Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[welch]

And now I realize that I have completely turned my argument around. When I said "gleeful", I meant in the sense that the commenter would see deaths of black people as positive reinforcement of their opinion that the US is a racist nation, not that the commenter dislikes black people.

I just hope we don't see people destroying their own community as a way of voicing their feelings. I've never understood that type of reaction.

It's frustration. You feel like no one gives a fuck, so why should you?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Gonna be a lot of black rioters shot dead tonight.

I assume you mean by non-blacks? Don't let me put words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong. If so, I call bullshit, and we will see tomorrow who is correct.

No, I mean blacks. Why would non-blacks be rioting?

Have you seen how The Purge was a trending topic on Twitter for a while? Lots of people are talking riot, and I think a lot of scared white shopowners are going to be camping out in their stores with shotguns, and they're going to open fire at the least provocation.

As for being gleeful, I'm not. The intended tone of my comment was ironic. I don't want a riot, but if there is one, it's going to be Sword Guy versus Indy.

Hope that clarifies.

As I said, "by non-blacks", meaning that I assumed you meant the black rioters would be shot by non-blacks. My point, to decode it from racial niceties, was that you could not tomorrow claim your point ("Gonna be a lot of black rioters shot dead tonight") came true if "a lot of black rioters" were indeed "shot dead tonight", if those black rioters were shot by other blacks. That your original comment clearly (I think) predicted that many blacks would be shot by non-blacks tonight. And that this was a needlessly provocative statement which, repeated often enough, will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[welch]

Gonna be a lot of black rioters shot dead tonight.

I assume you mean by non-blacks? Don't let me put words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong. If so, I call bullshit, and we will see tomorrow who is correct.

No, I mean blacks. Why would non-blacks be rioting?

Have you seen how The Purge was a trending topic on Twitter for a while? Lots of people are talking riot, and I think a lot of scared white shopowners are going to be camping out in their stores with shotguns, and they're going to open fire at the least provocation.

As for being gleeful, I'm not. The intended tone of my comment was ironic. I don't want a riot, but if there is one, it's going to be Sword Guy versus Indy.

Hope that clarifies.

I know this will shock you, but, <looks around>...the darkies have guns too. I know right? they let non-honkies buy guns just like white folks. Scary, but true....you may wish to add that to your calculations.

[AndrewV69]

Fuck. I guess that "somebodies'" is totally correct. I'm a cunt. Cunt. That's me. Fuck me, you prick. Fuck me into the ground. Fuck.

What you gonna do when they come for you?

RunBoyRun-400x400.jpg

(35.85 KiB) Downloaded 152 times

[Reap]

Finally, remember what I have said previously about fighting? Let me repeat it, try to not get into one especially as an adult.

Very sound advice. If you must then it better be worth the potential worse outcome which you can seldom even predict so....

[Reap]

I know this will shock you, but, <looks around>...the darkies have guns too. I know right? they let non-honkies buy guns just like white folks. Scary, but true....you may wish to add that to your calculations.

I heard those mexicans have guns too...whatever are we gonna do now? Are there any safe minorities these days?!

[Bill the Cat]

In other News:

Zimmerman found not guilty (just saw it on TV)

Gonna be a lot of black rioters shot dead tonight.

What on earth would make you say that? (FYI - I live in 'West Sanford' - Sanford post office - outside the city limits.) I have no doubt there will be some rioters taking advantage of an 'opportunity' - but it will take place several miles from where the shooting took place - or where the courthouse is located. (I live about 3 miles from the shooting site. 'Downtown' / old Sanford - about 5 miles from the shooting site - is where things will happen. The whole thing is a classic case of news mis-reporting.

[katamari Damassi]

Has it been pointed out before that Rystefn = Techno Viking?

[youtube]oxrZzNw9Djk[/youtube]

Whoever that is, bravo on the abs sir. Well done.

[Steersman]

Well, I find his summary rather interesting. Maybe a bit obsessive, but somewhat amusing, and suggestive of a technique I might use myself. Particularly if Wonderist and I want to set up a Pit version of a "Rhetorical Assasination Squad" - a weapon for which might be to bore one's target to death ....

But you don’t have to read his posts, you know. Or maybe once you start reading any comment you think you’re obliged to read it through to the bitter end – not true.

He's only done it once and I put a smiley at the end of my post just in case it wasn't obvious I was joking. Seems I wasn't clear enough :)

Mea culpa if that was your intent as seems to be the case.

However, I might suggest that a winking smiley might have been more likely to suggest that you were pulling Jack’s leg a little, or were, perhaps, taking a shot at a previous comment castigating him for related posts.

[Bill the Cat]

George Zimmerman is a pathetic tough guy wanna be, too soft to start a fight and win it without a big gun in place of his micro-penis.
" this guy looks suspicious, looks like he's on drugs"
I'm not black or a member of a minority but I'm angry that this asshole can stalk and gun down somebodies' kid because of his adequacy problems.
There shouldn't be any surprise if there are demonstrations of public outrage.

Sounds like you have a severe case of fact avoidance going on. Calm down.

[Biohazard]

As soon as I saw the picture of what the 17 year old Martin looked like vs the 15 yr old Martin that the media was showing told me that something was up.

To which picture of the 17 year old Martin are you referring?

[Steersman]

For those who may be interested, two entries from Razib

1) The chasm in perception between the humanities and science.
The eternal two cultures reprised
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... -reprised/
<snip>

That guy is a going concern – I think I’m going to have to follow him a little more closely. Although a post by another blogger on the same network (apparently no longer being added to) looks a little questionable:

The evolution by sexual selection of the male propensity to engage in conspicuous consumption contributed to the emergence of modern rates of economic growth.

Looks like the same sort of questionable just-so stories that Watson used to deprecate the field of evo-psych.

