Man Beaten and to Some it is Time to Score Some Political Points

How about we recognize that we do have ongoing and serious racial tension in this country rather than ignoring the issue most of the time and only deploying it when the game of politics is being played?

There is some pretty awful news out of Mobile, Alabama about a man who was beaten by a mob allegedly because he had had words with a group of kids who had been playing basketball in the street.  The man who did the fussing was white, the kids black, and it would seem that the group of individuals who beat the man were black adults.  There is also an allegation that one of the assailants stated that the beating was “justice for Trayvon.”

The basic details can be found here via WKRG:  No Arrests In Matthew Owens Beating, Tensions High

According to police, Owens fussed at some kids playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about 8:30 Saturday night. They say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with everything but the kitchen sink.

Police tell News 5 the suspects used chairs, pipes and paint cans to beat Owens.

Owens’ sister, Ashley Parker, saw the attack. “It was the scariest thing I have ever witnessed.” Parker says 20 people, all African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his home, using “brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on.”

Police will only say “multiple people” are involved.

What Parker says happened next could make the fallout from the brutal beating even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said “Now thats justice for Trayvon.”

This situation has caused something of a stir in some of the rightward reaches of the blogosphere, as they now have a case that appears, at least at first reporting, to be a racially motivated attack wherein the perpetrators were black and the victim white.

Indeed, apparently people such as Jim Treacher think that a very serious crime is really just a swell chance to attempt* to score very cheap political points:

Well done, Spike Lee. Nice job, NBC. Keep up the good work, ABC. And to everyone else who’s been using a shooting in Florida to foment hate and divide people by the color of their skin, kudos. Don’t let this attack, and similar attacks across America, bother you. If you had a conscience, we never would’ve heard of you in the first place.

Update: Thomas Sowell asks, “Who is ‘racist’?” Short answer: Anybody who doesn’t hate George Zimmerman on sight, apparently.

We can find similar responses from Stacy McCain, Rick Moran, and Glenn Reynolds.

These are writers who found it offensive/problematic/etc. to suggest that race might have been a factor in the Martin-Zimmerman case but who now find it very useful to throw up race now. In the Martin case decades of racial tensions in the US, the entire “talk” phenomenon, and so forth is just crazy talk and worthy of derision and dismissal, but now that a white man has been beaten by black men, well now we can talk about race and we can also blame the media and such for causing this event.**

Also:  if the argument they are attempting to make is that because some people sensationalized and politicized the Martin shooting that turnabout is fair play they need to consider their logic.

How about we recognize that we do have ongoing and serious racial tension in this country rather than ignoring the issue most of the time and only deploying it when the game of politics is being played?

This kind of stuff reminds me of something that Ta-Neishi Coates wrote the other day (and that I expect will be widely quoted on this matter):

I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn’t an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be “on your team,” it doesn’t much matter because there’s no real belief in it existing to begin with.

[…]

That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today.

Indeed.  This is exactly how this current incident appears to be being handled by the above linked bloggers.  They see this as simply a way to score points.  For example, writes Reynolds:

I think, however, that all of this stuff hurts him [Obama] more than it helps — first by contrast with the postracial narrative of 2008, and second by making him look more like a corrupt, demagogic big-city mayor than a President.

So, a man lies near death but let’s figure out how this hurts Obama (or something).  Nice.

How about this:  I will unequivocally state that racially motivated beatings are wrong (and that, sadly, they exist).  I will state that if, in fact, any of the attackers thought they were engaging in some sort of karma balancing because of the Trayvon Martin shooting, that that is wrong.  In general, beating someone because they may have griped at/criticized/yelled at/whatever some kids in the street, also wrong.

And just like I thought that there needed to be an investigation and charges brought with a dead teenager on the ground in the Zimmerman case, I think too that there needs to be arrests and charges in a case with a man clinging to life in a hospital bed after a beating.

That this creates for some people a chance to score points (or, at least, they think it is such) is pretty remarkable and, also, pretty awful.

And yes:  I am calling people out, many of whom may actually read this and respond (please, feel free).  I think, however, sometimes people need to be called out over the petty usage of serious topics simply to try and give your “side” (whatever that may mean) a boost.  Where is the recognition that a) in the Martin case a kid is dead, b) in the Owens case a man hovers near death, and c) racism is still a serious problem that we have to be honest about in the US?

This also reminds me of something James Joyner wrote recently:

This is reinforced by a phenomenon that I’ve written a lot about over the years, of American politics taking on a team sports mentality where all that matters is the color of the jersey.

[…]

This mentality has been present in the blogosphere for a number of years now but seems to have taken hold even among the political grown-ups. Even the World’s Greatest Deliberative is acting along these lines, with Republican leaders not even bothering to pretend that they’re interested in advancing conservative goals by forcing the president to give more than he gets. No, the chief goal is to ensure Obama doesn’t get re-elected and an 80 percent win on the issue is considered instead a 100 percent loss.

It’s a maddening environment in which to try to have an intelligent conversation.

Indeed.

Meanwhile:  here’s hoping that Owen’s attackers are brought to justice and, more importantly, that Owens makes a full and swift recovery.

——

*I say attempt because I am not sure sure he is actually scoring anything here, except perhaps with others who see this kinds of situations as nothing more than a weird game of tit for tat.

**And yes, there has been crazy sensationalism over the Martin case.  And yes, there has been some demagoguery.    Neither of those facts, however, make the seriousness of the Martin case go away and nor do they make discussions of race in that context null and void.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Race and Politics, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. SKI says:

    Exceptionally well said, Steven.

  2. MM says:

    Very nice post Steven. I agree 100%. I would comment further, but the last time I commented on Instapundit here, things went kablooie.

  3. Jenos Idanian says:

    Ace Of Spades says the count of whites beaten by groups of blacks specifically citing the Trayvon Martin case is up to three. No fatalities, though.

    Not yet.

  4. @Jenos Idanian: And therefore?

  5. Bennett says:

    I read far too many right wing sites than is good for my blood pressure, but it certainly better informs me of the conservative mentality towards many things. Sure, there is some outright racism displayed, but even more so are the slightly under the surface, ready to boil over racial thoughts. Like on HotAir today, they had an article that listed the most violent and least violent states. The commenters just couldn’t help themselves to remind each other that the less violent states were “monochromatic” to quote one of them. Nevermind that they are also liberal states, it all has to do with black people.

  6. Doubter4444 says:

    What is really frustrating is this weird need that everything must have equivalence.
    It’s always tit for tat.

    “A” can’t be bad by itself, it’s only bad in context.
    “B” is bad (or worse) because “A” exists.

    The media plays into it, or has in the “Both Sides of the Story” reporting too the point that all anyone has to give is an contrary opinion and that’s treated as seriously as an opposing fact.

    It’s spread to the point where everything is excused or justified or filtered by previous actions – look at the stupid Dog story as an example.

    The Romney story is old, but used to score a point, so an even older, more pointless story is dug up about Obama, to score, I guess, a point.

    And no one calls bullshit.

    So now we’ve got the same thing about a vicious beating and a tragic death.
    Nothing about the awfulness of the action (s), only the glee over the fact that see, it happens to whites too.

    It’s depressing.

  7. Tsar Nicholas says:

    The obvious issue here is not that people are getting beaten. It’s the perpetual double standard of the mass media. How are you missing that?

    The point is that in the collective mind’s eye of the left-wing media white on black crime is worthy of instant national high dudgeon mode, whereas black on white crime is worthy of no mass coverage whatsoever or, more paradoxically, the opinion that discussing race in the latter scenario itself is racist. Don’t you remember the media’s absurdly agenda-driven coverage of the Central Park jogger case?

    How is it not a legitimate topic of conversation to address the respective ways in which the national media slants its coverage of race-based crimes?

  8. anjin-san says:

    And therefore?

    Therefore the right has fuel to perpetuate it’s meme that blacks are inherently violent/dangerous. Therefore people should go through life scared like the pencil necks that push this garbage do.

    Tea Party America at its finest.

  9. Modulo Myself says:

    Don’t you remember the media’s absurdly agenda-driven coverage of the Central Park jogger case?

    You mean to help convict five African-Americans who later had their convictions overturned? Damn that left-wing media!

    Also, from the description of Owen’s vicious beating, it doesn’t sound as if it had anything to do with Trayvon Martin.

  10. anjin-san says:

    the national media slants its coverage of race-based crimes?

    Ah. Are you referring to the way Fox ignored the killing of Trayvon Martin, while continuing to obsess with attractive blonde girls who have been dead for years? You might be on to something there.

  11. Robert Levine says:

    How is it not a legitimate topic of conversation to address the respective ways in which the national media slants its coverage of race-based crimes?

    As I recall, it was weeks before the Trayvon Martin case went national. And it did so primarily because it was about an unarmed teenager shot to death by someone who wasn’t even arrested for having done so.

    This case happened a few days ago, police appear to be investigating appropriately, and it’s all over the media. How are the two comparable?

  12. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I can draw a far shorter line between the “outrage” over the Martin case and these beatings than from Sarah Palin or the Tea Party to any acts of violence. That’s the point.

    This is an entirely predictable reaction to the rabble-rousing of so many who immediately cast the Martin shooting as a racial incident and started cranking up the Hate Machine to 11.

  13. mattb says:

    Reading about this beating made me sick to my stomach. Reading about the reaction made me even sicker. i only wish that most people could address this difficult subject as well as you have Steven.

    And sadly, it seems that certain people on this thread, seem to relish every one of these sorts of stories because it allows them to “be right.” And by being right, I mean that it gives them cover to not even bother to hide their typically thinly veiled racism in the name of “the truth.”

    I do not look forward to the “thoughtful’ commentary that I’m sure is about to follow, not to mention everything that we’re about to hear on right wing radio.

  14. Loviatar says:

    How about we recognize that we do have ongoing and serious racial tension in this country rather than ignoring the issue most of the time and only deploying it when the game of politics is being played?

    Truer words have never been spoke. As an example, something as simple as going out to a restaurant for a meal.

    Waiter Racism Survey Shows 40 Percent Of Waiters Discriminate Against Black Customers

    But I guess pointing that out to Jenos Idanian/superdestroyer/Tsar Nicholas and their ilk is the true racism

  15. mattb says:

    Jenos, thanks for wasting no time in proving Steven’s broader point.

  16. Jenos Idanian says:

    @mattb: Let me clarify things: I in no way “relish” this turn of events. Yes, I expected them, but I wanted very much to be wrong.

    So many public figures with influence all pronounced the “facts” of the case very quickly: the simple fact that Martin was black (and 17) and his shooter was not black (and an adult) instantly made this whole incident about race more than anything else. They demanded “justice” (by which, they meant Zimmerman being suitably punished), and broke out the “no justice, no peace” chants. Hell, one group (with a history of breaking the law and getting away with it) even offered a bounty on Zimmerman.

    Well, Zimmerman has yet to be punished, and — incredibly provocatively — is actually free on bail. So the outraged sorts have a whole new excuse to be outraged.

    And in the end, I really don’t think the people who are doing these beatings are overly interested in Martin and the case surrounding his death. No, they’re just looking for excuses to lash out and cause pain and suffering. Martin’s death was just an excuse.

    But there was absolutely no reason to hand them an excuse. Maybe they’d have found another one, maybe not. But it was grossly irresponsible to whip up the mobs the way the professional race baiters and perpetually indignant did in this case.

    I’m feeling the urge to go through the OTB comments archives again. Another incident comes to mind where I am positive I could find some very familiar names saying some very inflammatory (and wrong) things…

  17. mattb says:

    For the record, I thought I had edited my first comment to read:

    And sadly, it seems that certain people seem to relish every one of these sorts of stories because it allows them to “be right.”

    While I stand by my original comment, I did not want to focus on folks here on OTB.

    Man, I miss that edit button.

  18. Samuel Dijk says:

    Well, that was fatuous. As for your comment that “These are writers who found it offensive/problematic/etc. to suggest that race might have been a factor in the Martin-Zimmerman case but who now find it very useful to throw up race now,” well they have a reason for throwing it up now, don’t they? In the Martin case, they had nothing but a misheard audio tape; here they have a witness who heard references to Martin.

    That shouldn’t be too hard for even a nitwit like you to understand.

  19. Terrye says:

    Well, where is Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Spike Lee? The media had no problem what so ever using the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida to stir things up now did they?

    This man gets beaten within an inch of his life and all of a sudden, it is unseemly to make mention of such incidents.

    Please.

  20. Doubter4444 says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:
    Huh?
    Really – this is about the Media?
    I don’t know why I’m suprized – it’s always about the media.
    This:

    The point is that in the collective mind’s eye of the left-wing media white on black crime is worthy of instant national high dudgeon mode, whereas black on white crime is worthy of no mass coverage whatsoever or, more paradoxically, the opinion that discussing race in the latter scenario itself is racist. Don’t you remember the media’s absurdly agenda-driven coverage of the Central Park jogger case?

    Just is not true.

    The fact that you have to go back 30 years ago to prove a point is kind of telling.
    And yes, that was a huge story, (as was Rodney King).
    But that story was way deeper than a black on white attack, it when to the core of what was happening in NYC at the time (I know this, was living there at the time), and was about a lot more than the actual crime itself.

    Sensational stories of any stripe – and by the way… Missing White Girl syndrome has basically entered the vernacular – Caycee Anthony, Natalie Holloway, Elizabeth Smart, et al sell papers and earn clicks.
    So the point about White on Black being an agenda of the dreaded left wing media is just an excuse for… scoring points.

  21. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Doubter4444: “And no one calls bullshit.”

    Even if someone calls “BS” on something like this, who’s going to be listening? Tsar? Jenos? Somehow I doubt it. Dr. Taylor just called, and his reward was the discovery that the blogosphere really is the online version of the choir loft. The people who agreed with him didn’t need to be told and the ones who didn’t won’t get it because “we’re not the ones who do things out of racist motives, it’s those %$Q@# blacks.”

  22. Terrye says:

    @Robert Levine:

    Really? Unarmed teenagers get shot all the time and it does not make the national news. The difference is in this case the shooter was named Zimmerman and so the opportunity was there to exploit the case.

    Look at the statistics..thousands of young black men are killed every year..and in fact, thousands of people are killed or shot and left maimed just because they got in the line of fire and who cares? Often as not it does not even make the front page.

  23. Terrye says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: I am sorry, but after listening to people like Al Sharpton run their mouths it is a little late to wonder if this is being exploited for racial reasons.

  24. anjin-san says:

    Are some people truly unable to see that the thing that made the Martin case about race was that, once again, we had the killing of an African American being swept under the rug? This has been going on for what – 400 years now? Can’t imagine where the anger is coming from…

  25. Terrye says:

    @Doubter4444: Yes, there are cases sensationalized and the missing white girl is a good example of that..but the case in Florida became political when it should not have..I can not remember the last time a sitting President talked about a missing white girl…this was used by the left to create more division and that is all about politics. The actual people involved became incidental to the case itself.

  26. Terrye says:

    @anjin-san: Swept under the rug? Really? And of the thousands of young men who get killed in this country every year in some stupid gang war or drug deal gone bad or robbery…how many do you think actually get solved? How many get reported? How many get national news? How often is there an arrest?

    And how can George Zimmerman get a fair trial at this point? Or does that even matter?

  27. mattb says:

    Jenos, I would almost believe what you had written if I had not already read the crap you have continually posted. I cannot think of a single one of these cases where you did not use it as an opportunity to attack liberals/the media/race hustlers.

    Further, I cannot think of a single time you showed any serious concern of inflammatory speech against a minority group.

    And, in those few cases where you have decried acts against a racial/religious/sexual orientation was wrong, I cannot think of a single time you did not add a caveat to remind us of how attacks on conservatives/christian/heterosexual/white/males are always ignored.

    so no, I can’t take you seriously here. And unearthing comments from anyone else being hypocrites — unless of course it’s Steven or myself (as we’re the two people who have directly made the claims about how conservatives are celebrating this sort of attack) — doesn’t have any bearing on this conversation.

    So I stand by my statement, that your comments on this thread have gone to show how sadly correct Steven is. I fully expect that Eric F and a number of our other ‘thoughtful conservative’ posters will soon add additional supporting evidence.

  28. anjin-san says:

    @ Terrye

    Swept under the rug? Really?

    Really.

    How many get national news?

    Pretty much all of the ones that involve pretty blonde girls.

  29. Terrye says:

    @anjin-san: So, have the people at NBC ever gotten to the bottom of who it was that edited the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman made a racial comment he did not make?

    That is the difference, they were so eager to exploit that situation that they lied…and somehow that is not a big deal.

    As for the pretty girls,what has that got to do with this? Thousands of people go missing in this country every year. The numbers are really astonishing. I don’t really see what that has to do with anything. It does not change the fact that thousands of other young black men are shot and killed and the media does not make an issue of it and often times there is no justice for those victims. They are forgotten.

  30. mattb says:

    For the record, let me say that I do think that their are ‘race hustlers’ or, rather, ‘agenda hustlers’ who exploit tragedy to advance their own careers. The problem is that it seems people only care about the hustlers whose positions they disagree with, or who the see are helping “the other team.”

    I would be far more convinced of the sincerity of certain people if they had shown the same concern for the ‘agenda hustlers’ who make up most of right wing radio or have aggressively attack projects like the Park 51 center. And it seems to me that is ultimately Steven’s point, which sadly already seems lost.

    You can’t have it both ways. You cannot attack only one side and expect to be called anything other than a partisan.

  31. anjin-san says:

    Jenos, I would almost believe what you had written if I had not already read the crap you have continually posted.

    Amen. Let’s take a look at a comment Jenos directed at me recently:

    I know you are delighted to be at the front of the “Lynch Zimmerman” mob, and probably donated to the Black Panthers “Dead Or Alive” bounty on him, but the facts aren’t bearing out your little racist fantasies, where you get to be the hero for standing up to the murderous white supremacist (who’s a wee bit too brown to make the cut, but details don’t matter).

    I wait with baited breath for evidence that I called for Zimmermann to be lynched, or harmed in any manner. Or that I have ever expressed any support or sympathy for the “Black Panthers” that are not even Black Panthers (I am from East Oak originally, I know the difference), or that I have ever said, or even implied that Zimmermann is a white supremacist.

