”...and that word got out, and so from then on we never had no more problems when we'd go out there [with] nobody coming by shooting no more. So that broke that up."

How was nonviolence going to help them?

The civil rights movement isn't your one-stop counter argument to violent revolt. There was plenty of armed conflict to go around. MLK gets focused on in an effort to pretend none of that happened. If people hadn't been willing to violently defend themselves, the people trying to organize nonviolent protests would have been getting shot a lot more.

Now I go back to the shadows. Ever watchful, ever ready to act.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Yea I mean just look at Martin Luther King or Gandhi and how their non-violent protests failed to accomplish anything.

Contrast that to China and North Korea and how their underclass revolution resulted in fair treatment for everyone


Aero holy shit this is speaking to such a deep level of ignorance of those things.

[Aerozord]

Aero holy shit this is speaking to such a deep level of ignorance of those things.

so is saying violence is the inherent solution. I would never claim that total pacifism is the only solution to an issue but there are plenty of issues with violent approaches. The biggest being the large risk of replacing one form of oppression with another.

Real change is achieved by shifting cultural views not by laws or governments. The changing of laws is merely a sign of a culture changing. A recent example, anti gay marriage laws. This was not some royal decree. This was an amendment given a vote and the majority of voters supported it. This is an example of a homophobic culture influencing legislation to support their prejudice.

Certainly laws have an impact. They are not the deciding factor. You can destroy this system and replace it with whatever you want. Its not gonna stop discrimination.

Education, art, media, change the culture, what the common man thinks, and you will see change.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

so is saying violence is the inherent solution. I would never claim that total pacifism is the only solution to an issue but there are plenty of issues with violent approaches. The biggest being the large risk of replacing one form of oppression with another.


Non-violence for the sake of nonviolence or some sort of perceived liberal or middle-class ideal is ineffective. What get's results is a diversity of tactics and strict non-violence is often a way for certain people to monopolize the power in a movement and render the movement essentially ineffectual.

You quoted Osterbaum saying that diversity amongst the tactics of the oppressed is the best solution, and seemingly presented a counter argument that involved citing the Civil Rights movement. A thing that is basically a case study in the exact thing he was talking about.

The people who were racist in America and basically uniformly across the world, who wanted African Americans and other minorities to drink inferior water and live substandard lives for being born who they are didn't wake up one morning totally reformed and ready to fight for the rights of others because they'd heard the absolute perfect argument the night before and had come to realize the error of their ways. Sure, some people change their ways! Good on em! But most really, really. Didn't. Don't, even. They were still down there, fighting and screaming and hollering that they deserved to shit all over other people because it was their god given right, and the thing that stopped them wasn't posters, books, TV or music. They thought that way all up into the grave and some even still continue to live and breathe that way right this freaking second. The thing that stopped them from acting on those thoughts was law, action and fucking fear. They couldn't count on the Sheriff to cover for them when they lynched someone as openly because federal bureaus and the media were breathing down their necks. They couldn't chase a civil rights group out of town because like Bitviper quoted those groups became willing to defend themselves. They couldn't fucking get away with it, and even that didn't actually change the "Culture". That culture still exists! It can't be educated out because the people who propagate it will separate from the rest of the society that tries to teach them otherwise, and take their children with them. You can't show them some masterpiece media or art related to these things and expect them to change because they don't stop and think about how it applies to their perspective! They literally could not care less about it!


End of the day what changes society and motivates people who are bigoted or racist or what have you to not act on those beliefs is fear. The British government didn't have a happy ending change of heart and give control of India to its rightful owners and populace out of kindness or a cultural change on their part, they did it because they feared what would happen if the Indian populace got fed up of their shit right in the middle of World War 2. Controlling the situation, one way or another was no longer possible. The Republican party of today is torn between the fear of losing their core constituents and totally being eclipsed in the next generation. Andrew Jackson didn't fear the Cherokee, so their nonviolent attempts to prevent him from removing them from their lands were totally ignored. He literally didn't give a damn. Fear fear fear fear.

[Amake]

K-Resh: At this point I'd usually point out that a world governed through fear could hardly be ideal. I mean that's what NRA wants, for everyone to be armed all the time so that no one can do anything against anyone else out of fear of being shot. I don't think either of us wants as an end goal a world where people go around thinking "I get along with my fellow man because otherwise they'll hurt me" if we can have "I get along with my fellow man because I recognize them as my equals" instead.

Sure it's an easy way to change society, but I think as a rule the easy way is not the best way. Aerozord has a point, which you ignored by taking "education, art and media" to mean a silly idea where a single magical piece of art would change the way people think about everything forever. (Maus gets pretty close, though.) Education works slowly, over generations, but it works, you can try to resist it but past a certain point you'd just be completely closed off from the rest of the world and never let your kids outside the bunker where they'd learn not racism and this unsustainable bubble society would collapse eventually.

And the usual disclaimer: I'm not in any position to tell anyone actively being oppressed to tough it out and wait for society to change the hard way. I can only say I think it would be worthwhile in the long run.

[Osterbaum]

Yea I mean just look at Martin Luther King or Gandhi and how their non-violent protests failed to accomplish anything.

Contrast that to China and North Korea and how their underclass revolution resulted in fair treatment for everyone
What Bit and K-Resh said. Also there's a lot more behind the link I posted earlier (not in my previous post, but the one before that).

And as to Gandhi, the Indian independence movement was not exclusively non-violent! Gandhi might have been, but that refusal to a diversity of tactics is what led him, among other things, to denounce and refuse to support groups of strikers or protesters because they were causing property damage and defending themselves against government troops and police. And hell, even Gandhi is quoted as saying that violent resistance is preferable to no resistance at all.

And the usual disclaimer: I'm not in any position to tell anyone actively being oppressed to tough it out and wait for society to change the hard way. I can only say I think it would be worthwhile in the long run.
This part is very important, because it is so easy for those of us who are relatively privileged and less oppressed to denounce violent tactics as counter productive or morally wrong. It's easy for us because we are not directly being targeted by the system in this case. It's easy for the system, because strictly non-violent movements are less of a threat and often easier to appease. They may even act as a counter against elements of the movement that use a more diverse set of tactics, including violence, by driving these elements out of the movement and marginalizing them. A diversity of tactics is the best way to get results, and art, education and media as well as non-violent resistance are all valid tactics to use but so is violent resistance.

I feel like I'm advertising, but the link in my earlier post really does talk about all of these things and goes into quite a bit of detail.

[Magus]

I wasn't quite sure of the racial undertones of this case until I heard about the black Florida woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband and was denied self-defense under the stand your ground law (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/).

So apparently if you actually shoot somebody and kill them the law applies, but in this case, because she had to go back into the house (because the garage door was jammed), the law didn't apply, because the implication was she could have retreated (not sure how retreated applies in a state with stand your ground, but anyway), despite the fact that according to her she could not, she was convicted of attempted murder and given 20 years. If she had accepted a plea deal she would have gotten three, but because she was so sure she was in the right (what with having a restraining order against her husband and all that), she went ahead with the trial.

So apparently the stand your ground law only applies if you are white looking.

[Red Mage Black]

Fair enough? Did he need to draw his gun on a couple of teenagers just breaking into a car, much less need to shoot the remaining kid twice? This didn't even make it past local news. (http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/)

[Bard The 5th LW]

Just because other awful things don't make big headlines doesn't mean we shouldn't be furious about the things that do?