In any case I much liked Khan’s closing remarks:

Science inspires awe in part because of its relative ease at generating truth outputs. In contrast, the humanities can remind us that there are truly inscrutable depths which we are only dimly grasping on the edge of our perceptions. I would much rather have a discussion about this reality than the sloppy intuitions of self-aggrandizing intellectual narcissists.

Bit of a mouthful there with any number of ramifications and implications, at least as suggested by his reference to Snow’s Two Cultures. Along the line of which you might be interested in the book The Splendid Feast of Reason by the biologist S. Jonathan Singer (which received a strong recommendation from E. O. Wilson) which supports Snow’s argument by arguing that those two spheres, those two cultures, are, ideally at least, complementary. And that is something that Singer develops in some detail with an analogy to the “so-called wave-particle duality and the concept of complementarity”:

The resolution of this apparent incompatibility [between the external and the internal] seems to require that a rationalist accept a fundamental duality governing human existence. On the one hand, there is an individual’s internal world; and on the other there is the scientific view of the external world. These two views of existence are effectively autonomous, existing side by side – but both have distinct contributions to make to a rational perception of life. [pg 154]

Seems to be a fairly common theme or dichotomy that many have addressed in many different ways. For instance, Jerry Coyne and the Canadian ex-priest Eric MacDonald at Choice in Dying are somewhat at loggerheads over scientism and the question about “ways of knowing”:

Despite my repudiation of the claim, Jerry Coyne continues to argue that I think that there are “ways of knowing” other than science. I have said, and will say again, if it’s any use, that the locution ‘way(s) of knowing’ is not clear. The point of using it seems to be to rule out certain claims to know, or to be able to establish some things as items of knowledge, and others as mere subjective suppositions, but no one, so far at least, has proposed a definition of what a “way” of knowing might be. In fact, as earlier commenters have pointed out, we know all sorts of things which do not obviously come within the ambit of science, stretch the meaning of the word ‘science’ in whatever way you please.

I tend to the view that there are, in fact, two primary ways of knowing – with a great many variations on each – that might, to a first approximation, be described with the common terms or concepts induction and deduction. Although that is just a conjecture, a working hypothesis on my part.

[katamari Damassi]

As much as I think George Zimmerman is a piece of shit, I don't think anyone is really surprised at the verdict.
What bothers me more is all the talk about "will the black people riot?" This is far from the first time an unarmed black male has been shot and the shooter found not guilty. It's almost like people want a riot.

Zimmerman will go "free" but people who need to vent will probably just pick up the Michael Dunn case which will probably have a different outcome.

I believe that there are people who want to see riots. One group is the right wing racists who think it would give them validation("See? Those people are savages!").
Another group is the SJW's who-while not participating themselves- will get off on offering up justification, sympathy, and moral support to whatever crimes are committed and to the perpetrators.

[another lurker]

I believe that there are people who want to see riots. One group is the right wing racists who think it would give them validation("See? Those people are savages!").

Yeppers I have made a tour of a handful of right wing sites and their undies are all moist at the thought of it.

[Steersman]

Fuck. I guess that "somebodies'" is totally correct. I'm a cunt. Cunt. That's me. Fuck me, you prick. Fuck me into the ground. Fuck.

Actually, I think you were right on that - hard to see how a multitude could be the possessor or creator of some kid.

But on the Nerd quote I think you might be off base. While your highlighted text seems to have the flavour of a "guys, don't do that", my impression was that he was only referring to "Karen's friends" with his "women" comment. In passing, you have a link to the relevant post?

[welch]

I know this will shock you, but, <looks around>...the darkies have guns too. I know right? they let non-honkies buy guns just like white folks. Scary, but true....you may wish to add that to your calculations.

I heard those mexicans have guns too...whatever are we gonna do now? Are there any safe minorities these days?!

Hasidim. They tend to just throw rocks and spit.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Meyers's people are all over this like white on rice:

http://i.imgur.com/bNPz0ap.png
Nope. Bye.
Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, most of fucking Africa...Which do you choose, fuckwit?

http://i.imgur.com/8m2dALl.png
I dunno. Probly. Why don't you look it up yourself, you lazy cunt?

http://i.imgur.com/IWz496r.png
Fucking Cubans, coming over here and killing our slaves.

http://i.imgur.com/friPfYn.png
SallyStrange, who can find humor even in rape jokes, sees nothing funny in her boyfriend spending an evening surrounded by negroes.

http://i.imgur.com/5rX0WM5.png
I like to imagine this person is talking about Pharyngula.

http://i.imgur.com/zYPvRti.png
This one has me confused. Who are the "subhuman pieces of dog shit"? Hispanics or niggers? Please, tell me which racial group I need to hate or I get all confused and despise the lot of them.

http://i.imgur.com/QP7wEMC.png
No, you won't. You'll sit at home and make comments on Pharyngula about how much you wish you were there but The Lizard People are keeping you down, while your mom brings you ham sandwiches on lovely clean plates.

http://i.imgur.com/LioN1vW.png
Azkyroth again. Yes, literally. Of course. Just swallow this pill, it'll help keep all those demons outside your head, stop them flying in. Yesssss, that's right. Good Azkyroth.

http://i.imgur.com/z8bkkrb.png
Poisoning The Well 101.

[Steersman]

And now I realize that I have completely turned my argument around. When I said "gleeful", I meant in the sense that the commenter would see deaths of black people as positive reinforcement of their opinion that the US is a racist nation, not that the commenter dislikes black people.

I just hope we don't see people destroying their own community as a way of voicing their feelings. I've never understood that type of reaction.

It's frustration. You feel like no one gives a fuck, so why should you?

I wonder how prevalent that attitude is. And while one might sympathize a little, one also has to wonder to what extent that that is a self-inflicted wound, a case of too many in those communities failing to take some responsibility for their predicaments. Seem to remember that at the time of Obama’s first inauguration he suggested, if I’m not mistaken and which almost made me fall off my chair, that a significant part of the problem was the larger than “normal” frequency of single-parent families, mostly headed by women, within black communities.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://i.imgur.com/GzIhkbu.png
I am sorry to read about your physical condition, would a Red Bull help? Also: I'll pass on your regards to NYC re the whole underwater thing.