    Sorry, you can’t throw Molotov Cocktails on one thread and pretend to be the Flying Nun on another. I think all of us (our host on this tread excluded) engage in hyperbole, occasionally get the facts wrong, and say things in the heat of the moment that we regret later. But most of the people here are basically good faith actors. Jenos is not.

  32. mattb says:

    @Terrye:

    So, have the people at NBC ever gotten to the bottom of who it was that edited the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman made a racial comment he did not make?

    That is the difference, they were so eager to exploit that situation that they lied…and somehow that is not a big deal.

    if you made any attempt to actually research before your wrote (in other words amke this about anything else than scoring points) you would have found out that the answer was: yes, they did and they fired that individual. Here’s the story from Glen Beck’s website (so you don’t think this is part of a left wing conspiracy):
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nbc-fires-producer-who-doctored-tape-of-zimmerman-911-call/
    Also note that the network issued an apology for the edit.

    Argue with facts, it makes you look better.

  33. anjin-san says:

    @ Terrye

    So, have the people at NBC ever gotten to the bottom of who it was that edited the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman made a racial comment he did not make?

    Yes.

  34. @Tsar Nicholas:

    The point is that in the collective mind’s eye of the left-wing media white on black crime is worthy of instant national high dudgeon mode

    It’s not white on black crime that made the Zimmerman-Martin a national story. Indeed, that’s why no one heard of it for more than a month and a half after it happened. What made it a national story was the assertion in some parts that Martin’s death was not a crime, but rather a good thing, and that Zimmerman, rather than someone to be condemned, is someone to be admired.

    And there’s the distinction between that story and this. While this beating is no less horrifying than Martin’s death, no one with any legitimacy is suggesting that the beating was, in fact, a legal act of self defense by the angry mob, or that the police are being to hard on the mob by trying to bring them to justice for it.

  35. Gulliver says:

    Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is “scoring political points.” I see. You can’t find the time to properly condemn race-baiters like Sharpton, and Jackson, or point out the complete lack of fairness in the DOJ allowing a vigilante bounty to be put on the head of Zimmerman, but you can sure find the time to criticize conservatives for pointing out that there are two standards in this country for what is an acceptable response if an ethnic group feels “offended.”

    Truly, truly, truly pathetic.

  36. Gulliver says:

    @ mattb

    …if you made any attempt to actually research before your wrote…

    Yeah… do your own research why don’t you? It was also demonstrated that it could not have been a simple “accident.” It required significant planning and manipulation to “blend” the different segments together in order to make it sound like Zimmerman was making a racist statement. And NBC won’t disclose the name of the person they supposedly chastised… or whatever. Of course, a complete lack of integrity by a major news service in reporting the facts is fine – as long as it is done in support of the narrative from the liberal left.

    You folks really have no standards, do you?

  37. anjin-san says:

    It required significant planning and manipulation to “blend” the different segments together in order to make it sound like Zimmerman was making a racist statemen

    “significant planning” – WTF?

    A reasonably skilled person could do that in an hour with a laptop and the right software.

  38. datechguy says:

    Maybe your right, if we are just really quiet and pretend these revenge beatings aren’t happening and don’t call out the MSM for pushing the whole white vs black motif, oh excuse me “white-Hispanic vs black ” motif to help incite them maybe it will all go away.

    Or if it doesn’t go away at least you won’t hear about it so you can pretend it isn’t happening.and everyone can fell good about themselves for making sure that racial justice took place in Florida rather than dealing with uncomfortable truths.

    Boy this attitude would fit in perfect in the Jim Crow South circa 1930.

  39. michael reynolds says:

    Crimes should be investigated and where possible prosecuted. That’s happened now with the Martin case. It will certainly be done in this Mobile case, assuming police can identify perpetrators.

    Mr. Zimmerman will be tried by a jury. I’m content to leave it to them to decide innocence or guilt. Likewise in the Mobile case.

    The problem was that initially there was to be no prosecution in the Zimmerman case. Public pressure made that happen. No such public pressure is necessary in the Mobile case.

    For some African-Americans — like Mr. Sharpton — to go beyond calling for a closer look by prosecutors and attempt to convict Mr. Zimmerman on TV is wrong. So is the Fox effort to exonerate him and depict Mr. Martin as a criminal.

    For some whites — like some on this thread — to try and portray whites as victims in American society is asinine and so obviously ahistorical that the impulse can only arise from racism.

    We should all be on the same side here: in favor of justice being done, the truth being told, and peace being made between all races.

  40. michael reynolds says:

    Pretending that the media, or the police., or prosecutors ignore black on white crime is nonsense. In fact it has long been established that black on white crime is more likely to be punished than same race crime. And a study recently demonstrated that white jurors are more likely to convict black defendants. And African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population. And a startling number of demonstrated wrongful convictions are of black defendants. Also, police forces, prosecutors and the profit-seeking prison-industrial complex are overwhelmingly white, as are the media.

    Whites playing the victim card is absurd.

  41. Repsac3 says:

    @Gulliver:

    No one at NBC (or anywhere else, that I’ve seen) claimed that the words removed from the 911 tape were taken out accidentally… The post(s) “proving” that the producer who edited the tape didn’t do so accidentally are just strawman answers to suggestions no one made…

    The tape was intentionally edited, for length. The producer intentionally chose the parts he took out, as well as the parts he left in, and made the tape sound as good as possible for broadcast, using as much significant effort as that took.

    The accident wasn’t that the tape was edited, or that parts were removed–in order to make the segment run at a certain length, according to the NBC producer… The accident was not realizing that removing the words he did altered the impression that folks unfamiliar with the story might be left with… According to NBC, the intent was to shorten the segment, not to make folks think Zimmerman was a racist…

    You can believe them or don’t, but “proving” that the tape wasn’t altered by accident–a thing that no one involved ever claimed in the first place– is just partisan silliness…

  42. Xenos says:

    It’s not white on black crime that made the Zimmerman-Martin a national story. Indeed, that’s why no one heard of it for more than a month and a half after it happened. What made it a national story was the assertion in some parts that Martin’s death was not a crime, but rather a good thing, and that Zimmerman, rather than someone to be condemned, is someone to be admired.

    That was actually the second round of commentary… what put this case into national conversation was concerns that the shooter would not face investigation, much less prosecution, due to the ‘stand your ground’ law. This was further discussed because someone noticed that the SYG law had been pushed, for some reason, by ALEC, which is the boogy-man du jour on the lefty blogs and journals.

    The pro-Zimmerman commentary, such as it was, came from pro-Alec amateur propagandists. That seems to have ignited an explicitly personal anti-Zimmerman crusade from unsavory commenters like Sharpton. For the orthodox left this story was mainly about corrupt police and corrupting influences like Alec – Zimmerman was considered to be a typical gun-nut loser, and the issue was never about him so much as stupid laws that make stupid people especially dangerous.

  43. Gustopher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: I don’t think a lot of people care whether the shooting of Trevor Martin was itself racist enough to be outraged — it’s the lack of prosecution that was racist, and which means that blacks cannot reliably get justice in this country.

    The facts of the case as we know them, and as we knew them at the time, strongly suggest that a manslaughter conviction is a very real possibility, even with the Stand Your Ground law. Zimmerman should have been arrested before there was a national outrage.

    Now, he faces a tainted jury pool. Tainted both by those who think he is clearly guilty, and by those who think this is all a leftist plot. Justice will not be served, and that is a tragedy.

    I have no doubt that a white guy beaten half to death by a bunch of blacks is going to have to police investigating and actually trying to make a case. People who claim the cases are the same are either willfully or naturally stupid.

  44. G.A. says:

    Leftist racism apologetics…..sigh…

    So from now on I should consider darker pigmented people that have white last names white?Or because they live in nice a neighborhood?

    So I can still call Obama half white devil half the time?

  45. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor

    Maybe the Obama Administration should show some leadership and criticize blacks and call for a federal investigation of every beating of whites by blacks and appears to be a revenge beating from Treyvon Martin.

    However, I doubt that the Obama Administration is capable of demonstrating such leadership.

    You could not even bring yourself to criticize one black leader for being a racist and inflaming hatred. When political correctness is such in the U.S. and academics cannot bring themselves to say anything bad about blacks, then you know that there is no solution :

  46. superdestroyer says:

    @Loviatar:

    If you read any waiter/food service webistes you would understand why waiter have such low opinions of blacks. Having customers who are rude, demanding, and who refuse to tip does not give waiters a good opinions of blacks. Even black waiters discriminate against black customers.

  47. superdestroyer says:

    @Doubter4444:

    How man citations do I have to provide you where the national media ignored black on whites crime should I have to provide to demonstrate that the national media consistently ignores crimes where groups of blacks beat whites.

    Here is one from 2012. http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17284891/6-charged-in-beating-of-nc-man-in-seneca

  48. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Gustopher: Oh, the wrong, it burns…

    I don’t think a lot of people care whether the shooting of Trevor Martin was itself racist enough to be outraged — it’s the lack of prosecution that was racist, and which means that blacks cannot reliably get justice in this country.

    It’s now clear that the police did take the whole case seriously, and the “lack of prosecution” was for some very valid reasons. The “ticking clock” aspect of the law where the defendant MUST BE charged within a certain timespan was a factor — if the cops really wanted to give Zimmerman a break, they’d have arrested him immediately. That would have put nigh-impossible pressure on prosecutors to make a case, or let it go forever.

    Instead, they proceeded very carefully. Obviously, that was stupid and racist — they should have just figured “there’s never a good reason for shooting a black teenager” and thrown away the key.

    The facts of the case as we know them, and as we knew them at the time, strongly suggest that a manslaughter conviction is a very real possibility, even with the Stand Your Ground law. Zimmerman should have been arrested before there was a national outrage.

    The reason a manslaughter conviction is a “very real possibility” is because of political pressure, not the facts of the case. And the SYG law simply doesn’t apply to either Zimmerman or Martin — Zimmerman apparently didn’t have a chance to retreat while he was lying on his back getting his head bashed into the ground, and Martin apparently turned back and chose to confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman broke off his chase.

    Now, he faces a tainted jury pool. Tainted both by those who think he is clearly guilty, and by those who think this is all a leftist plot. Justice will not be served, and that is a tragedy.

    You might want to mention how “those who think he is clearly guilty” are both far more numerous and far more vocal. And there’s no “plot” at the core here, just a confluence of people who have their own reasons for investing in pushing his guilt. Mainly crass opportunists who see the whole case as a chance to advance their own agenda.

    I have no doubt that a white guy beaten half to death by a bunch of blacks is going to have to police investigating and actually trying to make a case. People who claim the cases are the same are either willfully or naturally stupid.

    No, of course the cases aren’t the same. And anyone who’d suggest it are unnaturally stupid.

    The racial element in the Martin case is very undetermined. Zimmerman’s recorded words indicate he was more suspicious over Martin’s behavior than his race, and apparently has a history of working for justice on behalf of blacks — in one case, of a black man beaten by a white man (son of a cop) based on race. In these cases, the assailants declared it was purely because of the race of the victim.

    I appreciate your efforts to put forth a reasonable argument in a reasonable tone. However, the arguments you’re putting forth really aren’t that reasonable. While it’s certainly arguable whether “blacks can reliably get justice in this country,” simply sacrificing Zimmerman — or any individual — to sate the mobs is not an acceptable solution.

    Zimmerman deserves to be held accountable for his actions — and his actions alone. He doesn’t deserve to become some kind of symbol or representative for “injustice” across the nation. He doesn’t deserve to be punished simply because others have not been punished.

  49. superdestroyer says:

    I find it odd that no one was pointed out that if Mr. Owens had followed the advice that got John Derbyshire fired, he would not be in the hospital today.

    I wonder how many white parents will use what happened to Mr. Owens to talk to their children about the dangers of being around groups of blacks.

  50. Xenos says:

    @superdestroyer: Derbyshire warned against threatening children by chasing after them with knives? Derbyshire opined that being a violent sex offender might make your neighbors wary of you and ready to beat the crap out of you if you threaten, credibly, to carve up their children?

    It seems like much too sensible advice to have come from an inbred wanker like Derbyshire.

  51. grumpy realist says:

    Reading the comments from the usual suspects here (Superdestroyer, Terrye, Tsar) makes me want to throw my hands up and emigrate.

    You want to know why African-Americans vote 90% for the Democratic Party and don’t vote for Republicans? Read your own comments.

    The reason the whole Zimmerman affair was notorious was because of the “move along here, another black kid killed by someone who claimed self-defense, we don’t even have to investigate, move along” attitude that the cops manifested. And don’t tell me that they “investigated.” Look at the casualness with which they treated what should have been treated as a crime scene. Look at the casualness with which they treated someone who should have been considered a suspect party. Look at how long they took to identify Treyvon, in spite of the fact that he had a cell phone with him.

    THAT’s what the screaming has all been about.

    For myself, I think the fact that Zimmerman’s father was a judge was the major factor in the decision. Standard problem: behavior that gets other people thrown in jail gets brushed off provided you’re related to someone who is rich and powerful. Is anyone surprised that Americans have become so cynical about justice?

  52. jukeboxgrad says:

    Steven cited Ta-Neishi Coates saying this:

    I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn’t an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents.

    That’s an important point, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough, and it needs to be placed in a broader perspective. “This sort of thinking” is not just “endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism.” It’s endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about everything.

    The debt is a good example. Reagan tripled it. GWB almost doubled it. 75% of the debt Obama inherited was created by these three presidents: Reagan, Bush and Bush. Cheney famously said “deficits don’t matter.” Ryan and many others who are now posing as deficit hawks voted for Medicare Part D, which “added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation’s indebtedness.” Likewise regarding the $3 trillion Iraq war. Ryan et al are still proposing budgets that continue to add debt for many years, because protecting the rich from taxes is considered more important than dealing with the debt.

    History shows that GOP concerns about debt/deficit are deeply insincere, and are simply being used as “a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents.”

    That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today.

    Except that the only “actual thing of import” to the GOP is the pursuit of power for the benefit of its rich patrons. The GOP views everything else “merely as rhetoric.” The behavior of the GOP demonstrates that what used to be considered core beliefs of conservatism no longer have any importance to the GOP. That’s why Romney, a person with no core beliefs other than raw ambition, is the perfect embodiment of the GOP and the perfect GOP candidate.

  53. rodney dill says:

    @grumpy realist:

    “move along here, another black kid killed by someone who claimed self-defense, we don’t even have to investigate, move along” attitude that the cops manifested

    I agree that this is the most likely part of the Trayvon case where race would be a factor. This particular police force seemed to drop the ball.

    THAT’s what the screaming has all been about.

    Not all. There’s been plenty of screaming about what Zimmerman’s motives were as well.

  54. Jenos Idanian says:

    @grumpy realist: Well, I certainly agree with the “grumpy” part…

    1) Your first point about this whole matter is a purely partisan one. So we can guess your priorities.

    2) The cops did investigate. They cuffed Zimmerman, took him to the station, questioned him thoroughly, and even gave him a voice stress test. They also saw him being treated for injuries entirely consistent with his story of self-defense.

    3) Zimmerman’s father is a retired magistrate from Virginia. Apparently, he was somewhere between a Justice of the Peace and a small-claims court judge. His local influence was pretty much nil; even in Virginia, it would be negligible.

    Please, go and double-check the things you seem to “know” so thoroughly. It’s embarrassing when you parrot things that are so easily proven incorrect, and some will never ever let it go.

    Trust me on that one.

  55. @Tsar Nicholas:

    Don’t you remember the media’s absurdly agenda-driven coverage of the Central Park jogger case?

    Don’t you remember that the five black men who were convicted of that crime had their convictions vacated in 2002 based on DNA evidence and what turned out to be coerced confessions?

  56. superdestroyer says:

    @Xenos:

    I guess it is understandable that this beating like many of the black beating white incidents is taking the normal path of justification. It always seems to move from hate crime, to a neighborhood incidents to the “white guy” deserved to get his ass kicked.

    John Derbyshire stated that whites should avoid blacks when possible and one black mob after another sees to go out of their way to prove Derbyshire correct. Just because Mr. Owens is an idiot does not make Derbyshire any less correct.

  57. superdestroyer says:

    @grumpy realist:

    The reason that blacks are the most liberal demographic in the U.S. is that it is in their own interest to be liberal. Having progressive whites excuse their behavior benefits blacks. Taxing whites and giving money to themselves is beneficial to blacks.

    The question that no one seems to want to answer is why are blacks consistently so weak on crime prevention. Blacks are victims of crime much more than whites but ignoring the effects of crime and no snitchin seems to be much more important than trying to lower the crime rate. I guess in the black community, receiving entitlement payments is seen as the offset for having such a high crime rate.

  58. @superdestroyer:

    Having progressive whites excuse their behavior benefits blacks.

    This is an interesting, shall we say, comment in this context (I will ignore the broader racists elements of the statement which suggests that all black people behave a certain way and that their superiors have to ignore that behavior).

    However, the following does not fit your paradigm:

    In the Trayvon Martin shooting the focus by some on the right has been to justify Zimmerman’s shooting of an unarmed teenager.

    In the Owens I see no one trying to excuse a mob beating up a man.

  59. @Terrye:

    And how can George Zimmerman get a fair trial at this point? Or does that even matter?

    I think that this is a very real and legitimate question.

    However, I would note that media frenzies are not uncommon. Consider the Casey Anthony trial as a recent example.

    Also: the fact that there is a media frenzy doesn’t take away from the any number of serious underlying issues. And as has been pointed out above: the media frenzy started not as the result of the event–it was about a dead black teenager and the fact that the shooter appeared to have been barely investigated. Such a situation stirred serious racial questions. It shouldn’t be difficult to see past the media storm, and yes the behavior and history of Al Sharpton, the understand this fact.

  60. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Posters white here at OTB are justifying the beating by arguing that Owens committed a crime before the beating.

    Of course, progressives whites never expect blacks to pick up the phone and dial 911 if there children are threatened by a man with a knife. Progressives seem to find any excuse to justify blacks gathering up a mob and taking justice into their own hands. Just look at how Jena, LA transformed from a groups of blacks stomping an unconscious white teenager to the white guy deserved to get his ass kicked. The same happened after Drudge made an issue of the racial beating on the school bus near St Louis.

    Look at how the murder of a white man in Philadelphia by two Hispanic and one black is protrayed as a misunderstanding http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/Seth_WIlliams_Kevin_Kless_Murder_Case_012312

  61. rodney dill says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Posters white here at OTB are justifying the beating by arguing that Owens committed a crime before the beating.

    It doesn’t justify it, but it is one indicator of a motive of more than just “black against white” racism.

  62. Davebo says:

    Really? Unarmed teenagers get shot all the time and it does not make the national news.

    In how many of these cases does the perpetrator admit to the killing and yet, is not arrested for months Terrye?

  63. Xenos says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    In the Owens I see no one trying to excuse a mob beating up a man.

    I was sort of justifying it, I suppose. Just sort of, though.

    Still, the linked news report mentions a history of violent behaviour and a conviction for rape on the part of Owens, facts that never seem to be mentioned when certain caucasio-revanchiste bloggers (Ace, Drudge, Reynolds, that demented Gateway dude) discuss the situation. This mob consisted of people who know Owens, knew his violent criminal history, and claim that he threatened their children for the shocking offense of retrieving a ball from his front yard. It does not excuse their beating Owens up, but it does explain why they felt this was something that needed doing.

    This looks like a prima facie case of some people standing their ground, but doing it with their fists and objects close at hand, not guns. That appears to have been a mistake on their parts.

  64. dennis says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    Doug correctly chided me once for taking too seriously what someone writes/responds to in a blog. I think that can be equally applied to the news media. I don’t take Fox News (???) seriously; in fact, I don’t even watch it. You should do the same. There are myriad other news sources from which you can get an accurate and unbiased account.

    We’re going to tit-for-tat, he-did-it-too ourselves to death if we don’t quit.

  65. rodney dill says:

    @Davebo:

    In how many of these cases does the perpetrator admit to the killing and yet, is not arrested for months Terrye?

    Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is at least partially responsible for this. From the Orlando Sentinel some excerpts.

    Prosecutors across the state opposed the law before it was enacted Oct. 1, 2005. In the following five months, there were at least 13 shootings in Central Florida where self-defense was claimed. Out of six men killed and four more wounded in the cases, only one was armed. Some Orlando-area police agencies simply stopped investigating shootings involving self-defense claims and referred them directly to state prosecutors to decide.
    […]
    In case after case during the past six years, Floridians who shot and killed unarmed opponents have not been prosecuted
    […]
    “Almost every case between two individuals where one was armed and the other was not is dismissed.”

    The article doesn’t show if actual arrests were made in the 13 shootings or not, but indicates most cases were dismissed. It also doesn’t indicate the race component (or lack of race component) in each shooting. It does indicate a growing trend for local agencies to defer to the state level in these cases. It would be interesting to know how much the Zimmerman/Martin case differs from these other Florida incidents.

  66. Herb says:

    In the Martin case decades of racial tensions in the US, the entire “talk” phenomenon, and so forth is just crazy talk and worthy of derision and dismissal, but now that a white man has been beaten by black men, well now we can talk about race and we can also blame the media and such for causing this event.

    And like clockwork….the media blaming commences.

    Tsar Nicholas asks, “How is it not a legitimate topic of conversation to address the respective ways in which the national media slants its coverage of race-based crimes?”

    That’s kind of what we’re talking about, specifically about how certain right-wing commentators are slanting their coverage of the Owens case. Maybe Glenn Reynolds or Stacy McCain doesn’t think of themselves as the “national media,” but surely if they’re going to criticize other media outlets, then they should not shame themselves by engaging in the very behavior they are criticizing.

  67. James says:

    These are writers who found it offensive/problematic/etc. to suggest that race might have been a factor in the Martin-Zimmerman case but who now find it very useful to throw up race now.

    My surprised face.

  68. mattb says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: One of the things that I love about SD is how he relies upon select comments to prove his view of reality, but at the same time, somehow think that the rest of us are crazy when we say he’s a blatent racist for, you know, pointing out the blatent racism of the 90+% of the comments that he posts here.

    As for SD, if a single comment proves the reverse racism of “liberals/progressives” what do the countless racist comments on sites like FoxNews prove about the racial views of “conservatives?”

    Or more broadly, given the overwhelmingly racist themes of your own posts here, why should we take anything you say on race seriously?

  69. al-Ameda says:

    What happened in the Martin case was that the known assailant was not immediately detained and charged pending an investigation – only a public outrage caused that to happen.

    I hope that in this case, if and when the assailants are identified, they will be arrested and charged.

    I’m sure that conservatives will see this situation as a failure of the mainstream media.

  70. Jim Treacher says:

    No, it’s only time to score political points when white people attack black people. Failing that, we’ll settle for “white Hispanic” people attacking black people.

    But a white guy who gets beaten half to death by 20 black guys as “justice for Trayvon”? Oh, let’s not blame anybody who’s been organizing a lynch mob against George Zimmerman. They bear no responsibility. Good point, Steven. I mean, it’s not like NBC put up a map with a crosshairs symbol on it.

  71. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Oh, nothing, Steven. It’s just a coincidence.

    Liberals hear dog-whistles in everything except “justice for Trayvon.”

  72. Jay says:

    “These are writers who found it offensive/problematic/etc. to suggest that race might have been a factor in the Martin-Zimmerman case”

    Suggest?

    I suppose that is true if the definition of suggest has been changed to “clubbed over the head repeatedly in the press by Martin’s attorney, Al Sharpton, Toure, and Jesse Jackson saying Zimmerman was a white dude looking to shoot a black guy” then, yeah I guess “suggest” would be an apt description.

  73. Chuck Long says:

    Interesting that you don’t seem to find these blatantly racially motivated crimes at all troubling or newsworthy, yet the manufactured racial component of the Trayvon Martin case entirely compelling.

    In one case we have a Hispanic man shooting a black man during an altercation which had, by all accounts, nothing to do with race and everything to do with suspicious activity. On the other hand, we have AT LEAST three cases of black mobs attacking white people for nothing more than being white, and claiming that it is “justice for Trayvon”. And you think that those who find that newsworthy are the ones guilty of politicizing events. Are you even the least bit self aware?

    Projection, they name is Steven L. Taylor.

  74. MBunge says:

    Jim Treacher is a good example of the real problem here.

    It’s very difficult to deal with a racist who acknowledges his or her own bigotry and defends it.

    It’s damn near impossible to deal with a racist who hides behind this complex construction of psychological denial where either everybody else is a racist or they’re an ignorant coward who just can’t face up to the truth.

    Mike

  75. James says:

    @Chuck Long:

    Interesting that you don’t seem to find these blatantly racially motivated crimes at all troubling or newsworthy

    Interesting that’s the conclusion you jump to, completely untethered from the actual content of the piece.

  76. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Liberals hear dog-whistles in everything except “justice for Trayvon.”

    Actually, Steven’s point is that partisans tend to hear dog-whistles in certain things and not in others. So, you’re pithy little conserva-racism-concern-trolling proves his point.

    Pragmatic people would take your argument far more seriously if conservatives *ever* acknowledge the dog whistles in their little pet racial causes. Or if you ever acknowledged that sometimes “liberals” might be right in pointing out that agenda hustlers like Rush Limbaugh do intentionally blow dog-whistles from time to time.

    Trust me, it’s not hard to do. In fact, let me give an example of this:

    Yes, I do think that the inflamed rhetoric around the Trevon Martin case has exacerbated racial tensions. And that they may very well have contributed to these attacks.

    And, further, if it turns out that this was the case, and that the victims were specifically targeted because of their whiteness, I think that the attackers should be charged with hate crimes.

    See… no buts, no trying to say “both sides do it”, no snarkiness in the statement. Try it some time… you’d be surprised how it might improve your credibility on these sorts of issues.

  77. TheLastBrainLeft says:

    It’s pretty obvious the crime mentioned was racially motivated. I mean it’s beyond dispute. The fascinating issue is why so many people want to deny this. Almost as fascinating is the same individuals attacking anyone who dates to point out the 800lb gorilla in the room.

  78. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: You’re a racist.

    Prove otherwise.

  79. TheLastBrainLeft says:

    @<@mattb: We’re all partisans.

  80. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: “Basketball” = Dog whistle. “Justice for Trayvon” = Shut up.

  81. James says:

    @Jim Treacher: You’ve provided more than enough, Jim.

  82. Me says:

    Steven has both a poor sense of timing and irony. First, the reason some of the right are bringing this attack up in relation to the Martin case (notwithstanding the alleged shout by one of Owens’s attackers) is to ironically counterpoint the insistence by many on the left that the Martin case had to be an instance of racially-motivated violence, the irresponsible media frenzy generated by this assumption (including the mis-identification of Zimmerman’s home – which led to threats against bystanders, and calls for Zimmerman to be killed). In the Owens case, there certainly may be other extenuating circumstances beyond race involved, but Steven seems far more interested in questioning the racial motivations of his political opponents (and scoring his own political points) than truly examining the possible racial motivations of this attack and the relationship to the ways in which the left and their media allies regularly deal with racial issues.

    If this attack was in part inspired by the racial outrage over the Martin case, then the left and the media bear a fair amount of responsibility for it. But in Steven’s mind, the only political offense is from people pointing that out. That’s not the most honest of conclusions.

  83. Evan says:

    Here’s Jim Treacher saying Michelle Obama is a man who smells and should go to hell: http://goo.gl/0Hv7Y

    That’s who he is.

  84. mattb says:

    @mattb:

    Pragmatic people would take your argument far more seriously if conservatives *ever* acknowledge the dog whistles in their little pet racial causes

    Sigh… I miss edit… Let me rephrase this as:

    Pragmatic people would take your argument far more seriously if you and other agenda pundits *ever* acknowledge the dog whistles in their little pet racial causes.

    This is clearly not just a conservative issue. But what’s frustrating is that ‘agenda pundits’ of all types based their continued partisan based outrage on the fact that “the other side does it.” So apparently Al Sharpton’s actions somehow prevent Conservatives like Jim or Jenos for accounting for their own actions (in the same way that Jim and Jenos’ actions somehow have the same effect on the Sharpton’s of this world).

    I want to take seriously conservative commentator’s claims about being concerned about personal responsibility seriously. But that’s difficult to do as long as they are primarily concerned about policing the actions of others, rather than first starting with accounting for their own actions (and by that I mean, not the actions of other conservatives, but literally their own, personal writings).

  85. Me says:

    @MBunge:

    It’s even more difficult to deal with people who casually insinuate racism every time they run up against arguments they are unable to effectively refute, but that is one of the standard plays in the left-wing playbook these days. That’s one of the things guys like Treacher are pointing out. Unfortunately, too many people on the left enjoy playing the game of pretending the other side is racially motivated. They enjoy the false sense of moral superiority they get from it too much.

    Fortunately, not everyone on the left plays that game, but unfortunately, many in prominent positions and in the media are all too willing to aid and abet the play.

    And then people complain that we can’t have honest discussions about race…

  86. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “You’re a racist. Prove otherwise.”

    And that’s the one good thing about folks with a mental problem. They can’t and don’t want to hide it. I say “today’s racists act like X” and Jim Treacher immediately acts like X.

    Mike

  87. MBunge says:

    @Me: “that is one of the standard plays in the left-wing playbook these days”

    Yes, it’s EVERYBODY ELSE who is the problem.

    Mike

  88. mattb says:

    @TheLastBrainLeft:

    We’re all partisans.

    Possibly. But that shouldn’t be an excuse. To take a page from Christian Theology (though you’ll find similiar concepts in most religions): We’re all sinners, but that isn’t an excuse to go out and sin. In fact, acknowledging one’s sinful nature is a call to work to transcend it, even if in the end you will often fail.

    We all have fundamental beliefs. We all have lines that we set that we will not cross.

    Neither of those things prevents us from critically examining our own positions. Neither of those things should be an excuse not to police our own actions and to call out those within our own “parties” who are acting in hypocritical ways.

    And ultimately, that was the point of Steven’s post, that so many people seem to be missing in their rush to find a way to absolve themselves of personal responsibility and convince themselves that they care about the truth rather than scoring points for their particular side.

  89. PJ says:

    A couple of days ago James Joyner wrote about an analysis into right and left blogs by what other sites they linked to, and had objections to OTB being labeled a leftist blog.

    The reactions to this story is yet another proof that a number of prominent blogs on the right has moved further to the right and that OTB hasn’t.

  90. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    “Liberals hear dog-whistles in everything except “justice for Trayvon.” “

    Problem with that is that there were probably other things said during the beating. What should we infer from that? Can we infer anything from that?

  91. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: Yeah, he probably had a 20-on-1 beating coming to him. Because of whatever he said.

  92. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: I don’t see you proving you’re not a racist. Get to it.

  93. Modulo Myself says:

    @PJ:

    I don’t think it’s all political. A lot has to go wrong for one personally to end up identifying with someone who chases down an unarmed high school kid and kills him, or a guy who threatens children with kitchen knives. People like Treacher are conservative only because the bar is so low for entry. Most of the far right bile is representative of their dull fantasies: in their hearts, they only see mobs, stupidity and fear, and the fact that the rest of America seems to have advanced slightly beyond this predicament is the provocation that drives them to be political.

  94. Jim Treacher says:

    @Evan: “Writing parody lyrics to a Beatles song to mock the First Lady is racist because she’s black.”

  95. Herb says:

    @TheLastBrainLeft:

    “It’s pretty obvious the crime mentioned was racially motivated. I mean it’s beyond dispute.”

    You sound like Spike Lee….only in a different context.

  96. David Jack Smith says:

    @Herb: What did you infer when NBC deliberately edited an audio tape so as to make fair-minded people come to the conclusion that the Hispanic George Zimmerman was following Martin because he was black?

  97. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: @Evan: Whatever you say, racist.

  98. Jim Treacher says:

    @Modulo Myself: Hey, however you want to justify a racially motivated gang-beating.

  99. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “I don’t see you proving you’re not a racist. Get to it.”

    Mr. Treacher, they can now do wonders with medication. You might want to look into it.

    Mike

  100. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: The context being that it’s true.

  101. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Hey, I don’t have a problem with you being unable to prove you’re not a racist. That says it all.

  102. rodney dill says:

    @TheLastBrainLeft:

    It’s pretty obvious the crime mentioned was racially motivated.

    Really? You’re sure about that? So if some other black neighbor chased their kids away with a kitchen knife, they’d just shrug and say that’s just how ‘Crazy Ed’ or ‘Jamal’ or whoever down the street is, instead of going and beating the sh*t out of him?

    Now was the degree of the response, or the comments made after, or even some of the participants motivated at least some by racism? Maybe, but I’m not ready to speak in absolutes on the subject one way or the other at this point.

  103. Evan says:

    Who Jim Treacher is, continued. 300 tweets in just the last week with hashtag #obamaeatsdogs. 300:

    http://goo.gl/YYTq7

    That’s who he is.

  104. Jim Treacher says:

    @rodney dill: Maybe “Justice for Trayvon” is the name of a new band or something.

  105. mattb says:

    @rodney dill:

    Now was the degree of the response, or the comments made after, or even some of the participants motivated at least some by racism? Maybe, but I’m not ready to speak in absolutes on the subject one way or the other at this point.

    Nicely put Rodney, and, correct me if I’m wrong, but the big issue that certain people have had about the Zimmerman/Martin case was that folks were talking about things in exactly those types of “absolute certainty.”

  106. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    “Yeah, he probably had a 20-on-1 beating coming to him. “

    You said it, not me.

    Sadly, what we have here is a case of political hacks finding one more story that proves their deepest suspicions about not only the left and the media (yawn), but black folks in general. There was twenty people (maybe 19, maybe more) in that scrum. All of them were dicks. Some of them said things. One guy said “MFer.” Another guy said, “Stupid MFer.” Third guy said, “Stupid white MFer.” One guy just uttered a lame, “Yeah, F him up,” and got laughed at later. Somewhere down the line, one guy says, “Justice for Trayvon.”

    The hacks go, “That’s it! That’s the one!” Not because that was the most offensive thing said or because it was the motive for the attack. But because it confirms their suspicions. Don’t they have a term for that?

  107. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher: Frankly Jim, the saddest part about Agenda Hustlers like you is, frankly, how little you have to show for whoring yourself out. I mean, Rush’s hustling has made him Millions. Sharpton’s hustling has greatly increased his wealth too.

    Your hard work as an agenda troll has gotten you a gig on The Daily Caller. I guess that’s slightly better than the average unpaid Red State blogger. But it isn’t exactly setting the world on fire is it?

  108. David Jack Smith says:

    @Evan: 300 tweets??? WTF…..

    That’s way above his government ration. He’s taking tweets from the 99% of tweeters. He must silenced immediately

    SPREAD THE TWEETS.

  109. Jim Treacher says:

    @Evan: Yeah, I’m a guy who takes great pleasure in annoying leftists with the truth. Glad you don’t like it.

    P.S. Obama eats dogs.

  110. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: Pointing out the very real consequences of race-baiting is “agenda hustling.” Yeah, I’m a regular Al Sharpton, I am.

  111. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Hey, I don’t have a problem with you being unable to prove you’re not a racist. That says it all.”

    On second thought, medication is probably not enough in a case like yours.

    Mike

  112. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: Whereas the Trayvon Martin shooting didn’t confirm a lot of people’s suspicions about white people. Which they’ve since had to walk back, once they started being bothered with, um, facts.

  113. rodney dill says:

    @Jim Treacher: Great!?! Now I’m gonna lie awake at night thinking up hit songs for the band.

  114. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: However you want to keep deflecting, racist. Don’t let it get to you.

  115. David Jack Smith says:

    @Herb: Still waiting for your inference.

    Nothing to infer. Infer-free? On an infer-free diet?

  116. Herb says:

    @David Jack Smith: “What did you infer when NBC deliberately edited an audio tape so as to make fair-minded people come to the conclusion that the Hispanic George Zimmerman was following Martin because he was black?”

    Short answer: I think NBC deliberately edited the audio tape. I think they did it for reasons of emphasis, and they failed because they didn’t make that clear. I also think fair-minded people do not get their news solely from NBC, so the effect on fair minds was minimal to non-existent.