[DownThunder]

This one has me confused. Who are the "subhuman pieces of dog shit"? Hispanics or niggers? Please, tell me which racial group I need to hate or I get all confused and despise the lot of them.

Well, the slymepitters, duh. OK, fess up which slymepitters were on the jury, and the slymepitters that picked the jury.

In fact, which slymepitters have specifically denied shooting Trayvon Martin?

Intellectual check and mate.

[AndrewV69]

As soon as I saw the picture of what the 17 year old Martin looked like vs the 15 yr old Martin that the media was showing told me that something was up.

To which picture of the 17 year old Martin are you referring?

As I recall it was one similar to this:

TMgg-400x400.jpg

(24.84 KiB) Downloaded 281 times

Now you can easily explain that. If you were his grieving parents would you release the one above or the one below?

TMniceBoy-400x400.jpg

(31.34 KiB) Downloaded 276 times

I will tell you who I have the most sympathy for, the parents of the Martin boy. As a parent myself I think I have a pretty good idea how I would feel if it was one of my kids.

As I said before:
http://noseenohearnospeak.blogspot.ca/2 ... -type.html

Despite what I wrote, I feel badly for the parents. I suspect that only another parent who has lost a child, can really understand what they are going through.

Once you become a parent yourself, only then can you understand that your children are hostages to your future.

"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief."
Francis Bacon

[Bill the Cat]

http://i.imgur.com/GzIhkbu.png
I am sorry to read about your physical condition, would a Red Bull help? Also: I'll pass on your regards to NYC re the whole underwater thing.

I am a recent transplant to Florida (state of ignorance) from Minnesota. For all of the negatives I have to say about this stinking cess pit - racism is not one of 'em. I was shocked. For the most part - people treat people like people. No matter who or what. Yeah - ignorance is rampant. Great schools and all of that. The culture in Central Florida consists of the attractions. (And ignorance - did I mention ignorance?) Remove the racism brought on by the media pushing the Al Sharpton / Jessie Jackson crap - and look at the whole affair in a race non-existent perspective - and that is pretty much how the whole thing is viewed here.

We will hold the doors for each other tomorrow. We will make sure we got through it all OK tomorrow. We will all be depressed about the whole affair - and talk about it together. And we will still be good neighbors.

Good night , all.

[Gefan]

Meyers's people are all over this like white on rice:

http://i.imgur.com/bNPz0ap.png
Nope. Bye.
Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, most of fucking Africa...Which do you choose, fuckwit?

Malta's nice.
Oh.
Wait.
No, it's horrible. Very regressive. Patriarchy everywhere. Social Justice Warriors would hate it.

Anyway, I'm not surprised at the Zimmerman verdict and less depressed by it than I was by the media treatment of the whole saga.
The usual suspects, purveyors and profiteers of identity politics in both "red" and "blue" camps knew a gold-mine when they saw one.
The fact that their respective audiences seem to have no idea that they're being played is amazing to me.

[Reap]

And now I realize that I have completely turned my argument around. When I said "gleeful", I meant in the sense that the commenter would see deaths of black people as positive reinforcement of their opinion that the US is a racist nation, not that the commenter dislikes black people.

I just hope we don't see people destroying their own community as a way of voicing their feelings. I've never understood that type of reaction.

It's frustration. You feel like no one gives a fuck, so why should you?

I feel like no one gives a fuck pretty often. I haven't burned my apartment up once, shit I haven't even beat my kids over it.... I feel so dysfunctional

[katamari Damassi]

Meyers's people are all over this like white on rice:

http://i.imgur.com/bNPz0ap.png
Nope. Bye.
Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, most of fucking Africa...Which do you choose, fuckwit?

The SJW homeland in the Chernobyl exclusion zone?

[Gefan]

I hope Greta doesn't read this (which probably means I shouldn't be posting it here - oh well).

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 98388.html

Imagine the possibilities. A poll at FTB on who gets cast as the unicorn. Depending on how the money is raised, a massive surge in the sale of Fluevogs...

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Fuck. I guess that "somebodies'" is totally correct. I'm a cunt. Cunt. That's me. Fuck me, you prick. Fuck me into the ground. Fuck.

Actually, I think you were right on that - hard to see how a multitude could be the possessor or creator of some kid.

But on the Nerd quote I think you might be off base. While your highlighted text seems to have the flavour of a "guys, don't do that", my impression was that he was only referring to "Karen's friends" with his "women" comment. In passing, you have a link to the relevant post?

On the "somebodies'" thing: it takes 2 to make a baby (currently...).

On the "women"thing: you have to read these quotes as coming from perfect people; they always use the correct terminology, and any accusations of privilege/racism/sexism/x-ism aimed at them is always wrong. So, in that context - their context, re-examine Nerd's condescending use of the phrase "grow up women".

Here's the link:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-648796

[Wonderist]

I've had some personal experience with various traumatic events and can therefore be considered an expert on the matter (based on my lived experiences, don't you know!) I've experienced two types: physical and emotional.

The physical was the result attempting to centerpunch the grill of a Buick while racing another car on my bicycle. I took a corner on the outside, passing the car I was racing (a friend was driving) on to a little used access road. Trouble was, this time it was being used by a Buick sedan going 55+ mph in the opposite direction. I was likely doing about 30 mph, so an impact speed of 80 mph, wearing only cut-off shorts, no shirt, no shoes. POW! Through some combination of fast reflexes, snap decision making and more than a little luck, the bike took most of the hit, but I still took enough to get body punched into a stationary air roll and into the pavement.

A bit of pedantic dickery here, but Mythbusters actually did an entire episode around the myth that if two objects collide, you add up their independent speeds. They demonstrated pretty conclusively that if two cars traveling 50km/hr hit head on, it is NOT the equivalent of hitting a brick wall at 100. Each car experiences a collision of 50, nothing more.