  117. Grammie says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: I saw one blogger from the left declare oh so mildly that it wasn’t right but…………

    What came after the “but” was a recitation of indisputable atrocities that happened under Jim Crow laws. As long as this justification, that are to be viewed as justifiable in some sort of karmic cosmic way, of present heinous crimes, continues we’ll never move beyond it.

    I’ll let Churchill and Buddha speak for me.

    If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.
    Winston Churchill
    Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/future.html#mhVJqJHLq2HqJD6c.99

    Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.
    Buddha
    Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/future.html#mhVJqJHLq2HqJD6c.99

  118. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “However you want to keep deflecting, racist. Don’t let it get to you.”

    It’s very helpful of you to keep demonstrating my initial point. It’s probably the best thing you can do for your fellow man.

    Mike

    PS – Anyone want to bet as to how long Treacher’s compulsion will keep him fixated on responding to this thread? I think we can easily drag him into the 300s.

    Mike

  119. anjin-san says:

    Yeah, I’m a guy who takes great pleasure in annoying leftists with the truth. Glad you don’t like it.

    P.S. Obama eats dogs.

    I see the stories are true. This guy is an idiot.

  120. David Jack Smith says:

    @Evan: You forgot to mention the MILLION other delicious Obama Ate Dog recipes from tweeters OTHER than Jim Treacher.

    “I don’t eat dog. A dog’s got personality. And personality goes a long way”
    Samuel L. Jackson/Pulp Fiction

  121. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: I just want to see how many ways you can think of to say “shut up.” So far it’s just the one, but I’m sure you’ll come up with something.

    Racist.

  122. Jim Treacher says:

    @anjin-san: Temper, temper.

    P.S. Obama eats dogs.

  123. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: “Reasons of emphasis.” Okay, I’m willing to consider that theory. What were they trying to emphasize?

  124. David Jack Smith says:

    @Herb: Emphasis??

    Yes, NBC wanted to emphasize that they wanted to progress the meme that Zimmerman was following Martin because he was black.

    Mission accomplished. A white man is beaten to near death by 20 black men ranting about Treyvon.

  125. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    “Whereas the Trayvon Martin shooting didn’t confirm a lot of people’s suspicions about white people.”

    If you’re indulging in the same thing, why the sneering contempt?

  126. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher:“I just want to see how many ways you can think of to say “shut up.” So far it’s just the one, but I’m sure you’ll come up with something. Racist”

    Here’s another question. Does Treacher actually think calling me a racist is either bothering me or proving some point, or is it more like a Tourette’s thing with him?

    Mike

    PS – 300 comments, here we come!

  127. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: One minor difference — try to stay with me here — is that the 20-on-1 gang-beating was “justice for Trayvon.” Whereas all the desperate attempts to assign a racial motive to George Zimmerman have failed.

    Other than that, though, good point.

  128. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Oh, it’s quite clear that being unable to prove you’re not a racist isn’t bothering you at all, racist. If you want to keep on being a racist, I think that’s just fine.

  129. Ellie says:

    @anjin-san: Except for the Christian-Newsome torture-rape slayings. Oh wait … the girl wasn’t blonde. THAT must be why it never got any national media attention.

  130. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    “What were they trying to emphasize?”

    I’ll let David answer: “NBC wanted to emphasize that ….Zimmerman was following Martin because he was black.”

    Many people disagree with that emphasis, and wish other things were emphasized instead, but nonetheless, editorial emphasis is no great crime against humanity. When you watch World’s Wildest Police Chases, do you get mad when half the screen goes dark, the camera zooms in, and the guy almost gets hit by the car?

  131. David Jack Smith says:

    @Herb: why the sneering contempt?

    Come come. You really have to ask? No offense, but it must be an everyday event for you?

    You do tick all the boxes.

  132. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: Except he wasn’t following him because he was black. That’s the whole point. They took Zimmerman answering the dispatcher’s question (it helps to identify a suspect if you can, um, identify the suspect) and turned it into a racial motive.

  133. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: That’s like saying that editing somebody saying “I did not commit this crime” by taking out the word “not” is “editorial emphasis.” No it’s not.

  134. Davebo says:

    You’re scary, you’re scary, you’re scary
    That’s all I want to say
    Until you go away

    I see the stories are true. This guy is an idiot.

    And quite likely afraid of the elastic in his underwear as well. If he’s that terrified by a physically fit female I can understand why he wet his pants during Dick’s WMD presentation.

  135. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    is that the 20-on-1 gang-beating was “justice for Trayvon.” Whereas all the desperate attempts to assign a racial motive to George Zimmerman have failed.

    You lost me. I know we’re all quantumly connected and all that, with the strings and whatnot, but the only “desperate attempt” I see is trying to link this case to the Zimmerman case simply because someone said “Justice for Trayvon” during what was probably quite a raucous event.

  136. Ellie says:

    @rodney dill:

    The Stand Your Ground law does not apply to someone who is pinned to the ground with the head being slammed into the pavement.

  137. mattb says:

    Here’s a suggestion for anyone whose actually interested in the points that Steven brought up, just stop engaging with Treacher or anyone else whose not specifically addressing Steven’s points.

    We (the ones who are marginally concerned with being adults and useful discussion) need to accept to things about going tit for tat:
    a. We’re not going to win in any way that matters. Accept that when it comes to trolling Jim and co are the bigger dicks. Oops… I meant has the bigger dicks.(*)
    &
    b. Continuing to throw spitballs at each other will only make us drift further away from any substantive discussion (which only helps the trolls win more).

    (*) – Yeah, sorry, couldn’t resist one last, tongue-in-cheek shot on my way out. If it’s any consolation, I fully expect to not get the last word or dig in.

  138. Jim Treacher says:

    @Davebo: I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I was just being silly, but now I realize how painful my mockery can be.

  139. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: “Justice for Trayvon” does not indicate a racial motive. It doesn’t have anything to do with the news coverage of this story. Alrighty.

  140. David Jack Smith says:

    @Herb: during what was probably quite a raucous event.

    Yes, I have heard that someone getting their face kicked in by twenty others, armed with pipes ans whatnot, can get quite raucous.

    Oh, those naughty scamps.

  141. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: “Everybody stop talking to that guy!” Try not to panic.

    But hey, any excuse not to talk about the topic.

  142. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    “Except he wasn’t following him because he was black. That’s the whole point. “

    Like I said….some people wished other things were emphasized instead. Forget skin color, focus on the struggle. Either one would be editorial emphasis. So what?

  143. anjin-san says:

    @David Jack Smith

    A dog’s got personality.

    So now we know the difference between you and a dog…

  144. BlogDog says:

    Can you help me find your article titled “Black teen killed and to some it is time to score some political points?”
    Hypocrite.

  145. James says:

    @David Jack Smith: This is funny to the extent that if you actually experienced compassion for about Matthew Owens and his family, (and, incidentally, the late Trayvon Martin and his family) you wouldn’t be waving his bloody shirt around like a cudgel against your political opponents.

  146. James says:

    @Jim Treacher: If the topic were “Just how many people is Jim going to call a ‘racist’ anyways?”, then yes you would be correct.

  147. Me says:

    @MBunge:

    Mike, you’re projecting. You can be part of the problem if you want. I suggest getting outside your echo chamber for a few minutes.

  148. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: So they lied, they manipulated evidence to make this month’s Emmanuel Goldstein look like a racist, but never mind. Hey, so what?

  149. Herb says:

    @David Jack Smith:

    “Yes, I have heard that someone getting their face kicked in by twenty others, armed with pipes ans whatnot, can get quite raucous.”

    Well there are other adjectives that are appropriate too but according to the unwritten rules of writing, you should usually choose just one.

  150. Davebo says:

    I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I was just being silly, but now I realize how painful my mockery can be.

    Hurt my feelings? Where’d you get that from my comment? Or is it another of your keyboard macros.

    Seriously, I don’t take the Weird Al of the blogosphere that seriously.

  151. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: Mainly MBunge. His or her racism is glaring. The rest of you guys seem okay.

  152. Me says:

    @MBunge:

    “PS – Anyone want to bet as to how long Treacher’s compulsion will keep him fixated on responding to this thread? I think we can easily drag him into the 300s.”

    Wrote the guy with several posts in the thread. Amusing.

  153. Jim Treacher says:

    @Davebo: Relax.

  154. James says:

    @Me: Coming from the gentleman who typed with, as far as I can tell, a straight face:

    that is one of the standard plays in the left-wing playbook these days

    Those that protest the ‘echo chamber’ the loudest tend to be its most faithful resident.

  155. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: And it’s political because people you disagree with politically are talking about it. It’s all about how it relates to you.

  156. Moderate Mom says:

    @mattb: Too bad that Sharpton doesn’t like paying the income taxes due on his race hustling income.

  157. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher: “

    Emmanuel Goldstein”

    Who? Just because I have the Google, doesn’t mean I want to use it…..

  158. mattb says:

    @Ellie:

    The Stand Your Ground law does not apply to someone who is pinned to the ground with the head being slammed into the pavement.

    *Sigh* this is a fundamental misunderstanding of both self defense and the idea of “Stand Your Ground.”

    However, the entire question of Stand Your Ground has to do with everything from the moment that Zimmerman hangs up with the 911 operator and Martin hangs up with his girlfriend to the moment he shoots Martin.

    This is again, the period of time that, so far, we know little about. And chances are we will never know for sure.

    If it was the case that Martin ambushed Zimmerman, immediately knocked him to the ground and began to beat on him, then, yes, you are correct that in that circumstance, there is no ability to retreat.

    However, if this began as a verbal confrontation in which Martin approached Zimmerman to ask why he was following him and then escalated into violence, then it has everything to do with Stand Your Ground.

    Beyond all of this speculation (which right now is happening on all sides of this discussion), the pragmatic answer is that time will reveal what, if any connection, Stand Your Ground has with this case. And that is most likely up to Zimmerman’s legal defense team.

    However, one positive thing that has come out of the case is the decision to review the SYG law and see if anything should be done to tighten it’s verbiage to ensure that its protecting the right people.

  159. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: You don’t have to Google it. We’re living it.

  160. James says:

    @Jim Treacher: No, its ‘political’ because Florida public policy is relevant to Mr. Martin’s death and his killers (until recently) freedom. It’s also ‘political’ when police departments are, at best, sloppy and at worst, conspiratorial in the process of fulfilling their taxpayer-funded duty of homicide investigation.

  161. Jim Treacher says:

    @Herb: So a 20-on-1 gang beating is “raucous.” And you’re bragging about your writing skills.

  162. mattb says:

    @Herb:
    Emmanuel Goldstein is a 1984 reference. Goldstein is the enemy of the state, the boogyman who is used to justify its authoritarian control.

  163. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: And also because those mean conservatives are talking about stuff you’d rather they didn’t.

  164. Herb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    We’re living it.

    Everything but the pneumatic tubes.

    (Googled it.)

  165. mantis says:

    The same people who decided Martin deserved death because he was suspended from school and therefore a dangerous criminal who needed to be put down are the ones waving their hands and claiming that Owens’ violent history and the fact that he chased the kids around with a knife are irrelevant.

    They also ignore the major difference that authorities had no interest in pursuing justice in Martin’s case until the public outcry became too loud weeks after he was killed, but in this case police are already serving arrest warrants little over a day after the incident.

    That tells you all you need to know about their motivations. In every case, their motivation is to paint all black people as dangerous (see the same people’s defense of Derbyshire), and to score political points.

  166. James says:

    @Jim Treacher: No no, please – keep talking.

  167. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: I feel bad for that straw man you just demolished.

  168. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: After you, friend.

  169. Ellie says:

    @mantis:

    Where do you get your information? MSNBC? That figures …

    No one has ever said Martin deserved to die. NO ONE. For any reason.
    By the same measure, waving knives around and spewing racial epithets does not merit a near-fatal beating. Arrest, yes – for the knives. Serious verbal dressing down – for the racist crap, maybe. Beating? No.

    They also ignore the major difference that authorities had no interest in pursuing justice in Martin’s case until the public outcry became too loud weeks after he was killed

    Zimmerman was arrested the same night of the shooting and was taken in for questioning. In a case of declared self-defense, and the presumption of innocence without a preponderance of evidence otherwise, the police had to let him go for the time being. The investigation started, and continued, despite the insane media circus with the side-show race hucksters and lynch mobs.

    The motivation I see most often – if I stay away from liberal group-think/knee-jerk sites – is that it is only with the full TRUTH that there will ever be justice in the Trayvon Martin case. As long as the media is writing the narrative, and the Greek chorus (like you) responds, we will never know the truth, and there will never be justice.

  170. Ellie says:

    Edit the above: I don’t know that Zimmerman was actually placed under arrest. He was taken in, he was questioned. It may have been voluntary cooperation. But the point is, the investigation DID start the night of the shooting, and has been ongoing ever since. Or at least until it was turned into a circus.

  171. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Oh, it’s quite clear that being unable to prove you’re not a racist isn’t bothering you at all, racist. If you want to keep on being a racist, I think that’s just fine.”

    Okay, he’s now gone beyond proving my point and well into proving TNC’s point that conservatives don’t understand racism as anything other than a slur you hurl for political advantage. If we can keep this thread going long enough, Treacher may become the go-to example for every variety of conservative race-nuttiness.

    Mike

  172. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: It’s not much fun when people point out your racism, is it, racist?

  173. mattb says:

    @Ellie:

    No one has ever said Martin deserved to die. NO ONE. For any reason.

    I agree that, ignoring outliers in particularly dark sections of the internet (like Stormfront) this is generally true.

    However, there have been commentators here who did attempt to use the fact that Martin was suspended from school as evidence that he deserved to be followed by Zimmerman that night. In other words, that Martin looked the part of a criminal.

    The broader point — and to a degree it seems also to be the one you and Mantis both seem to be making — is that its problematic to just pay attention to the details that advance your side’s narrative of the events.

    And again, this ties into Steven’s broader point which keeps getting lost… If you’re going to claim that you are interested in “truth” and “fairness” then you need to account for all aspects of a situation, not just the ones that score points for your side.

  174. James says:

    @Ellie: You should read more reporting about the case before you start passing your assumptions around as facts. Zimmerman was questioned the night of the shooting, but never taken into custody.

    Sanford police didn’t test him for drugs or alcohol after the shooting (such tests are standard practice in homicide investigations). He was licensed to carry his gun, and police initially told Martin’s father that they hadn’t pressed charges because Zimmerman was a criminal justice student with a “squeaky clean” record.

    That wasn’t entirely true, however; in 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for “resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer”; those charges were dropped.

  175. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “It’s not much fun when people point out your racism, is it, racist?”

    I can keep throwing the stick all day, boy. As long as you keep bringing it back. 300 here we come!

    Mike

  176. red sweater says:

    “So, a man lies near death but let’s figure out how this hurts Obama (or something). Nice.”

    So, a teen lies dead but let’s figure out how this hurts the NRA, whites (or white Hispanics, whatever that term means), conservatives, et. al.

    The point of “Treacher’s” post was that the self-claimed racial healers are promoting and encouraging this sort of action, if not this specific action. If you want to avoid (or merely postpone — for how long?) a discussion of race relations in this instance, why not also during the Trayvon case? Because you think it helps your agenda?

    But I equate the cases too much. This one has real evidence of racial motive, and the Trayvon case does not, no matter how hard the “neutral” news organizations searched or spun.

  177. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: “Boy”?

    Racist.

  178. James says:

    @red sweater:

    So, a teen lies dead but let’s figure out how this hurts the NRA, whites (or white Hispanics, whatever that term means), conservatives, et. al.

    Um no. Let’s figure out why the person who shot him has only recently been criminally charged, and perhaps how Florida public policy created the confluence that allowed an adult man to pursue, and then shoot, and teenage boy without (so far) criminal redress.

  179. Michelle says:

    @Jim Treacher: It’s fetch, Jim. I have a friend whose dog will chase a stick all day and night. But his dog is female, so we call her girl.

  180. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: ““Boy”? Racist.”

    Okay, now you’re either a lot smarter than you let on or even dumber than anyone could possibly believe.

    Mike

  181. mattb says:

    @red sweater:

    This one has real evidence of racial motive, and the Trayvon case does not, no matter how hard the “neutral” news organizations searched or spun.

    See, this is again making Steven’s point. The move to say one case has everything to do with race while simultaneously invalidating the possibility that race played a factor in the other is reducing race and racism to a tool that allows your side to be right and the other side to be wrong.

    As much as you accuse agenda hustlers of preventing a thoughtful conversation to take place on a broader level, your own words prevent that conversation from happening here.

    It’s all my side is right. Your side is wrong. And no one wants to admit that there’s any possibility of something far more complex happening here.

  182. Jim Treacher says:

    @Michelle: Oh, sure. The racist isn’t being racist just because he’s being racist.

  183. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Calm down, racist.

  184. @Chuck Long:

    Interesting that you don’t seem to find these blatantly racially motivated crimes at all troubling or newsworthy, yet the manufactured racial component of the Trayvon Martin case entirely compelling.

    […]

    Projection, they name is Steven L. Taylor.

    Hmm. Might I suggest that it would appear that thy name is: Didn’t Read the Post?

    From the above:

    How about this: I will unequivocally state that racially motivated beatings are wrong (and that, sadly, they exist). I will state that if, in fact, any of the attackers thought they were engaging in some sort of karma balancing because of the Trayvon Martin shooting, that that is wrong. In general, beating someone because they may have griped at/criticized/yelled at/whatever some kids in the street, also wrong.

  185. red sweater says:

    @mattb: You’re right, I should admit that falsehoods deserve as much consideration of the truth. Evidence doesn’t matter, only the fact that the people spouting them feel validated.

    And I will give them that consideration if you can show me evidence that Zimmerman was racist. Take your time.

  186. Jim Treacher says:

    It’s not “karma balancing,” Steve. It’s pointing out that the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin case and the demonization of George Zimmerman is having very real consequences. I know you don’t like hearing it because people you don’t like are saying it, but that’s that point.

  187. Jim Treacher says:

    In other words: It’s not about you, Steve.

  188. red sweater says:

    @James: Didn’t the lead investigator express strong doubts over Zimmerman’s innocence? Didn’t he have free rein? It’s hard to bring charges when you don’t have evidence of criminal misconduct. I thought leftists were all about reining in the pigs. But now they are pushing for wonton disregard of evidence?

  189. Michelle says:

    @Jim Treacher: Jim, I thought you were all into dogs. My mistake.

  190. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “It’s pointing out that the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin case and the demonization of George Zimmerman is having very real consequences.”

    Come on, people! Haven’t you read all of Jim Treachers many online posts about how race-baiting and demonization have led to negative consequences for black folks and other minorities? He’s just doing the same thing here.

    Oh, wait…

    Mike

  191. rodney dill says:

    @Ellie:

    The Stand Your Ground law does not apply to someone who is pinned to the ground with the head being slammed into the pavement.

    I believe that to be the case. I also believe that Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply to someone who intentionally puts themselves in harms way while acting as a vigilante. If the courts decide it does apply in that situation then its a serious flaw in the law.

  192. James says:

    @red sweater: You ask, I answer.

    Didn’t the lead investigator express strong doubts over Zimmerman’s innocence?

    According to the Mother Jones reporting, yes.

    Didn’t he have free rein?

    That’s up to the Stanford Police Department and District Attorney.

    It’s hard to bring charges when you don’t have evidence of criminal misconduct.

    Agreed. Although I’m fairly confidant that a dead body and a gun are good pieces of evidence of “criminal misconduct”

    I thought leftists were all about reining in the pigs.

    When ‘the pig’s’ are incompetent and/or suppress evidence, sure.

    But now they are pushing for wonton disregard of evidence?

    And what evidence would that be?

  193. Jim Treacher says:

    @Michelle: No need to apologize. You gave it your best shot.

  194. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Tell us more about your racism, racist.

  195. Jim Treacher says:

    See, to a racist like MBunge, a guy deserves to be beaten for the color of his skin because somebody with a different skin color, someone he never met, was shot. That’s how a racist like MBunge sees the world.

    That’s “karma balancing” for you, Steve.

  196. rodney dill says:

    The same people who decided Martin deserved death because he was suspended from school and therefore a dangerous criminal who needed to be put down are the ones waving their hands and claiming that Owens’ violent history and the fact that he chased the kids around with a knife are irrelevant.

    After that rant, If we’re going to stop talking to Jim Treacher we should stop talking to Mantis too.

  197. mattb says:

    @red sweater: In the interest of an actual conversation, here’s my response. Note that I’m separating the shooting from the investigation of the shooting.

    On the shooting: let me begin by saying that from my perspective, this case has had far more to do with “Stand your ground” than race.

    The only place where I think race comes into the shooting is how it influenced Zimmerman’s decision, at 7pm on a that rainy Sunday night, to decide that Martin was “suspicious” as opposed to a kid walking back to his house. This is the question of profiling (though, no, don’t think that it is something that a case can be built around, nor do I think this was a hate crime).

    Do I think Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black? No. But did race play into Martin being initially marked as a threat… yeah, I think it did. Though to that point, I suspect that if Martin had been visibly Latino, probably the same thing would have gone down. I’m far less confident that Zimmerman would have been as suspicious of a young white male.

    Where I do think race is fundamentally involved was in how the Investigation to the Shooting was handled. As a side note, anyone who actually takes a moment to look into the outcry should agree that it primarily *began*(*) as being more about the investigation rather than the shooting.

    I also would hope that we might agree that the Stanford police department did have a less than stellar record when it came to race issues. Again, one of the many blackly ironic aspects of this case is that apparently Zimmerman himself had distributed leaflets in the past about the local police department’s racial discrimination.

    Again, as a number of people have pointed out, the outcry did not begin until weeks after the event. If this had simply been about the shooting, as opposed to the investigation, one would think it would have begun sooner. Go back and read the articles about the initial protests and they were largely focused on the idea that the department was stonewalling these efforts because of a larger history of systemic racism within the community.

    (*) – I completely admit that as the protests moved forward, the attention shifted from the department and the investigation to Zimmerman the individual. And while I think he has a lot to account for, again, I don’t think racism is a fair charge to apply against him. But just because he isn’t a racist doesn’t mean race didn’t play a role in this.

  198. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “See, to a racist like MBunge, a guy deserves to be beaten for the color of his skin because somebody with a different skin color, someone he never met, was shot.”

    Hmm. Since I’ve never written anything of the sort here or anywhere else, perhaps your real problem is a strange form of dyslexia.

    Mike

  199. george says:

    Its hard to come up with a consistant standard in which only one of the two attacks (Marten, Owwns), is racist, and in which only one was played as a political football. But it seems that what some people on both sides are trying to do.

    You hear a lot about false equivalences – what do you call claiming false-false equivalences. Both attacks seem to be racially motivated, though that’s just a surface impression for the courts to decide. But both definitely have been used as political footballs, and its hard to avoid the impression that people (on all sides) are almost happy that they occurred, as it gives them more ammunition in their arguments. Politics has become about team sports, rather than finding solutions so that neither of the attacks will happen again.

  200. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Racists never admit to being racists, racist.

  201. mattb says:

    @red sweater:

    Didn’t the lead investigator express strong doubts over Zimmerman’s innocence?

    Yes, by a number of accounts he wanted to bring charges that night.

    Didn’t he have free rein?

    No, we also know that the DA was gun shy.

    That’s why, I wrote in the above post that this had more to do with Stand Your Ground than it did with rape. It’s pretty clear from broader coverage of SYG that the State has been surprised at how it’s been successfully invoked as a defense in the past.

    As I said, I think that one good thing that comes out of all of this is the decision to review the law with an eye to revising the verbiage (and note, I say this as someone who is a firm believe in the right to defend one’s self and actually teaches self defense).

    The broader issue of race in this case has everything to do with the way the Stanford police department handling of the investigation and its previous record on racial issues.

  202. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: What happened in the Martin case was that the known assailant was not immediately detained and charged pending an investigation – only a public outrage caused that to happen.

    Oddly enough, the known “assailant” (bit of a loaded word there, but I’ll let it slide) was “detained.” Unless you have another definition of “detained” that doesn’t mean “handcuffed, taken down to headquarters, and questioned for hours.”

  203. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Modulo Myself: A lot has to go wrong for one personally to end up identifying with someone who chases down an unarmed high school kid and kills him, or a guy who threatens children with kitchen knives.

    Still sticking to that narrative after it’s been thoroughly discredited? Give it a freaking rest.

  204. mattb says:

    @george:

    Its hard to come up with a consistant standard in which only one of the two attacks (Marten, Owwns), is racist, and in which only one was played as a political football. But it seems that what some people on both sides are trying to do.

    Bingo.

    This, this, this.

    And that’s the issue that Steven was actually writing about. But again, people are so invested in not giving any ground that they twist themselves in knots to avoid doing it.

    And on that one point, I must agree with Jim T… this is all about Emmanuel Goldstein. The problem is that, unlike in 1984, he’s not a scary outside force to unite against. Today he’s among us, either a leftist or a conservative. But either way he provides each side with an excuse to see the other as their enemy.

  205. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Racists never admit to being racists, racist.”

    Only three times? Don’t you have the skill to fit “racist” in a sentence more than that?

    For everybody else, I want to point out that this is why my reference to mental issues wasn’t entirely snarky. Even in this example, there’s the argument that’s actually happening and then there’s whatever the hell is going on inside the head of Jim Treacher. The two aren’t quite mutually exclusive but the longer this goes on, the closer we’re getting to that.

    Mike

  206. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Evan: Who Jim Treacher is, continued. 300 tweets in just the last week with hashtag #obamaeatsdogs. 300:

    http://goo.gl/YYTq7

    That’s who he is.

    What Jim Treacher is, is awesome.

  207. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Keep deflecting, racist. Everybody can see your racism. The more you deny it, the more you prove it.

  208. David M says:

    @Jim Treacher: So this is how a real troll derails a thread. I will note it takes a real stand up guy to trash another blog’s comment section while not allowing unregistered comments on his own blog.

  209. Rob in CT says:

    Poo flinging from Treacher aside,

    A key difference between this incident and the Martin/Zimmerman matter is that in this case, the authorities appear to be on it from the get-go. No public outcry was needed in this case to get the police to bother to investigate properly. Another key difference is that there is very little abiguity about a 20-on-1 beating (whereas none of us knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin after they each got off the phone but before Martin was shot).

    Whether or not the Martin/Zimmerman case and the reportage thereof helped spark this incident is unclear, as the mob appears to have had another (more immediate) motive beyond payback for Trayvon and/or racism: the victim’s interaction with their kids (chasing with a knife or somesuch?). But the racism/payback angle should be investigated, certainly. It is plausible as one of the motives.

    We should all hope the authorities do their jobs here and that the people who beat this man are held accountable for their actions.

    Regarding media and its influence, I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that both the people involved in this incident and George Zimmerman have been influenced by our media and culture in a negative way. To Zimmerman, Martin looked like the type of person who “always gets away” and was suspicious because… well just because (black teenager in a hoodie). This issue isn’t really that Zimmerman is a monster or something: it’s that this view (young black male = dangerous) is very widespread and can lead to assumptions – like Zimmerman’s – that can result in bad things happening for no good reason.

    In this case, you’ve got an attacker claiming payback for Trayvon. The connection to reporting and commentary on the Trayvon case is therefore a possible motive. Or just plain ‘ole racism, with the Trayvon incident serving as just an added excuse/rationalization for beating a guy that they wanted to beat.

    None of that is good. There were people who went off the rails with the Martin/Zimmerman case – most notably the “New Black Panthers,” Spike Lee and the NBC editor (since fired). All worthy of rebuke. Many did rebuke them.

  210. Jim Treacher says:

    @David M: Hey, I’m not the one who started in with accusations of racism. I’m just pointing out the racist who made them. I don’t expect him or her to like it, and so far my expectations have been met.

  211. Jim Treacher says:

    @Rob in CT: Another key difference: “Justice for Trayvon.”

  212. mattb says:

    @Rob in CT:

    This issue isn’t really that Zimmerman is a monster or something: it’s that this view (young black male = dangerous) is very widespread and can lead to assumptions – like Zimmerman’s – that can result in bad things happening for no good reason.

    Exactly.

    There were people who went off the rails with the Martin/Zimmerman case – most notably the “New Black Panthers,” Spike Lee and the NBC editor (since fired). All worthy of rebuke. Many did rebuke them

    Exactly.

  213. jthc says:

    What a weak article.

    to score very cheap political points

    How is it a cheap political point to push back against the dumb race hustlers who have tried their best to foment a race war in Florida? What should the response be? “Well thank gawd for NBC and Al Sharpton for drumming up a five-minute hate on faked evidence.”


    These are writers who found it offensive/problematic/etc. to suggest that race might have been a factor in the Martin-Zimmerman case but who now find it very useful to throw up race now.

    Lame. The evidence for racial motive in Martin-Zimmerman was made up. Faked. The “suggestion” that race was a factor wasn’t a suggestion at all. It was announced as fact by the very people who made it up.

    The problem with the Left is that they too use race for political reasons, but they want to pretend they’re all angels and light. It’s BS. I run into liberal racists all the time, it’s just that their racism expresses itself differently than conservative racists.

  214. jthc says:

    Rob:
    This issue isn’t really that Zimmerman is a monster or something: it’s that this view (young black male = dangerous) is very widespread and can lead to assumptions – like Zimmerman’s – that can result in bad things happening for no good reason.

    You act as if there were some nefarious force at work to put this negative image of young black males into people’s heads, but the stereotype exists for a reason. Anyone who lives in a big city understands this well.

  215. rodney dill says:

    Another key difference: “Justice for Trayvon.”

    Is the comment “Justice for Trayvon” racially charged? Yeah, pretty much. Does it mean the whole incident was racially motivated? If evidence surfaces that an organizer of the mob used that comment to motivate the group then I would find it easier to believe racism as a primary motivation. If it was just a single, possibly racist, participant venting in anger or frustration with a racially inflammatory comment at the end then I find less reason to pin racism as the main motivation.

  216. James says:

    @jthc: The ‘nefarious force’ is people like you.

  217. anjin-san says:

    You have to love the way these clowns think they are onto a serious gotcha with the “Obama eats dog”meme. Sort of like the McCain campaign and “clean coal” in ’08. I think we all know how that worked out…

  218. anjin-san says:

    I wonder if Treacher is going to have the Jenos lip prints on his ass varnished to preserve them for posterity…

  219. Jim Treacher says:

    @rodney dill: Well, it’s certainly not as much of a motive as “he looks black” in response to a police dispatcher’s direct question.

  220. Michelle says:

    @jthc: Anyone who lives in a big city understands this well.

    Speak for yourself. I have lived in inner city Houston for the past 35 years. I don’t hold that stereotyped view. Saying that stereotypes exist for a reason and then blaming those being stereotyped is a sure sign of a lazy thinker. Have you ever thought the reason for the stereotype might be the advantage it gives to those who hold it?

    It goes something like, “you think you’re better than me?” You know the type 😉

  221. Michelle says:

    Gak blockquote fail.

  222. Bill M says:

    “**And yes, there has been crazy sensationalism over the Martin case. And yes, there has been some demagoguery.”

    You’re forgetting outright journalistic fraud with an edited audio recording that falsely made Zimmerman out to be a racist and was played on national television several times. Would that do a lot to inflame racial tensions? If your answer is anything other than yes, you’re an obtuse ideologue. Especially as it came from a network that makes support of Obama de rigueur for its on air talent. So pointing this out as the result of such behavior, even if in a snarky manner is no less than those involved deserve.

  223. Jim Treacher says:

    @anjin-san: I wonder what your blood pressure is right now.

  224. Jim Treacher says:

    @anjin-san: What’s this about Obama eating dogs?

  225. al-Ameda says:

    @jthc:

    The evidence for racial motive in Martin-Zimmerman was made up.

    Made up? You’re kidding, right?

    The reason race is an issue in Martin-Zimmerman is because of the way the Sanford Police handled this homicide from the beginning. The assailant was known and the police did not detain, charge and investigate. Do you think that if the assailant was black and the victim was not black that the police would have let it go – no arrest, no investigation, no charges?

  226. rodney dill says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Well, it’s certainly not as much of a motive as “he looks black” in response to a police dispatcher’s direct question.

    I’m not sure I understand the purpuse your comment in the context of the thread. but then my line of thinking is that the Zimmerman issue is one of vigilantism vs. self-defense rather than race.

  227. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Keep deflecting, racist. Everybody can see your racism.”

    Down to just one “racist” per sentence? I’m disappointed in you. Pound a couple of energy drinks and get back up to speed, man! 300 is in sight!

    Mike

  228. Jim Treacher says:

    @rodney dill: The “purpuse” is exactly what I said. Somehow “Justice for Trayvon” may or may not indicate a racial motive, whereas “He looks black” proved George Zimmerman is a racist. Until NBC’s editing job was revealed.

  229. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Is there a particular reason you want to dodge the issue of your racism, racist? Not that I don’t enjoy it, but maybe you can give us a glimpse into your, for lack of a better word, “mind.”

  230. rodney dill says:

    @Jim Treacher: Well you had me lost there, but I see what you did now.

  231. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Is there a particular reason you want to dodge the issue of your racism, racist?”

    Inigo Montoya – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Mike

  232. al-Ameda says:

    @jthc:

    Anyone who lives in a big city understands this well.

    I’ve lived in Brooklyn and Oakland, both cities with some tough neighborhoods, and I’ve been robbed once in my life – by a young white guy who evidently was waiting for me as I left an ATM early one weekday evening. I try to be aware of my surroundings, take normal precautions, and yet there is always some risk. I do not live my life in constant fear and resentment.

  233. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: It means exactly why what we both know it means: you’re a racist, racist.

  234. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: (That’s a good movie, though.)

  235. anjin-san says:

    I wonder what your blood pressure is right now.

    Well, I did 10K meters on the rowing machine last night, followed by 7 miles on a stationary bike. My blood pressure is just fine.

    Don’t waste you time on me dude, your fanboys await…

  236. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “It means exactly why what we both know it means: you’re a racist, racist.”

    Two in one sentence! You’ve got your second wind. Now, think how many times you could use that word if you’d explain what exactly is “you know” about anything I’ve written in this thread!

    Mike

  237. Jim Treacher says:

    @anjin-san: Please tell us more about your workout. Did you stretch first? Did you stay hydrated?

  238. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: That’s interesting, racist. But let’s get back to the topic of you and your racism. Was there a particular formative experience that turned you into a racist, racist, or is it just part of who you are?

  239. James says:

    @Jim Treacher: *slow clap*

  240. Ellie says:

    @al-Ameda:

    The assailant was known and the police did not detain, charge and investigate

    Except that they did detain him, they did consider charges, and after the initial investigation, decide to not press charges at that time.

    Now, due solely to mob pressure, Zimmerman is facing 2nd degree homicide charges – which most legal experts agree is far overblown, as involuntary manslaughter might actually fit the bill – IF self-defense is disproved.

    And that’s a pretty big IF.

  241. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: You’re welcome.

  242. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “That’s interesting, racist. But let’s get back to the topic of you and your racism. Was there a particular formative experience that turned you into a racist, racist, or is it just part of who you are?”

    Dude, seriously? The right wing race-monger version of “When did you stop beating your wife” is the best you can come up with? What’s next? “Take my white wife, please”?

    Mike

  243. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: It’s just weird how you started off so eager to talk about racism, but now you don’t want to talk about it anymore. Why not, racist?

  244. anjin-san says:

    You know Jim, you remind me of a guy I knew in the 8th grade. He had a habit of saying annoying things, stuff he wrongly thought was clever. It was his gimmick, and he stuck with it, because it got him attention. Take away his habit of repeating non-clever quips ad nauseam, and he was just another sad, anonymous kid in jr. high school that no one liked.

    So what have you been up to all these years?

  245. steve says:

    1) Why does this remind me of Rodney King? A career criminal becomes the hero.

    2) Keeping in mind that I am a Hoosier, anyone who threatened a bunch of kids playing hoops when I was growing up would have gotten a beating by the local men. We didnt usually do the PC thing of calling the local cops. TBH, they would have just come to join the beating.