BUT...I don't bring it up just to be a pedantic dick. One thing the episode did not test is what happens if the two objects are travelling at different speeds. When I read that you were going 30 and the car was going 55, I spent some time trying to figure out if that was like hitting a wall at 55 for you, or 30, or something intermediate. Guess MB needs to do a followup.

(Resurrecting an older comment for pedantry's sake)
The comparison of two cars at 50 vs. one car and a brick wall is not a good one. Rather, it should have been a car at 50 against *another car* which is stationary. Brick walls don't move when you hit them; a stationary car will. That makes a big difference.

[Gefan]

The Independent article I linked above quotes one Erika Lust, a feminist porn auteur. Okey-dokey, good for her.
Despite the fact I should know better, I google her name and wind up at her website.
The inevitable critique of Fifty Shades of Grey is quite something.

http://www.erikalust.com/fifty-shades-of-fairy-tale/

My favorite quote:
"It really reminded me of how conflicted I felt after Kathryn Bigelow was awarded ‘Best Director’ at the Oscars – so happy that a brilliant woman was finally recognized in an industry dominated by men, with which I can definitely sympathize, and yet disgruntled that it was in recognition of a war movie devoid of any female protagonists or perspective."

It's hard to be angry with that, it's so unaware (though I know some combat veterans who might feel differently).

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

I hope Greta doesn't read this (which probably means I shouldn't be posting it here - oh well).

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 98388.html

Imagine the possibilities. A poll at FTB on who gets cast as the unicorn. Depending on how the money is raised, a massive surge in the sale of Fluevogs...

A porno with a unicorn fucking a rainbow?

This has got to be "Rystefn" - with a screwdriver duct-taped onto his forehead - savaging "Cunt" up the ass and flinging him around like a ragdoll.

[welch]

I just hope we don't see people destroying their own community as a way of voicing their feelings. I've never understood that type of reaction.

It's frustration. You feel like no one gives a fuck, so why should you?

I wonder how prevalent that attitude is. And while one might sympathize a little, one also has to wonder to what extent that that is a self-inflicted wound, a case of too many in those communities failing to take some responsibility for their predicaments. Seem to remember that at the time of Obama’s first inauguration he suggested, if I’m not mistaken and which almost made me fall off my chair, that a significant part of the problem was the larger than “normal” frequency of single-parent families, mostly headed by women, within black communities.

amongst people who are rioting? pretty damned prevalent, go scour youtube. It was one of the reasons for the liberty city riots in 1980. The black community in Miami just hit the point where they realized that nothing was beyond the pale. a group of white & cuban officers ran Arthur McDuffie down, killed him for no reason, and were found not guilty of shit by a bunch of honkies.

When the legal system says "yeah, you can kill black people, it's totes okey-dokey" over and over, at some point, you stop giving a fuck. When you realize that someone can just take away your life, and there's no penalty, hell, not even any real public disapproval? Why should you care about meaningless shit like your home or your job? You have no power, and you barely have any rights. But what you do have is the ability to burn shit down. When you have a large group of people who feel as though they have, literally, nothing left to lose, shit is going to get ugly and quick.

[welch]

I just hope we don't see people destroying their own community as a way of voicing their feelings. I've never understood that type of reaction.

It's frustration. You feel like no one gives a fuck, so why should you?

I feel like no one gives a fuck pretty often. I haven't burned my apartment up once, shit I haven't even beat my kids over it.... I feel so dysfunctional

Talk to me when someone whacks a family member for being the wrong color, and a jury lets them off even with clear evidence, and it's not even close to the first time it's happened.

[katamari Damassi]

Got a chuckle from Shakesville where the rage tears over the Martin verdict are flowing. These white chicks are making it all about themselves.

I just read the news for the first time since noon. As soon as I heard Zimmerman got off I felt like I was going to throw up. My stomach is still churning.

I can't breathe.

I can't. I can't take this world anymore.

I'm here, too. Just sad and angry and frustrated and scared of* this country.

*bolding mine

[Gefan]

Got a chuckle from Shakesville where the rage tears over the Martin verdict are flowing. These white chicks are making it all about themselves.

I just read the news for the first time since noon. As soon as I heard Zimmerman got off I felt like I was going to throw up. My stomach is still churning.

I can't breathe.

I can't. I can't take this world anymore.

I'm here, too. Just sad and angry and frustrated and scared of* this country.

*bolding mine

Hold on, I'm compiling a list of Pitters most likely to grab the low-hanging comedy fruit offered by those quotes.

[welch]

Well, it makes perfect sense that the FTB-type lot would be angry about this. They dislike it when people accused of crimes with little solid evidence are found not guilty.

By all accounts, the prosecution did not do a great job, and that seems to be a bit of a habit down here. Same thing with that chick who was being tried for killing her daughter. People were shocked, shocked she was found innocent, in spite of the fact:

1) no proof there was ever a murder (a body found is not the same as a murder)
2) No proof she had done it
3) no time of death
4) no clear motive
5) no cause of death

in other words, none of the things that one would expect to see some proof of when someone is accused and tried for murder. Instead the state's main proof seemed be little more than "She's a fucking skanky ho, COME ON PEOPLE!"

At least with zimmerman, the prosecution had proof that someone had been killed, they had the guy who did it, they had really, all five points, but they couldn't effectively disprove self-defense. There was obviously a struggle of some kind, and at that point, the prosecution had to show that Zimmerman somehow didn't feel threatened or at real risk during an actual fight. When you're reduced to "He should have had more injuries if he was getting his ass beat that bad", that doesn't sound like the best case.

When you're trying to get a murder conviction and you don't have really good direct evidence, and even the circumstantial stuff is not great, you better turn in the performance of a career. From what I've read, the prosecution simply did not do that.

[Steersman]

Fuck. I guess that "somebodies'" is totally correct. I'm a cunt. Cunt. That's me. Fuck me, you prick. Fuck me into the ground. Fuck.