    3) As a trauma physician, I must say that the pictures posted of the guy, if those are really his pictures, dont look very bad compared to what I am used to seeing. I think those southern blacks must be a bunch of pansies.

    Steve

  246. Jim Treacher says:

    @anjin-san: And then what happened?

  247. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:
    What’s interesting is that these days many conservatives apparently think it’s racist to even mention racism. You’re obviously not one of those people, you see racism everywhere.

  248. James says:

    @Ellie:

    Now, due solely to mob pressure, Zimmerman is facing 2nd degree homicide charges –

    I think the 17-year-old boy he shot, not ‘mob pressure’, might have something to do with those charges.

    which most legal experts agree is far overblown, as involuntary manslaughter might actually fit the bill – […]

    I’m not a lawyer, but it is fairly standard practice of DAs to prosecute the most serious charge they feel reasonable, for both punitive and plea-bargain leverage purposes.

    Your opinions carry much more weight when at least try to cut beneath your immediate assumptions.

  249. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “It’s just weird how you started off so eager to talk about racism, but now you don’t want to talk about it anymore.”

    The person least eager to actually talk about racism in this thread is you. Whoa, I just blew your mind there, didn’t I?

    Mike

  250. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: No, I just see the racism in MBung’s racism.

  251. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: First you complain when I point out your racism, and now you say I don’t want to talk about racism? Well, anything to avoid addressing your racism, I suppose.

    Racist.

  252. anjin-san says:

    If you read any waiter/food service webistes you would understand why waiter have such low opinions of blacks. Having customers who are rude, demanding, and who refuse to tip does not give waiters a good opinions of blacks.

    Hmm. I was in the bar/restaurant/nighclub business for a long time. If there is one think I learned, it is that jerks come in every color, not just black.

    I offer “Super” as proof of concept…

  253. al-Ameda says:

    @Ellie:
    Investigation =
    Police: How did it happen?
    Zimmerman: I had a gun, I followed an unarmed kid who was legally walking through the townhouse complex, I confronted him, he turned on me, he punched me and I shot him. It was self-defense.
    Police: Okay thanks, see you later.

  254. @Jim Treacher:

    “Everybody stop talking to that guy!” Try not to panic.

    But hey, any excuse not to talk about the topic.

    The problem is, you are talking but not conversing. You certainly aren’t making an argument.

  255. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Treacher, I’m aghast that 10 years ago I actually was a semi-regular reader of yours.

  256. @MBunge:

    Dude, seriously? The right wing race-monger version of “When did you stop beating your wife” is the best you can come up with? What’s next? “Take my white wife, please”?

    Pretty much.

    It is the talk radio approach. Ironically, it is actually Alinksyesque: RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” (link).

  257. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I am to the people who aren’t calling me a racist. I answered your “karma balancing” assertion, if you feel like talking about that.

  258. Jim Treacher says:

    @Gold Star for Robot Boy: Why, because I don’t like racists? Oh well.

  259. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Oh, so some accusations of racism are okay, but others aren’t. It all depends on who you agree with politically. Okay, then.

  260. mantis says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Why, because I don’t like racists?

    Well, not certain kinds of racists, anyway. Baby steps.

  261. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: Yeah, the racists who are racist, such as MBung.

  262. G.A. says:

    lol…….wow….

  263. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Well, yeah, if Alinsky were to rewrite Lord of the Flies.

    Brandeis thought the remedy should be “more speech.” I’m gonna go with “bigger SUV’s for the Secret Service.”

  264. Jim Treacher says:

    @Rufus T. Firefly: Yep, I got hit by a car. Unfortunately for you, I lived.

  265. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    It’s good that you think so.

  266. Jim Treacher says:

    @Rufus T. Firefly: That I lived, or that you don’t like it?

  267. Modulo Myself says:

    After scanning through Treacher’s contributions in this thread, I have utter sympathy for my parents, who had to listen to the same thing coming from my brother and I for hours on end during family vacations. How we were not ‘accidentally’ forgotten at some rest stop on the Ohio turnpike I will never know.

  268. Rob in CT says:

    You act as if there were some nefarious force at work to put this negative image of young black males into people’s heads

    If “American history and culture, which include huge doses of white supremacy/anti-black racism” is a “big nefarious force,” yes (in part). Crime stats play their part too. As does simple human psychology (viewing “others,” however defined, with more suspicion/fear than we would view “one of us,” however defined).

  269. Jim Treacher says:

    @Modulo Myself: Hey, I’m not the one who started in with accusations of racism. It’s not so much fun, is it?

  270. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    You seem easily confused by simple declarative statements. Perhaps you should lie down for a bit.

  271. Jim Treacher says:

    @Rufus T. Firefly: Hey, I’m just going by your words. It’s not my fault you’re not very good at choosing them.

  272. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Ah, well, perhaps you need to confine your visits to websites that are at or below your reading level.

  273. Jim Treacher says:

    @Rufus T. Firefly: It stings, doesn’t it? You want to save face, but you just can’t figure out a way. Don’t worry, I’m not judging.

  274. MBunge says:

    Let’s not lose sight of what’s really important. We’re almost at 300! Just keep throwing that stick!

    Mike

  275. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Let’s get back to your racism. Why are you a racist, racist?

  276. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Hey, I’m not the one who started in with accusations of racism. It’s not so much fun, is it?”

    Yes, Jim. We’re all deeply, DEEPLY bothered by you calling us racists. It would be just terrible if you kept doing it for 25 more posts or so.

    Mike

  277. David M says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    You claim:

    Hey, I’m not the one who started in with accusations of racism. It’s not so much fun, is it?

    I think we can safely call BS on that lie:

    Hey, that’s what he gets for having a similar skin color to someone we’ve all been instructed to hate. Well done, Spike Lee. Nice job, NBC. Keep up the good work, ABC. And to everyone else who’s been using a shooting in Florida to foment hate and divide people by the color of their skin, kudos. Don’t let this attack, and similar attacks across America, bother you. If you had a conscience, we never would’ve heard of you in the first place

  278. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Why don’t you want to talk about your racism, racist?

  279. Jim Treacher says:

    @David M: So that was me calling MBunge a racist? Well, if the shoe fits.

  280. SDN says:

    OK, if you don’t like being called racists, how about criminals, for inciting to riot, accessories before the fact to assault, and conspiracy to commit attempted murder?

    You have encouraged lawless behavior and now everyone sees the results.

  281. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Why don’t you want to talk about your racism, racist?”

    I confess I haven’t kept up with this thread all day because, you know, I have a life. Has it been established what makes me a racist…other than the voices in Jim’s head?

    Mike

  282. Davebo says:

    If you read any waiter/food service webistes you would understand why waiter have such low opinions of blacks.

    http://www.dennys.com

  283. MBunge says:

    @SDN: “You have encouraged lawless behavior and now everyone sees the results.”

    Are you talking to the Florida state legislature?

    Mike

  284. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Your racism makes you a racist, racist. The accusation is its own proof. That’s how it works. Now: Why are you a racist?

  285. David M says:

    @Jim Treacher: That was you before the thread started, trying to score political points and insinuating people who disapproved of how the Zimmerman investigation was initially handled were racists.

  286. Jim Treacher says:

    @David M: It must be a political point, because you disagree politically with the person making it. It’s all about how it pertains to you.

  287. Jim Treacher says:

    @David M: Oh, and it’s not about people who don’t like the Zimmerman case was handled. It’s about the people who’ve twisted and altered the evidence to suit their agenda: his demonization. Happy to clarify for the back row of the class.

  288. giantslor says:

    @Terrye: No, the issue is that a man shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old and was not charged with a crime (until later) even though the killing looked a lot like a racially motivated murder.

  289. mattb says:

    @James:

    I think the 17-year-old boy he shot, not ‘mob pressure’, might have something to do with those charges.

    […]

    I’m not a lawyer, but it is fairly standard practice of DAs to prosecute the most serious charge they feel reasonable, for both punitive and plea-bargain leverage purposes.

    IANAL, but I am married to one. Ellie is most likely correct on this one. Especially given the fact the Special Prosecutor was able to bypass the grand jury, these charges most likely had far more to do with public outcry than what the evidence supports.

    Further, while it is a tactic to overcharge in the hopes of a plea-bargain, that isn’t something anyone should support, regardless of the circumstances. It’s frankly an abuse of state power.

    Based on all of the evidence we know of, this appears an overreach/fishing trip. And I am concerned that, due to the overreach, an acquittal might ultimately make the current environment even more toxic.

  290. mattb says:

    @Ellie:

    Except that they did detain him, they did consider charges, and after the initial investigation, decide to not press charges at that time.

    To be more exact, based on reports, the police did want to charge him, but the DA didn’t. Which gets to…

    @al-Ameda:

    Zimmerman: I had a gun, I followed an unarmed kid who was legally walking through the townhouse complex, I confronted him, he turned on me, he punched me and I shot him. It was self-defense.
    Police: Okay thanks, see you later.

    This, in a nutshell, sums up the fundamental problem with Florida’s Stand Your Ground as written and currently interpreted by courts/juries.

    Its why some of us continue to say that, beyond profiling, the real issue in the shooting (as opposed to how the investigation was handled) has always been Stand Your Ground as it is written.

    And again, perhaps the greatest good that comes out of this case is Rick Scott convening a panel to reexamine the wording of the law.

  291. @MBunge: Actually, it’s not even “have you stopped beating your wife?”–that is too sophisticated. It is more “I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” The sophistication is staggering, to be sure.

    Or, perhaps, this: click.

    Quite frankly all it demonstrates is a fundamental lack of seriousness about very serious issues–which was the underlying point of my post to begin with.

  292. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I addressed your issue, Steven. If you don’t want to talk about it, fine. Meanwhile, your pal Mike called me a racist, and I’m showing him how much fun it is. How impossible it is to counter an accusation that serves as its own proof.

    You seem to have a problem with one but not the other. And that’s fine too.

  293. Xenos says:

    @Jim Treacher: Rubber, glue, sticks on you, etc.

    Grow up.

  294. Jim Treacher says:

    @Xenos: Isn’t it frustrating when somebody keeps playing the race card? Doesn’t it make you angry?

  295. @Jim Treacher: What is annoying (and sort of sadly amusing at the same time) is watching someone act as though they think that they are extremely clever when, in fact, they are engaging in behavior befitting an elementary school aged child.

    You aren’t demonstrating knowledge. You aren’t providing explanations. You aren’t making an argument (even in terms of the low standards of blog comment sections). You certainly aren’t demonstrating any understanding of race or racial politics.

    You are proving Coates to be exactly right: “I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn’t an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents.”

    Your apparent lack of self-awareness on this count is fairly epic, I must confess.

  296. Racehorse says:

    When is Al Sharpton going to show up to help the victim?

  297. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: So you’re not going to address my rebuttal to your “karmic balancing” canard at all. Okay, your choice.

  298. @Jim Treacher: I have not seen any substantive response to which to respond.

  299. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Fine by me. I didn’t think you had a leg to stand on in the first place. If you can’t defend it, I can’t say I’m surprised.

  300. Chuck Long says:

    @David Jack Smith: You misspelled “White-Hispanic”.

  301. @Jim Treacher:

    Fine by me. I didn’t think you had a leg to stand on in the first place. If you can’t defend it, I can’t say I’m surprised.

    I can’t help it if you can’t provide a substantive comment on this topic. Again, all you are doing is engaging in simplistic, playground-level rhetoric. What is there to respond to? Say something substantive. Make an argument and I will be happy to discuss it. Of course, based on I don’t know how many pointless comments made above, you don’t seem interested in actually discussing anything.

  302. MBunge says:

    THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!

    Mike

  303. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I did say something substantive. I rebutted your silly “karma balancing” nonsense. You can’t defend it.

    And if you think accusations of racism are okay except when people you disagree with politically make them, that says it all.

  304. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    I didn’t think you had a leg to stand on in the first place.

    An this is the issue — you are fundamentally unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that Steven might have a point.

    Don’t you see how that is, right out of the gate, toxic for having a discussion? And if that’s the case why are you even here other then to publicly masturbate? Like I said, you’ve already proven you have the biggest dick on the thread… what’s the point of continuing a pissing match with certain folks?

    And that gets to a larger point about a certain type of talk radio performance that’s been going on in this thread. People on both sides are outright ignoring any substantive posts and just go after the easiest strawman to prove their point.

    I’ve take time to try an openly reply to posts in good faith (with the exception of a few posts). And for some reason, the people I attempted to engage in conversation either (a) disappear or (b) go on to get into pissing matches with other people rather than discuss anything of substance.

  305. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: I liked that movie too, racist.

    Now Steven will scold you for lack of substance. Just kidding.

  306. Nikki says:

    Perhaps he’s trying to be the last commenter on this thread so he can declare himself the winner? Or something.

  307. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Meanwhile, your pal Mike called me a racist, and I’m showing him how much fun it is.”

    1. I’m Steven L. Taylor’s pal? Then where the hell is my invitation to the weekend barbecue/orgy?

    2. I didn’t call you a racist, any more than someone calls the sky blue or fire hot. Some things just are.

    Mike

  308. Jim Treacher says:

    @Nikki: Maybe you guys just aren’t very good at this.

  309. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Yes you did.

    Jim Treacher is a good example of the real problem here.

    It’s very difficult to deal with a racist who acknowledges his or her own bigotry and defends it.

    So you’re a racist and a liar.

  310. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    It’s not “karma balancing,” Steve. It’s pointing out that the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin case and the demonization of George Zimmerman is having very real consequences. I know you don’t like hearing it because people you don’t like are saying it, but that’s that point.

    So Jim, would you agree that, for example, extreme anti-muslim rhetoric in the wake of 911 had very real consequences in terms of a significant uptick in violence against Muslims and Sihks inside the US?

  311. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Oh, and your racism is every bit as self-evident as you think mine is, and everything you do and say only reinforces it. That’s how this works. Hope you enjoy it.

  312. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: Did it? I know there were worries about it. Did that translate into real numbers? If so, the people who lashed out were bad and should not have done that.

    Sorry, was that supposed to somehow justify how NBC and the rest have handled this case?

  313. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “So you’re a racist and a liar.”

    Holy crap, you’re as dense as the core of a collapsed star.

    And admit it people, how many thought Treacher would keep bringing back the stick this many times?

    Mike

  314. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: No, you’re stupid.

    And a racist.

  315. MBunge says:

    @Jim Treacher: “Hope you enjoy it.”

    In total seriousness…do you actually think you’re bothering me? Really? Maybe if you put some effort into it, but just by repeating “racist” over and over?

    On to 400!

    Mike

  316. Chuck Long says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    You are proving Coates to be exactly right: “I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn’t an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents.”

    Wow, the projection is strong in these parts. For liberals, racism has never been anything but a cudgel with which to silence those who disagree with their worldview. Nothing more, nothing less. You guys have been getting away with it for so long with no push-back that you actually believe you have a moral right to use the accusation of racism to silence your opponents. Little wonder that the use of the same rhetorical device against you now leaves you so disoriented and angry. The very idea that it could be used against you is so foreign that it escapes all logic in your minds.

    That you refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy in the difference in reporting of the Trayvon Marting case and the (at least) three attacks on whites by blacks citing Martin is enough for anyone to see just how unserious you are about actual racism, and how sensitive you are about having your number one debate stratagem neutered. You guys don’t really care about racism. You only care about how much political mileage you can get out of the accusation of racism.

  317. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: Of course I’m not bothering you, racist.

    So, tell us: Why are you a racist?

  318. MBunge says:

    Why do I get the feeling that if I and some of my friends joined forced to keep throwing the stick in shifts that Treacher would eventually die of dehydration, hunger and lack of sleep because he can’t stop himself?

    Mike

  319. Jim Treacher says:

    @Chuck Long: Uh-oh, Chuck. I do believe you’re in for a scoldin’. They don’t cotton to self-reflection ’round there here parts.

  320. Jim Treacher says:

    @MBunge: “Keep throwing the stick,” said Fido.

    P.S. Racist.

  321. mantis says:

    What Steven wrote:

    I will state that if, in fact, any of the attackers thought they were engaging in some sort of karma balancing because of the Trayvon Martin shooting, that that is wrong.

    Treacher’s “substantive” response:

    It’s not “karma balancing,” Steve. It’s pointing out that the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin case and the demonization of George Zimmerman is having very real consequences.

    So your substantive response is that the people who attacked Owens did so not out of desire for “karma balancing,” but to point out that unidentified “race-baiting” surrounding the killing of Martin has consequences? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have you spoken to those who attacked Owens to get an idea of their motivations? If not, why do you assume they attacked Owens in order to confirm rightwing assertions?

  322. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: I’m supposed to identify the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting? Turn on a TV. Pick up a newspaper. Your ignorance is nobody’s responsibility but your own.

  323. mantis says:

    @MBunge:

    And admit it people, how many thought Treacher would keep bringing back the stick this many times?

    I did, but then I’ve encountered this fool before. His shtick is well-worn and tedious, and it’s the only tactic he’s got.

  324. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: Temper, temper.

  325. mantis says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    I’m supposed to identify the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting?

    Identifying the premises of your argument is usually a good idea.

    I notice you didn’t actually respond to my questions. Why not? Why do you think Owens’ attackers were motivated by a desire to confirm rightwing assertions?

  326. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: So is having some base level of awareness of the story upon which you’re opining. It’s not my fault you haven’t been paying attention.

  327. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: But to answer your question, I think they were angry about Trayvon Martin, and they think Zimmerman was motivated by racism. If you need me to draw a line from that to what NBC did, I’ll let you choose which color of crayon.

  328. mantis says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    So is having some base level of awareness of the story upon which you’re opining. It’s not my fault you haven’t been paying attention.

    You make far too many assumptions. My point was that you did not identify the race-baiting you referenced, not that none existed.

    You still didn’t answer the question. I would guess it is because you cannot. And you wonder why Steven didn’t respond to that stellar argument?

  329. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: Do you know what the National Broadcasting Company is? Maybe that’s where you’re running into trouble.

  330. mantis says:

    But to answer your question, I think they were angry about Trayvon Martin, and they think Zimmerman was motivated by racism.

    So you think it had nothing to do with the allegations (if true) that Owens was yelling racial epithets and chasing children around with a knife? Why?

  331. @Jim Treacher: If the post that @mantis is quoting is your substantive response to my post, I would note that I think you are misreading or misunderstanding the sentence you are supposedly rebutting. Forgive me for not seeing an argument here.

    Let’s recap:

    Ok so you say above:

    It’s not “karma balancing,” Steve. It’s pointing out that the race-baiting surrounding the Trayvon Martin case and the demonization of George Zimmerman is having very real consequences. I know you don’t like hearing it because people you don’t like are saying it, but that’s that point.

    My reference to “karma balancing”:

    I will state that if, in fact, any of the attackers thought they were engaging in some sort of karma balancing because of the Trayvon Martin shooting, that that is wrong.

    You do realize that what I am saying is that if any of the people who beat Owens though that there was some balancing of the scales for Trayvon Martin by beating up a white guy (i.e., “karma balancing”) than that would be wrong.

    This strikes me as one of the least controversial things I wrote above.

    As such, where’s the “canard”?

    Like I already said: I have seen no substantive post to which to respond. Bring one on if you like.

  332. Jim Treacher says:

    @mantis: I don’t remember saying any such thing. I’m responding to “Justice for Trayvon.” But if you think whatever this guy said justifies a 20-on-1 beating, that’s your business.

  333. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: True, good point. I misunderstood what you meant and I stand corrected. Thank you for your patience.

  334. Loviatar says:

    my turn.

    @Jim Treacher:

    Treach, may I call you Treach.

    Is your racism homegrown or learned behavior from your peers?

  335. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: As for a substantive question, I appreciate the invitation. Here’s one:

    Is it possible that the people you disagree with politically are talking about this case for some reason other than to spite you? If so, why is decrying the racebaiting surrounding the Trayvon case, and pointing out the consequences, a “cheap political point”?

  336. Jim Treacher says:

    @Loviatar: I don’t know, is yours?

  337. @Treacher:

    Indeed: you are arguing that at least the guy that mentioned Martin was in fact motivated by some type of justice-seeking (i.e., karma balancing). As such, what is it that you are arguing with me in regards to that sentence? Did you think I meant wrong as in “incorrect”?

    I know you think that it was morally wrong (my intended meaning) to engage in such behavior.

    Seriously–I am stumped as to what your exact objection is, let alone your argument.

  338. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Did it? I know there were worries about it. Did that translate into real numbers?

    Yes, attacks on Muslims, Sihks and Hindus increased in the months and years after 9/11. Here’s one study, I’ll dig out more statistics later.

    http://pluralism.org/reports/view/104

    If so, the people who lashed out were bad and should not have done that.

    Ahh… so the people in this case who carried out the attacks were bad, but the people who were verbally attacking Muslims in various media outlets (questioning their loyalty, suggesting that all Muslims were evil, etc) had no role in the spike in violence. It was purely on the part of the people conducting the violence.

    Yet, in the case of Trevon Martin/Zimmerman the specific attack was a result of Race Hustlers who inflamed passions versus the people who carried out the specific attack.

    That’s the problem here Jim. The unseriousness of your argument — on on side you see words as causing violence when it matches your agenda. On the other side, you hang things on the actions of individuals.

    Sorry, was that supposed to somehow justify how NBC and the rest have handled this case?

    And here’s your second case of being a hack — putting words in my mouth to create a strawman.

    At no point did I attempt to suggest that one justified the other. BTW, neither did Steven. In fact he explicitly stated the opposite, but you really don’t bother with “facts” you do like, do you?

    In fact, I have pretty consistently attacked both side of this argument. All I have tried to point out, is that people like you seem to be very good at calling out the other side and very bad at acknowledging the problems in your own camp. As long as you continue to do that, then you do exactly what Steven and TNC’s suggests — turn race into a political weapon.

    Now, I will agree that people on the left fall into the same trap as well, and far too often turn race into a weapon.

    But pretending that either side has a monopoly on that is exactly the sort of hack partisanship that I’ve been complaining about since the beginning of that thread.

  339. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Not exactly. I’m arguing that based on what that guy’s attacker said, he thinks George Zimmerman was motivated by racism. And he thinks that because that’s what the news has been blasting out for weeks. I don’t see why pointing that out is a “cheap political point.”

  340. @Jim Treacher:

    Is it possible that the people you disagree with politically are talking about this case for some reason other than to spite you?

    I never made such a claim not do I think that anyone is out to spite me in this case.

    If so, why is decrying the racebaiting surrounding the Trayvon case, and pointing out the consequences, a “cheap political point”?

    I criticized you for your attempt at taking a beating and turn into some sort of point for your “side” in this debate. I think it is cheap to try to use race to score political points when you do not appear (and I base this solely on your writings, as I certainly do not know you) to take the issues of race seriously.

  341. Loviatar says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Hmmm, No I don’t think so, I’m pretty sure I’m not a racist.

    But back to you Treach.

    Did your parents raise to be racist or were you beaten up by a girl on the playground who just happened to be black?

  342. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: So you’re comparing the reporting on 9/11, which as far as I know has been true (sorry, Birthers), to the reporting on the Trayvon Martin shooting, which has been irresponsible at best, if not criminally negligent. Just pointing a camera at a collapsing building is the same as altering evidence against a shooting suspect, because both resulted in further violence. And if I think otherwise, I’m a hypocrite.

    Well, I guess that’s one way of looking at it.

  343. Jim Treacher says:

    @Loviatar: You’re a racist if somebody says you’re a racist. That’s the way it works, kid.

  344. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I did no such thing. Really, Steven, it’s not about you. People you disagree with can say things you disagree with without doing it to spite you.

  345. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    I think they were angry about Trayvon Martin, and they think Zimmerman was motivated by racism. If you need me to draw a line from that to what NBC did, I’ll let you choose which color of crayon.

    Great, and likewise I’d suggest that the uptick in attacks on Muslims, Sieks, Hindus was motiviated by racism. And if you need me to draw the vend diagram between the people who carried out most of those attacks and their right wing media consumption habits, I’ll let you choose the color of crayon too.

    And how about that guy who shot up the police in Pittsburgh PA over concerns about government takeovers… you know the one with the Glen Beck books? I’m happy to provide that crayon as well.

    As long as your concern trolling is only focused on folks on the opposite side of the aisle, it’s just that — concern trolling. And let me award you the price, you are the most concerned troll I have seen in quite a while. Jenos, please give Jim the plaque as he clearly surprassed you about 20 comments ago.

  346. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I guess people only “take the issues of race seriously” when they agree with you about them.

  347. @Jim Treacher: Methinks it may be occurring to you now that you misread or misunderstood my sentence since I see not more talk of a “canard.”

    And he thinks that because that’s what the news has been blasting out for weeks. I don’t see why pointing that out is a “cheap political point.”

    Because your post is clearly about trying to play a crude game of turnabout is fair play on NBC, Sharpton, et al. There is nothing about what you have written than indicates an understanding or interest in the broader issues. You think you have found a case that helps counter any claims that race was all that relevant to the Martin shooting. You think you have scored one for your “side”–and all because a man was beaten. That’s all pretty cheap and quite shallow. You are playing a game.

  348. michael reynolds says:

    @Jim Treacher:
    No, Jim, you’re racist when you write racist posts, as you clearly did as linked above.

  349. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: Well, it must be concern trolling if it’s making you so upset.

    So there were revenge attacks after 9/11, and there have been revenge attacks after the Trayvon shooting, so I shouldn’t criticize the media coverage of Travon because… that’s where you lose me.

  350. Jim Treacher says:

    @michael reynolds: No, you’re a racist.

  351. mattb says:

    @Jim Treacher: It’s clear that you are completely unwilling to read what anyone writes or consider any view outside of your own.

    I’m sorry to say we can’t have a conversation. I really tried, but it’s ultimately just not worth it.

    For what it’s worth, you have made me simultaneously more frustrated and sad than I’ve been in quite some time.

  352. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: No it’s not, Steven. You’re projecting. It’s a please for this madness to stop. The situation is horrible enough as it is without ripping people apart by race. Now people are being beaten half to death “for Trayvon.” It’s senseless.

    That’s not a political point. It’s basic humanity.

    It really, really isn’t about you, Steven.

  353. @Jim Treacher:

    I guess people only “take the issues of race seriously” when they agree with you about them.

    This is certainly not the case.

    However, to be understood as one who takes anything seriously, one has to actually to actually articulate oneself on the topic.

    However, you are staying firmly in elementary school with your rhetoric at the moment.

  354. steve says:

    Query- If the bullseyes at Palin’s website were not considered an incitement to violence, I think most of us agreed that the person committing the killings was responsible for what he did, why is the current situation with Martin considered an incitement to violence. If the guy really flashed knives around (is this true?) wouldnt that be an incitement to violence?

    Steve

  355. Jim Treacher says:

    @mattb: I have read what you’ve written and done my best to respond to the points you’ve made. I honestly don’t see how the two situations are similar, unless you can prove the 9/11 coverage was twisted the way the Trayvon coverage has been.

    If you choose to response with anger, I can’t control that.

  356. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Well, you’ve got the “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” down pat.

  357. @Jim Treacher:

    It really, really isn’t about you, Steven.

    I don’t recall saying that it was. Perhaps you could point to me where I did?

    The only way it is about me, I suppose, is that I wrote the post. Sadly, of course, you have made no substantive attempt to address it. Indeed, I am not entirely sure why you are here. You clearly have no argument to make and you do not want to engage in a discussion.

  358. @Jim Treacher:

    Well, you’ve got the “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” down pat.

    This is more playground rhetoric. Since I have accused you of something, you are going to parrot it back. Nice.

  359. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: The part where a plea to stop race-baiting the Trayvon case because it’s leading to further violence is a “cheap political point.” You think I’m somehow saying it to spite you and people who agree with you. That I’m somehow getting back at you. It’s ridiculous. No, I’m saying it because I want this insanity to stop. I want the violence to stop.

    But I guess all you have to do is keep saying “you have nothing substantive.” That’ll work too.

  360. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Look, we all know you’re humorless, you don’t have to belabor the point.

  361. al-Ameda says:

    @Chuck Long:

    For liberals, racism has never been anything but a cudgel with which to silence those who disagree with their worldview. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Well, many conservatives now assert that it is racist to bring up the subject of racism. It is truly a measure of how dumbed down we’ve become.

  362. matt says:

    @David Jack Smith: If that comment is true then he should definitely avoid pigs. I grew up on a farm and I can tell you a pig is smarter then a dog any day. One can even argue that pigs are more emotionally developed too.

  363. rodney dill says:

    Don’t touch that url folks, stay tuned for the 500th comment when Don Quixote says, ‘…but the windmills keep saying, “Justice for Trayvon”‘.

  364. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: What is annoying (and sort of sadly amusing at the same time) is watching someone act as though they think that they are extremely clever when, in fact, they are engaging in behavior befitting an elementary school aged child.

    Your entire comment is quite accurate and useful. And, oddly enough, I’ve never seen you say anything like it to any of the left-leaning commenters here. For example, it applies even more to Hey Norm and WR, but their routine sophomoric brayings always go uncommented-upon by you. It seems you have a rather selective sense of irritation.

    Is there any particular reason why you only ask maturity from the right? My own theory is that you know that conservatives are capable of it, so you ask them. The two I cited above? Serious waste of time and breath.

  365. matt says:

    Wow you guys are being trolled hard by Jim Treacher. Jim is obviously not interested in having a real conversation so either ignore him or ban him and stop dealing with his immature behavior..

  366. @Jenos Idanian: I don’t grade all the comments. I just engage in people who are arguing with my posts in one way or another. You may have noticed that I have had some lengthy interchanges over the years with John Persona, who is not part of conservative camp.

    Likewise, I have, in my more hall monitoresque role, asked various people to be civil, including some you would consider more liberal commenters.

    Regardless: it seems to me what matter is whether what I have said is correct or not, not to whom I have said it.

  367. Jim Treacher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: That’s different. Because.

  368. Jim Treacher says:

    @matt: It must be trolling if you don’t like it, and I must not be making a point if you disagree with it.

  369. rodney dill says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Your entire comment is quite accurate and useful. And, oddly enough, I’ve never seen you say anything like it to any of the left-leaning commenters here. For example, it applies even more to Hey Norm and WR,

    To be fair to Steven I think they carry on more in Doug’s threads.

  370. rodney dill says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    You may have noticed that I have had some lengthy interchanges over the years with John Persona, who is not part of conservative camp.

    …and John Personna is a commentor, who whether you agree with him or not, is more willing to discuss ideas rather than focus on talking points and innuendo.

  371. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: So… one shouldn’t read too much into how you only seem to rebuke immaturity from one side. Got it.

  372. James says:

    @Jenos Idanian: I really wish you would step back a bit, and contemplate just how immature you sound.

  373. @Jenos Idanian: What, pray tell, is it that you want me to do?

  374. @rodney dill:

    …and John Personna is a commentor, who whether you agree with him or not, is more willing to discuss ideas rather than focus on talking points and innuendo.

    Agreed.

    I think I am missing your point.

  375. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: No, you should.

  376. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    So… one shouldn’t read too much into how you only seem to rebuke immaturity from one side. Got it.

    Well Jenos, pretty much one person on one side is responding repeatedly with stuff like, “you still haven’t explained how you became a racist.” I think he’s right to call it out, don’t you? Exactly what stuff, and by whom, on the “left” do you think deserves rebuke?

  377. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: Oh, so accusations of racism are out of bounds.

    Sometimes.

  378. matt says:

    @Jim Treacher: yes your 20 or so posts calling mbunge and others racists is oh so insightful. If I want a “I’m rubber and your glue” discussion I’d stop by a kindergarten…

  379. Jim Treacher says:

    @matt: You act like it’s a one-man show. All he has to do is admit he’s a racist. What’s the problem?

  380. James says:

    @Jim Treacher: No, you’re a towel!

  381. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I’ll take that as a sincere question. How about “please answer the apparent double standard?”

  382. anjin-san says:

    I really wish you would step back a bit, and contemplate just how immature you sound.

    If jenos stepped back far enough to do that, he would fall off the cliff at the edge of the world (after all, the world he lives on is flat)

  383. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    Oh, so accusations of racism are out of bounds.

    A conservative might say: “what are you taking about?”
    A liberal might say: “what are you talking about?”
    An Independent might say: “what they said … “

  384. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    “please answer the apparent double standard?”

    Nice gambit, the “are you still stealing lunch money from school children?” question.

  385. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    Stephen, I think we’ve all had enough of this “Jim Treacher” troll. Over 376 posts, he has shown himself to basically be uninterested in conducting any sort of intelligent discussion whatsoever–not even witty name calling. His is behavior even 4 year olds have moved beyond.

    I think he deserves to be booted from OTB. Can we eject him so that what remains of the commenting can get back to the subject at hand and not “Jim Treacher?”

  386. Jim Treacher says:

    @James: True enough.

  387. Jim Treacher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: It can’t be a double standard because you’re a big dummy-head. Also, shut up.

  388. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: You don’t like how Treacher took one of the left’s favorite weapons, and used it against them? Aww, too bad.

    And while I’m sure Treacher takes the issue seriously, it’s obvious that he doesn’t take certain people seriously.

    And he’s right.

  389. Jim Treacher says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: Sounds like a problem.

    I guess that what happens when somebody is accused of a “cheap political point” for decrying journalistic malpractice that leads to violence.

  390. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: As you might say: …

  391. anjin-san says:

    And admit it people, how many thought Treacher would keep bringing back the stick this many times?

    Damn, this guy makes “Snooki” look like the founder of MENSA. It is getting kinda old though, I drove a third of the way across California since the last time I checked in and he is still ranting – can you make him play dead?

  392. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    You don’t like how Treacher took one of the left’s favorite weapons, and used it against them? Aww, too bad.

    While you, evidently, like it. My condolences.

  393. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: In retrospect, perhaps “address” instead of “answer” would have been a better choice.

    So, just when did you stop molesting underage wombats, anyway?

  394. Jim Treacher says:

    @anjin-san: You should probably talk some more about how much it bothers you.

  395. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    As you might say: …

    As I might say: “Conservatives have been playing the race card effectively since passage of the Civil Right Act.”

  396. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Jim Treacher: I consider myself properly chastised. I am hanging my head in shame.

  397. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    So, just when did you stop molesting underage wombats, anyway?

    lol …. I’ve always preferred wood bats to metal bats, and never wombats.

  398. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: There are any number of things you might say. If it’ll save you time, I’ll just take it as a given that all they all justify the handling of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

  399. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: The wood bats might be more aesthetically pleasing and traditional, and the aluminum is more effective… but the wombats… oh, those wombats…

  400. An Interested Party says:

    What, pray tell, is it that you want me to do?

    It seems he wants you to treat Hey Norm and WR, among others, the same way you have treated Treacher on this thread…it is apparently lost on him, though, that they have never acted in quite the same way that Treacher has on this thread, where he has written around a quarter of the 400 comments, with all the wisdom of a particularly disturbed child…of course, my writing this is no doubt proof that I operate with a double standard too…

  401. Jenos Idanian says:

    @anjin-san: anjin on Treacher: Damn, this guy… look like the founder of MENSA.

    Quote courtesy of NBC News.

  402. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    I’ll just take it as a given that all they all justify the handling of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

    The Trayvon Marin shooting has been mishandled from the outset. I believe that if the Sanford Police Department had handled the shooting of Martin differently we wouldn’t have ended up where we are today.

  403. Jim Treacher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: I’m glad we had this talk. No harm done.

  404. Jenos Idanian says:

    @An Interested Party: The reason is that Treacher is playing the fool (and quite effectively), while those two are fools.

    Which backs up my earlier thought: he only chastises those he thinks capable of doing better; the two I cited are beyond hope.

  405. Jim Treacher says:

    @An Interested Party: I understand that you’re angry.

  406. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: Yet you spare those people your venom… how interesting.

  407. It looks like Jenos has found a playmate.

  408. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: And that’s why it’s okay to concoct whatever evidence needed to make everybody believe he’s a racist, and doing so doesn’t make them responsible for any of the consequences. Yes, I think I get the idea.

  409. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Looks like you’re not used to talking to people who disagree with you.