Actually, I think you were right on that - hard to see how a multitude could be the possessor or creator of some kid.

But on the Nerd quote I think you might be off base. While your highlighted text seems to have the flavour of a "guys, don't do that", my impression was that he was only referring to "Karen's friends" with his "women" comment. In passing, you have a link to the relevant post?

On the "somebodies'" thing: it takes 2 to make a baby (currently...).

Unless it’s in vitro fertilzation – not to be confused with that mediated by the influence of alcohol (in vino fertilization).

But you’re technically correct, although I still think that “somebody’s” is sufficiently accurate in that the definition – “a person” – is sufficiently general that it could apply to both parents individually.

On the "women"thing: you have to read these quotes as coming from perfect people; they always use the correct terminology, and any accusations of privilege/racism/sexism/x-ism aimed at them is always wrong. So, in that context - their context, re-examine Nerd's condescending use of the phrase "grow up women".

Here's the link:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-648796

I still think it is a stretch to see that as an example of sexism. You might want to take a look at the definition and tell me how that statement of Nerd’s qualifies as discrimination against women or is a promotion of a stereotype. Here it is in its glory:

sex•ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

If “they” want to use words in bogus, self-serving, and idiosyncratic ways then that’s their problem; “we” shouldn’t be obliged follow them over the same cliff.

Thanks for the link.

[Biohazard]

As I recall it was one similar to this:

TMgg-400x400.jpg

Now you can easily explain that. If you were his grieving parents would you release the one above or the one below?

TMniceBoy-400x400.jpg

Only seeing file names...

[AndrewV69]

In other news:

Well? Is she up to the job or not? Some say no!

Daenerys Targaryen: Wrong for Dragons, Wrong for the Realm
[youtube]Ao4HVlV7wZU[/youtube]

[Steersman]

Reap said: "I just hope we don't see people destroying their own community as a way of voicing their feelings. I've never understood that type of reaction."

It's frustration. You feel like no one gives a fuck, so why should you?

I wonder how prevalent that attitude is. And while one might sympathize a little, one also has to wonder to what extent that that is a self-inflicted wound, a case of too many in those communities failing to take some responsibility for their predicaments. Seem to remember that at the time of Obama’s first inauguration he suggested, if I’m not mistaken and which almost made me fall off my chair, that a significant part of the problem was the larger than “normal” frequency of single-parent families, mostly headed by women, within black communities.

amongst people who are rioting? pretty damned prevalent, go scour youtube. It was one of the reasons for the liberty city riots in 1980. The black community in Miami just hit the point where they realized that nothing was beyond the pale. a group of white & cuban officers ran Arthur McDuffie down, killed him for no reason, and were found not guilty of shit by a bunch of honkies.

When the legal system says "yeah, you can kill black people, it's totes okey-dokey" over and over, at some point, you stop giving a fuck. When you realize that someone can just take away your life, and there's no penalty, hell, not even any real public disapproval? Why should you care about meaningless shit like your home or your job? You have no power, and you barely have any rights. But what you do have is the ability to burn shit down. When you have a large group of people who feel as though they have, literally, nothing left to lose, shit is going to get ugly and quick.

Obviously a complex problem with many details I certainly haven’t been aware of except maybe in general terms.

However, while there are, as you suggested, probably no shortage of cases of the abuse of “due process”, I still wonder to what extent – as I suggested with my comment about single parent homes – the black community has to take some responsibility for their predicaments. All too easy for all of us to blame others – “the devil made me do it” – for our own choices or carelessness – maybe somewhat analogous to questions about the degree of culpability people have in an accident while not wearing seatbelts, and women have for being raped.

[16bitheretic]

but they couldn't effectively disprove self-defense. There was obviously a struggle of some kind, and at that point, the prosecution had to show that Zimmerman somehow didn't feel threatened or at real risk during an actual fight. When you're reduced to "He should have had more injuries if he was getting his ass beat that bad", that doesn't sound like the best case.

I don't know much about Florida law, and you are probably correct in the legal sense in this, but as far as I'm concerned the fact that Zimmerman could ever possible claim "self defense" is absolute bullshit, and a point of condemnation for our legal system in this country.

The police dispatcher told him not to engage, he kept stalking anyways against and even got out of his truck. As far as I'm concerned if these conditions allow for the pursuer to claim self defense if a conflict occurs, even if he's losing a fistfight to the person he was tailing, then we have a joke of a legal system.

[AndrewV69]

However, while there are, as you suggested, probably no shortage of cases of the abuse of “due process”, I still wonder to what extent – as I suggested with my comment about single parent homes – the black community has to take some responsibility for their predicaments. All too easy for all of us to blame others – “the devil made me do it” – for our own choices or carelessness – maybe somewhat analogous to questions about the degree of culpability people have in an accident while not wearing seatbelts, and women have for being raped.

I have come across discussions from time to time in the "Manosphere" about the number of single mothers in the Black community and the ill effects that are attributed to it. Both Blacks and Whites appeared to agree that the root cause was Feminism and the state becoming the de facto household provider.

Some of the Black guys were quite bitter, that the White guys were paying attention only now the problem had spread into the White community and not before. Some were quite gleeful in the sense that White men were now feeling the pain that Black men have been experiencing for decades.

I also recall some of the White Nationalists predicting that the media in general was going to do whatever it could to marginalize, ridicule and mock the MRAs and go all out to silence them. When the Thomas Ball incident happened they were crowing "I told you so" at what was seen as a media black-out of a man doing a self-immolation outside a courthouse.

(I miss a certain defunct site, because among other things I regularly got treated to interesting spectacles, For example Blacks and White Nationalists agreeing that Feminism was destroying America when they were not at each others throats, and there was a lot of opposing political back and forth. Raging Bee would have been appalled)

Anyway, needless to say I doubt any of the Black guys have anything but contempt for our brave SJWs.

Note: I usually do not keep track of race in the manosphere unless somone keeps mentioning it, like for example Obsidian who writes guest posts at other sites like the Spearhead and Just Four Guys. His personal site is here:
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/

[Gefan]

but they couldn't effectively disprove self-defense. There was obviously a struggle of some kind, and at that point, the prosecution had to show that Zimmerman somehow didn't feel threatened or at real risk during an actual fight. When you're reduced to "He should have had more injuries if he was getting his ass beat that bad", that doesn't sound like the best case.

I don't know much about Florida law, and you are probably correct in the legal sense in this, but as far as I'm concerned the fact that Zimmerman could ever possible claim "self defense" is absolute bullshit, and a point of condemnation for our legal system in this country.

The police dispatcher told him not to engage, he kept stalking anyways against and even got out of his truck. As far as I'm concerned if these conditions allow for the pursuer to claim self defense if a conflict occurs, even if he's losing a fistfight to the person he was tailing, then we have a joke of a legal system.

My (limited) understanding is that self-defense is an affirmative defense and thus the burden of proof shifts to the defense. If that's the case in Florida and given the police dispatch tapes which would seem to make it really hard for Zimmerman to pass a "clean hands" test, I think you're looking at a prosecution that was at a level with the Gil Garcetti-era LA DA's office (which would have struggled to convict John Wilkes Booth).

[AndrewV69]

but they couldn't effectively disprove self-defense. There was obviously a struggle of some kind, and at that point, the prosecution had to show that Zimmerman somehow didn't feel threatened or at real risk during an actual fight. When you're reduced to "He should have had more injuries if he was getting his ass beat that bad", that doesn't sound like the best case.

I don't know much about Florida law, and you are probably correct in the legal sense in this, but as far as I'm concerned the fact that Zimmerman could ever possible claim "self defense" is absolute bullshit, and a point of condemnation for our legal system in this country.

The police dispatcher told him not to engage, he kept stalking anyways against and even got out of his truck. As far as I'm concerned if these conditions allow for the pursuer to claim self defense if a conflict occurs, even if he's losing a fistfight to the person he was tailing, then we have a joke of a legal system.

Or, if the Martin boy kept on going instead of circling back and sucker punching Zimmerman, and was subsequently having too good a time sitting on his chest while punching him, he would not have got shot in "self defence". Remember, according to Zimmerman, the Martin boy punched him first. The Martin boy is also not around to say different.

Anyway, I keep saying this. The best thing to do is to not get into fights. It could be your last.

(I remember when I was the same age as the Martin boy. I was immortal invincible and indestructible, and you could not tell me any different either. If I was sitting on your chest, my knees would have your arms pinned, and if your hair was long enough, I would use that to repeatedly bounce your noggin off the sidewalk instead of punching you).

[Dick Strawkins]

but they couldn't effectively disprove self-defense. There was obviously a struggle of some kind, and at that point, the prosecution had to show that Zimmerman somehow didn't feel threatened or at real risk during an actual fight. When you're reduced to "He should have had more injuries if he was getting his ass beat that bad", that doesn't sound like the best case.

I don't know much about Florida law, and you are probably correct in the legal sense in this, but as far as I'm concerned the fact that Zimmerman could ever possible claim "self defense" is absolute bullshit, and a point of condemnation for our legal system in this country.

The police dispatcher told him not to engage, he kept stalking anyways against and even got out of his truck. As far as I'm concerned if these conditions allow for the pursuer to claim self defense if a conflict occurs, even if he's losing a fistfight to the person he was tailing, then we have a joke of a legal system.

The idea that citizens can walk around legally carrying pistols makes these kinds of situations sadly inevitable.
I don't quite buy the argument that Zimmerman was stalking or disobeying police advice. He was, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, acting as a virtual (pretend?) policeman. Closely watching or even following people they think might be intent on burglary is a 'normal' activity of such a role.
You have to ask yourself when did the first crime begin.
Zimmerman following Martin was not a crime.
Even if he confronted him (for example by asking him what was he doing there) this is also not a crime - and although there is no evidence that he confronted Martin in that way, it is not unreasonable to imagine that he MIGHT have.
We are left with the witness statements.
FIrst Martins girlfriend who was not exactly a reliable witness. She claimed that she heard Zimmerman confront Martin and then Martin screaming for help. But her story was unconvincing - the details changed a lot between the first time she told it to the police and the court testimony. She even mentioned that Martin was using racial slurs while he was speaking to her in the phone - calling Zimmerman a 'creepy ass cracker'.
A neighbor testified that he had seen Martin on top of Zimmerman and had heard Zimmerman screaming 'help me'. The physical evidence seemed to back up this scenario (injuries to Zimmermans face and head, back of his clothes were wet with grass stains.)
What happened that night?
We can't know for sure but from the evidence presented in court it appeared that both Martin and Zimmerman were doing nothing illegal right up to the point when the physical altercation began. Who struck the first blow? We don't know but the fact that they were seen by the neighbor on the ground (Martin straddling Zimmerman and Zimmerman calling for help) indicates that it wasn't a simple situation of Zimmerman approaching Martin, gun pointed and ready to shoot to kill.

Did Martin deserve to be shot?
Of course not.
But once you allow people to legally go around carrying guns then the likelihood that scenarios like this will happen is hugely increased.
For example, where I live there is only one group of people that can carry guns around the street - police officers.
If I am walking home and a police officer confronts me and asks me what I'm doing there I know that if I start to violently attack him or her there is a distinct possibility that I'll be shot (they know that I know that the've got a gun - if I'm attacking them then I might be trying to get the gun to do more serious damage.)

It was good however, that there was a trial. If someone gets shot then their family deserves a chance to see whether the perpetrator was acting outside the law.

[16bitheretic]

I don't quite buy the argument that Zimmerman was stalking or disobeying police advice. He was, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, acting as a virtual (pretend?) policeman. Closely watching or even following people they think might be intent on burglary is a 'normal' activity of such a role.