  410. @An Interested Party: I will happy to deal with WR, Hey Norm, or anyone else the way I have dealt with Treacher when said individuals act like Treacher has acted.

  411. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Responding to hostility in kind? Mocking pompousness and circular thinking? Refusing to be cowed by accusations of racism? By all means, you don’t want to let that sort of thing stand, Steven. Put your foot down.

  412. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    And that’s why it’s okay to concoct whatever evidence needed to make everybody believe he’s a racist, and doing so doesn’t make them responsible for any of the consequences. Yes, I think I get the idea.

    Wow, you have no idea at all.
    Who/whom did I say was racist? No one.

  413. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Jim Treacher: He’s probably upset that I didn’t include him, too.

    Envy is such an ugly thing…

  414. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: When did I say you did? I’m talking about NBC. Hang in there.

  415. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Yet you spare those people your venom… how interesting.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.
    What venom? I spared the Sanford Police my venom?

  416. @Jim Treacher:

    Looks like you’re not used to talking to people who disagree with you.

    I’d be happy to talk. You aren’t talking–you are are just spouting nonsense. There us very little to work with, to be honest. Even when I attempted to address you karma/canard post you did no engage. You never explained what the canard was.

    At any rate: feel free to continue playing.

  417. Jim Treacher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I like your style of argumentation. All you have to do is say “it’s nonsense,” “you have nothing,” etc. And then you don’t have to think of a rebuttal. Rigorous.

    And I already apologized for my mistake. I did misunderstand what you were saying, and said so. Guess you chose to ignore it.

  418. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: On further reflection, I see another distinction between Treacher and the two I mentioned, one that goes beyond ideology.

    And that’s effectiveness.

    Treacher is better at pretending to be as immature as they are naturally And he’s laughing while they’re serious.

    Treacher, STOP MAKING THE MORONS LOOK EVEN MORE MORONIC! IT’S NOT FAIR!

    And, possibly, racist.

  419. An Interested Party says:

    I understand that you’re angry.

    Obviously you have a perception problem, as I find you more amusing than anything else…

  420. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    Steven–

    Seriously, OTB needs to ban Jenos Treacher. They have contributed nothing except disdain for everyone and every argument.

  421. Jim Treacher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: But see, when you start a conversation by accusing someone of making a “cheap political point” because you decried racially motivated violence triggered by acts of egregious journalistic malpractice, that puts you above the fray. Gaze up in awe at the mighty Steven L. Taylor.

    Now he will tell me again that I’ve got nothing. Not that simply and plainly, probably, but that’s the fun of it.

  422. Jim Treacher says:

    @An Interested Party: Of course you do, dear. My mistake.

  423. Jim Treacher says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: I’m with Eric. Dissent must not be tolerated. The bad element must be expunged.

  424. G.A. says:

    yes your 20 or so posts calling mbunge and others racists is oh so insightful.

    lol….Maybe he should switch to bigot,homophobe or wingnut for a while so he can be a more well rounded intellectual like 99% of the libs around here?

  425. al-Ameda says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    Seriously, OTB needs to ban Jenos Treacher. They have contributed nothing except disdain for everyone and every argument.

    Yes, but it has been an effective “quantity not quality” operation.

  426. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: It can’t be quality if it annoys you.

  427. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: “Daddy, make the mean people go away!”

  428. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    It can’t be quality if it annoys you

    .

    As Emile Zola said, “If I cannot overwhelm with my quality, I will overwhelm with my quantity.”
    As GW Bush said, “Mission Accomplished.”

  429. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: As you said, once again: “…”

  430. G.A. says:

    Seriously, OTB needs to ban Jenos Treacher

    No they should ban Harry’s little voter cult.I think their plat bot array like presence is lagging the crap out of this super thread…..

  431. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    As you said, once again: “…”

    I believe what I said was: “As Emile Zola said, “If I cannot overwhelm with my quality, I will overwhelm with my quantity.”

    “…” was said yesterday by Dick Clark.

  432. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: And then what did you say?

  433. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: Seriously, OTB needs… Jenos (and) Treacher.

    Once again, NBC News comes through with the unvarnished truth.

  434. An Interested Party says:

    My mistake.

    It’s ok, sweetie…you’ve made quite a few…

  435. Jim Treacher says:

    @An Interested Party: Stay strong, you’re going to get through this.

  436. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    And then what did you say?

    and then I said,
    ““…” was said yesterday by Dick Clark.”

  437. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: Yeah, you said that already. What did you say next?

  438. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    and then I said,
    ““…” was said yesterday by Tupac”

  439. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: Well? Don’t keep us in suspense.

  440. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    I’m still working on developing my appetite for the inane, so I have to admit to just skimming, but I believe we hit a thread apotheosis back when Treacher graciously accepted Jenos’ eager tongue bath. I knew those two crazy kids would make up in the end.

    I might have missed it – did anyone call me a racist? I hope so; I hate being the odd man out.

    Please don’t ban Jenos or Treacher. You really can’t find two finer exemplars of the modern American conservative.

  441. al-Ameda says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    and then I said,
    ““…” was said the day before yesterday by Lionel Messi.”

  442. Jim Treacher says:

    @Rufus T. Firefly: I apologize for hurting your feelings. I was just playing around, but now I realize it was wrong.

  443. Jim Treacher says:

    @al-Ameda: I guess this is the “quality” part.

  444. Jim Treacher says:

    Well, it’s been nice talking to you fellas. No hard feelings, I hope?

    Have a great night!

  445. An Interested Party says:

    Stay strong, you’re going to get through this.

    Prudent advice on this thread…

  446. Loviatar says:

    Treach, Treach please come back. I only stepped away to check with my 7 & 8 years old nieces on how to deal with you.

    By the way you never answered my question; was your racism homegrown or was it a result of you getting beat up by black girl at a young age.

    Also, how does it feel when you spout racist statements, do you get a warm and feeling in your tummy?

  447. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Rufus T. Firefly: Just for that, we’re NOT going to name our first child after you.

    Homophobe.

  448. dennis says:

    @jthc:

    You act as if there were some nefarious force at work to put this negative image of young black males into people’s heads, but the stereotype exists for a reason. Anyone who lives in a big city understands this well.

    I wasn’t going to comment, being late to the ball, and all.

    You’re making an assumption about all Black men that doesn’t hold water. I’ll bet you, like a lot of White guys do, would avoid making eye contact with me; you’d not greet me if I offered a friendly ‘hello’; maybe even cross the street or, at least, give me a wide berth. You know what’s funny about it, though? I’ve been a sworn agent for 18 years, duty-bound to protect our Constitution, our country and even you.

    But when you and others of your mindset see me, you don’t see — couldn’t see — whom you’re mistakenly judging. Let’s say I made the reverse assumption about Steven, one of our hosts — that he’s just another racist who condones lynching and White racial superiority — you know there’d be ish up in this blog; because, we KNOW through his posts and comments that that is untrue. Same with you. YOU DON’T KNOW. I’m willing to bet you don’t know three Black people. I mean really KNOW, not be acquainted with.

    So, maybe you want to think about these things before you write something equivalent to your above statement. U.S. Black-White relations are complex, mysterious, ugly, beautiful and frustrating all at once. It is not something that can be simplified into these two incidents. I wonder if you understand that?

    Meh, you probably don’t.

  449. dennis says:

    But don’t get it wrong; I know some bad-ass White dudes who’ll bite your head off man…

    I’m glad they’re friends of mine!

  450. mattb says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    Steven–

    Seriously, OTB needs to ban Jenos Treacher. They have contributed nothing except disdain for everyone and every argument.

    No. Sorry. No way. I may not like what they are writing, but this would be a terrible precedent.

    Speech shouldn’t be banned because its unpopular or even wrong. Commentors shouldn’t be banned just for being a-holes.

    As long as they, and their posts, operate within the TOS, they have the right to post and no one should take that away.

  451. mantis says:

    @Jim Treacher:

    racially motivated violence triggered by acts of egregious journalistic malpractice

    “I can tell you this without a doubt, 100% certainty, that Trayvon Martin was not the motivating factor in this incident,” says Cpl. Chris Levy.

    Deputy Chief Lester Hargrove says investigators believe only four people, including Terry Rawls, were directly involved. They believe the rest of the mob just watched.

    Police say the beating is the result of a three year neighborhood dispute between Rawls and Owens.

  452. mantis says:

    Numerous media reports have said that at least one person reported hearing references made to the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Fla., in which a community watch officer killed an unarmed black teenager in a gated community.

    “So far that is an uncorroborated report,” Hargrove said. “This involved two neighbors who lived on the same street who’d had problems in the past and who got into a fight over kids playing basketball.

    “It is our understanding that the person who made the claim about the Trayvon case was not even on the scene Saturday night.”

  453. anjin-san says:

    Commentors shouldn’t be banned just for being a-holes.

    I dunno. I was a bartender for a long time. If someone was a big enough jerk, they got the hook. Sometimes if they were just a minor jerk they still got it. Life is short, why tolerate idiots?

    Skippy can start his own blog and exercise all the first amendment he wants. He has single handedly lowered the overall user experience at OTB.

  454. rodney dill says:

    Treacher was one of the links Steven used in his post. So if he wants to show up and comment, even irrationally, I’d give him a pass in this thread, anyway.

    If we’re gonna start banning arses then a number of regular commentors that often line up against Jenos, Superdestroyer, et al… would be gone as well. I don’t see that happening.

  455. Jenos Idanian says:

    @mantis: So, what’s your criteria on what cops are credible, and which are not? From your examples, “cops who reinforce what I believe” are infallible, while “cops who don’t do what I think they should” are hopelessly corrupt and/or incompetent.

    In other words, why are you putting so much faith in the Mobile cops, and so little in the Sanford cops?

  456. @rodney dill:

    Treacher was one of the links Steven used in his post. So if he wants to show up and comment, even irrationally, I’d give him a pass in this thread, anyway.

    I concur.

    And Jenos has done nothing to violate the TOS.

  457. jukeboxgrad says:

    treacher:

    [I am] decrying journalistic malpractice that leads to violence … [the attack on Owens is an example of] racially motivated violence triggered by acts of egregious journalistic malpractice … I think they were angry about Trayvon Martin, and they think Zimmerman was motivated by racism. If you need me to draw a line from that to what NBC did, I’ll let you choose which color of crayon.

    You are holding NBC responsible for the attack on Owens. You see “a line” connecting NBC to that attack, even though you don’t actually know for a fact exactly what motivated his attackers, and even though you don’t actually know for a fact that any of them ever paid the slightest attention to anything NBC said. Those attackers have not provided a 800,000-word manifesto explaining their motivations and influences.

    On the other hand, mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik did provide such a manifesto. In his manifesto, he heaps praise on Robert Spencer, citing him by name at least 46 times. So do you condemn Spencer for “journalistic malpractice that leads to violence,” or do you grant him an exemption because he’s a member of your ideological tribe? Or is that you claim that 100% of Spencer’s statements are accurate, honest, fair and defensible?

    Just curious.

  458. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    @dennis:

    Thanks for this. I get so goddamn weary having to explain that, yes, it’s still racist even if you think you have a good, “scientific” reason to believe the worst about black folks.

    Oh, and Jenos, I didn’t mean to offend you; I’m genuinely pleased that you found a friend. Chester the Terrier and Spike the Bulldog have always been my two favorite WB characters.

  459. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    @mantis: So, what’s your criteria on what cops are credible, and which are not? From your examples, “cops who reinforce what I believe” are infallible, while “cops who don’t do what I think they should” are hopelessly corrupt and/or incompetent.

    Please identify where I said any cops were infallible or hopelessly corrupt and/or incompetent. It may take you a while since I did not make those claims. Do you ever tire of just inventing arguments for other people? Do you not notice that I made absolutely no comment about the Mobile police whatsoever?

    In other words, why are you putting so much faith in the Mobile cops, and so little in the Sanford cops?

    Please identify evidence of my putting any level of “faith” into any cops.

  460. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    OK, fine, Steven, et al. I was just pining for some way to elevate and flesh out the topic rather than for the rest of us to be subjected to Treacher’s insufferable, 3-year-old-like tantrum for some imagined sleight. Of course, I should have also remembered that playing the victim is a huge part of what it means to be conservative these days, so I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised.

    Yeah, now that I think about it, forget all that other stuff–y’know, the tragedy of the Martin case, health care, the economy, women’s contraception, gay marriage, etc. The real victim here in all of this has been Jim Treacher, because someone may have implied something mean about him. Poor guy. It’s got to be really hard with the world against him.

  461. jukeboxgrad says:

    This is a quite extraordinary thread, thanks to the inimitable Treacher. In order to give his effort the recognition that it deserves, I’m going to describe a few remarkable things about his commenting style.

    Treacher has posted in this thread 142 times (31% of the total count, at this point). This happened over a 12 hour period. During that period he posted a comment once every five minutes, on average. So if Treacher posts a response to something you said, it’s usually the case that he didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about what you said.

    A key element of his commenting style is to post a very large number of comments while saying almost nothing. How is this possible? One important technique is to keep the comments ultra-short, as if a blog is twitter. His longest comment contains 85 words, and his average comment contains 22 words (that is, his average comment is roughly half as long as the first sentence in Steven’s post). Another key technique is to say the same thing over and over again. For example:

    You’re a racist. … I don’t see you proving you’re not a racist. Get to it. … Whatever you say, racist. … Hey, I don’t have a problem with you being unable to prove you’re not a racist. That says it all. … P.S. Obama eats dogs. … However you want to keep deflecting, racist. Don’t let it get to you. … Racist. … P.S. Obama eats dogs. … Oh, it’s quite clear that being unable to prove you’re not a racist isn’t bothering you at all, racist. If you want to keep on being a racist, I think that’s just fine. … His or her racism is glaring. … It’s not much fun when people point out your racism, is it, racist? … Racist. … Oh, sure. The racist isn’t being racist just because he’s being racist. … Calm down, racist. … Tell us more about your racism, racist. … Racists never admit to being racists, racist. … Keep deflecting, racist. Everybody can see your racism. The more you deny it, the more you prove it. … What’s this about Obama eating dogs? … Is there a particular reason you want to dodge the issue of your racism, racist? … It means exactly why what we both know it means: you’re a racist, racist. … That’s interesting, racist. But let’s get back to the topic of you and your racism. Was there a particular formative experience that turned you into a racist, racist, or is it just part of who you are? … First you complain when I point out your racism, and now you say I don’t want to talk about racism? Well, anything to avoid addressing your racism, I suppose. … Racist. … Let’s get back to your racism. Why are you a racist, racist? … Why don’t you want to talk about your racism, racist? … Your racism makes you a racist, racist. … I liked that movie too, racist. … So you’re a racist and a liar. … No, you’re stupid. … And a racist. … Of course I’m not bothering you, racist. … So, tell us: Why are you a racist? … P.S. Racist. … No, you’re a racist. … All he has to do is admit he’s a racist. What’s the problem?

    Whatever point he thinks he is making by saying that could have been made by saying it once. He says it over and over again because he likes to talk a lot even though he doesn’t have much to say. That is, the same ideas keep falling out of his brain over and over again because there isn’t much else in there.

    Another key technique is to make observations regarding the alleged emotional states of the people he’s attacking, even though these observations are irrelevant to what’s being discussed and are a form of puerile mockery that have no purpose other than to derail the discussion. For example:

    Temper, temper. … Try not to panic. … Relax. … Calm down … I wonder what your blood pressure is right now. … Temper, temper. … You should probably talk some more about how much it bothers you. … I understand that you’re angry. … Stay strong, you’re going to get through this.

    With regard to the question of banning him: Treacher is an extreme and vivid example of what today’s GOP is all about (and I realize this same point has been made by Rufus and possibly others). In this manner he provides an inadvertent public service that is enormous. Therefore I would be disappointed if he was banned. I would prefer to see a thread just like this every week or so. There’s no need to see it happen every day, but I would be happy to see it happen regularly.

    This confrontation between Taylor and Treacher is a terrific illustration of the gulf that exists in modern conservatism, with the rational people on one side and the irrational people on the other. You won’t find a better example anywhere else. Therefore this thread is quite valuable, even though it’s packed with shit.

    This conversation between them is an important thing; it needs to happen, and it needs to happen publicly. Even though it’s not really a conversation, because only one side understands the meaning of that word, but that’s the point.

  462. Jenos Idanian says:

    @mantis: 1) You’ve repeatedly expressed… well, “distrust” is a good word for it… for the way the Sanford authorities handled the Martin shooting.

    2) You just cited without question a Mobile police officer’s statement on the motives of the beating.

    It really is that self-evident.

  463. Jenos Idanian says:

    OK, there’s a second comment hung up in the filter, for no reason I can see…

    Test.

  464. mantis says:

    It really is that self-evident.

    No, it is not. Your imagination does not constitute reality. I’ve been critical of the Sanford authorities, but have expressed absolutely no comment about the Mobile police. I certainly never called the Sanford cops “hopelessly corrupt” nor did I describe the Mobile cops in any way, let alone as “infallible.”

    All you have is strawmen. Have fun fighting with them.

  465. slimslowslider says:

    jukeboxgrad for the win, as usual.

  466. jukeboxgrad says:

    slim, thanks.

    And here’s something I should have mentioned years ago: cool name.

  467. mattb says:

    @Jenos Idanian: One of mine just got filtered too. 🙁

    Heu Steven, Doug — any chance one of you could spring my post?

  468. jukeboxgrad says:

    Treacher, are you OK? I’m a little worried about you. Yesterday, you were omnipresent. You were here from 9 am to 9 pm, posting a new comment every 5 minutes (on average), all day long. 142, all together. Now instead of being omnipresent you’re not present at all. Is it something I said? It was not my intention to drive you away.

    If you have the time to post 142 comments in a single thread, you should be able to make the time to stick around and address questions raised by those comments, like the questions I asked you here. When you cut and run instead, that tends to create the impression that you’re a despicable, cowardly troll whose MO is to shamelessly make bogus claims and then disappear when challenged.

    Is that the impression you’re trying to create? If so, you should remain safely hidden under your rock. Otherwise, you should slither out again and provide some answers.

  469. slimslowslider says:

    thanks juke! yep, love that jam, though i kinda wish i was “uponcripplecreek” this week.