The dispatcher is on audio recording with Zimmerman telling him not to engage the person he was following and that real cops were on the way. He got out of his vehicle anyways and pursued Martin. I don't see how, even being a neighborhood watch ( a.k.a. rent-a-cop wannabe), this allows for Zimmerman to have the self-defense claim in the ensuing altercation (regardless of who was winning the fist-fight), save for some really badly designed and fucked up laws which apparently Florida has plenty of.

Looking at the way this turned out, I can see based on evidence available how this doesn't qualify for the 2nd degree murder charge pursued, but I can't fathom how Zimmerman didn't get prison time under the lesser manslaughter charge.

What happened that night?
We can't know for sure but from the evidence presented in court it appeared that both Martin and Zimmerman were doing nothing illegal right up to the point when the physical altercation began. Who struck the first blow? We don't know but the fact that they were seen by the neighbor on the ground (Martin straddling Zimmerman and Zimmerman calling for help) indicates that it wasn't a simple situation of Zimmerman approaching Martin, gun pointed and ready to shoot to kill.

I don't think anyone except the most ignorant would say that Zimmerman came out of his vehicle immediately wielding his gun. However it wasn't enough for him to obey the dispatch, stay in his vehicle and wait for the real cops, he had to act more like a vigilante and as such I feel he's responsible for the escalation into violence, regardless of whether he wasn't a match for the younger and apparently more athletic 17 year old. If Martin was being trailed by an unmarked and unknown stranger, and that person goes to confront him in person, does his right to "Stand Your Ground" disappear the moment the overweight and out of shape Zimmerman couldn't hold his own in a fist-fight?

If I am walking home and a police officer confronts me and asks me what I'm doing there I know that if I start to violently attack him or her there is a distinct possibility that I'll be shot (they know that I know that the've got a gun - if I'm attacking them then I might be trying to get the gun to do more serious damage.)

I don't think this is a very good comparison. Most people will react far differently to a known and identified authority (police) approaching them than some unmarked and unknown stranger who is following them.

[surreptitious57]

Miri had an informative post the other day admitting that she never asks people out
It is a little confusing overall ( she claims she is not shy to make the first move or to
ask for sex but never asks people out ) but I read in to that she lets others ask her
out and once that happens she is confident to let them know what she wants

It seems to me that there is a certain type of dare I say it privilege associated with
such attitude . She allows others ask her out then makes her decision whether to
initiate sexual activity which I guess is not going to be particularly risky with some
one who has let you know that they desire you

Miri seems fairly attractive and outgoing . I presume
she gets a reasonable amount of requests for dates

Miri is not as privileged as you may think : As she has body image issues so
although she may be beautiful on the outside it is how she perceives herself
that determines how she feels : For negative feelings about oneself can and
indeed do affect such perception : And while you or I see a beautiful woman
she does not : How others see you less important than how you see yourself

[Dick Strawkins]

I don't quite buy the argument that Zimmerman was stalking or disobeying police advice. He was, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, acting as a virtual (pretend?) policeman. Closely watching or even following people they think might be intent on burglary is a 'normal' activity of such a role.

The dispatcher is on audio recording with Zimmerman telling him not to engage the person he was following and that real cops were on the way. He got out of his vehicle anyways and pursued Martin. I don't see how, even being a neighborhood watch ( a.k.a. rent-a-cop wannabe), this allows for Zimmerman to have the self-defense claim in the ensuing altercation (regardless of who was winning the fist-fight), save for some really badly designed and fucked up laws which apparently Florida has plenty of.

Looking at the way this turned out, I can see based on evidence available how this doesn't qualify for the 2nd degree murder charge pursued, but I can't fathom how Zimmerman didn't get prison time under the lesser manslaughter charge.

What happened that night?
We can't know for sure but from the evidence presented in court it appeared that both Martin and Zimmerman were doing nothing illegal right up to the point when the physical altercation began. Who struck the first blow? We don't know but the fact that they were seen by the neighbor on the ground (Martin straddling Zimmerman and Zimmerman calling for help) indicates that it wasn't a simple situation of Zimmerman approaching Martin, gun pointed and ready to shoot to kill.

I don't think anyone except the most ignorant would say that Zimmerman came out of his vehicle immediately wielding his gun. However it wasn't enough for him to obey the dispatch, stay in his vehicle and wait for the real cops, he had to act more like a vigilante and as such I feel he's responsible for the escalation into violence, regardless of whether he wasn't a match for the younger and apparently more athletic 17 year old. If Martin was being trailed by an unmarked and unknown stranger, and that person goes to confront him in person, does his right to "Stand Your Ground" disappear the moment the overweight and out of shape Zimmerman couldn't hold his own in a fist-fight?

If I am walking home and a police officer confronts me and asks me what I'm doing there I know that if I start to violently attack him or her there is a distinct possibility that I'll be shot (they know that I know that the've got a gun - if I'm attacking them then I might be trying to get the gun to do more serious damage.)

I don't think this is a very good comparison. Most people will react far differently to a known and identified authority (police) approaching them than some unmarked and unknown stranger who is following them.

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of Edward Gemmer on this one - I think he's a lawyer dealing with criminal cases.

From my own understanding of the issue 'manslaughter' generally refers to a situation where someone intends to injure another person rather than kill them, but the injury they happen to inflict is serious enough that it does kill them.
On the surface it would appear to fit the Zimmerman-Martin case, but a charge of manslaughter, like murder, will be dismissed if the person is acting in self-defense in a situation where they might reasonably feel their life to be in danger.
It seemed like the prosecution also was not convinced that they could get a charge of manslaughter to stick - remember, the manslaughter option was introduced at the very last moment of the proceedings.

However it wasn't enough for him to obey the dispatch, stay in his vehicle and wait for the real cops, he had to act more like a vigilante and as such I feel he's responsible for the escalation into violence, regardless of whether he wasn't a match for the younger and apparently more athletic 17 year old.

If the charge was "being an idiot and not following sensible advice" then he's certainly guilty. And yes, if he had followed that advice then the incident wouldn't have gone down as it did.
But does that make him responsible for the violence?
My opinion is that something else would have had to happen to make him responsible.
For example, if he had jumped out of the darkness at Martin, and grabbed hold of him or confronted him in such a way that might make Martin lash out in self defense himself. Now this might have happened, but there is no evidence to prove it did - and there is therefore reasonable doubt on the charge of whether Zimmerman did something illegal to provoke a confrontation.
For the record I don't think Zimmerman bears no responsibility for what happened, but we are dealing with what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, given the carrying and stand your ground laws, it is going to be hard to make a charge stick in this case. Perhaps a civil trial where the standards of proof are a lot lower might be better for the family of Trayvon Martin.

[Hunt]

In my opinion, I think it's insane that a legal structure could actually be configured to allow a neighborhood watch idiot carrying a gun to be in the vicinity of another person that he has essentially stalked to that location. The guiltiest party here is the Florida legislation that allows for a configuration like that. There should never have been a legal moment in time or space that allowed an idiot and a kid to come in contact like that. As for Zimmerman, fuck him. I mean, the man's life is essentially over anyway. I don't see how a court could do any more to him than reality is going to do. The travesty is the legal precedent this sets.

[Jan Steen]

In every European country Zimmerman would have ended up in jail. This is not just because carrying a gun would be illegal there, but also because in his case self defence would not have been accepted as a valid argument. Zimmerman could easily have avoided a confrontation (indeed, he was even urged by the police to do so); instead he sought one. Whatever happened exactly, the self defence stay-out-of-jail card would not have worked.

Only in America, at least in some of the more backward states, can people act out their Dirty Harry fantasies and get away with it.

[Dick Strawkins]

In my opinion, I think it's insane that a legal structure could actually be configured to allow a neighborhood watch idiot carrying a gun to be in the vicinity of another person that he has essentially stalked to that location. The guiltiest party here is the Florida legislation that allows for a configuration like that. There should never have been a legal moment in time or space that allowed an idiot and a kid to come in contact like that. As for Zimmerman, fuck him. I mean, the man's life is essentially over anyway. I don't see how a court could do any more to him than reality is going to do. The travesty is the legal precedent this sets.

I don't think it sets any legal precedent. The Florida self-defense laws have have plenty of impact prior to this case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opini ... .html?_r=0

I just noticed an article by a US based lawer who seems to echo my points above.
It's interesting to read this article and the comments to see the divergence of opinion.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/14/se ... n-verdict/

[Dick Strawkins]

In every European country Zimmerman would have ended up in jail. This is not just because carrying a gun would be illegal there, but also because in his case self defence would not have been accepted as a valid argument. Zimmerman could easily have avoided a confrontation (indeed, he was even urged by the police to do so); instead he sought one. Whatever happened exactly, the self defence stay-out-of-jail card would not have worked.

Only in America, at least in some of the more backward states, can people act out their Dirty Harry fantasies and get away with it.

The gun carrying and stand your ground laws are what makes the difference:

Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opini ... .html?_r=0

[DW Adams]

He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch participant. Please stop giving his actions some kind of authority.

If your state law allows you to stalk someone, confront them and shoot them when they defend themselves, you live in a pretty fucked up state.

Stand Your Ground needs to be rewritten to explicitly state that provoking a confrontation voids the protection afforded by it. Which it seems is what happened in this case.

[Jan Steen]

In every European country Zimmerman would have ended up in jail. This is not just because carrying a gun would be illegal there, but also because in his case self defence would not have been accepted as a valid argument. Zimmerman could easily have avoided a confrontation (indeed, he was even urged by the police to do so); instead he sought one. Whatever happened exactly, the self defence stay-out-of-jail card would not have worked.

Only in America, at least in some of the more backward states, can people act out their Dirty Harry fantasies and get away with it.

The gun carrying and stand your ground laws are what makes the difference:

Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opini ... .html?_r=0

Yes, and that's why, I repeat, only in America, at least in some of the more backward states, can people act out their Dirty Harry fantasies and get away with it. The law makers there must have considered Dirty Harry to be a documentary and liked what they saw.

[Dick Strawkins]

He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch participant. Please stop giving his actions some kind of authority.

If your state law allows you to stalk someone, confront them and shoot them when they defend themselves, you live in a pretty fucked up state.

Stand Your Ground needs to be rewritten to explicitly state that provoking a confrontation voids the protection afforded by it. Which it seems is what happened in this case.

It is the law itself ('Stand Your Ground') that gives his action a similar authority to that of a police officer, and yes, it should be rewritten. A 'stand your ground' rule in combination with a legal weapon carrying law is a recipe for disaster.

[Dick Strawkins]

Ophelia's having a bit of trouble with her regulars over an image she chose to use to illustrate a story about the Texas legislature banning abortions after 20 weeks. She makes a point about some Fox news idiot making a sick joke about Liberals need to stock up on coar hanger and then uses a picture of a naked woman bent over what looks like towels or blankets that are soaked in blood.
I think the idea was to provide a visual shock to illustrate the dangers of old-style non-medical assisted abortions, but this provokes a few demands for 'trigger warnings' which Ophelia is, at the moment, refusing:

but the picture was meant to shock. That was the point. I don’t really want to get rid of all shock.

http://www.freezepage.com/1373803725TRAJOBICEY

So people tell her it can be shocking or offensive to them and she refuses to remove it?
Shouldn't the response be to remove the image or words that are offensive to others?
Isn't that what she tells everyone else? :think:

[DW Adams]

Well, only 2/6 comments refer to the pic so far. Just wait till everyone else wakes up.

This may be a thread worth lurking in today.

[Gumby]

Anyway, I'm not surprised at the Zimmerman verdict and less depressed by it than I was by the media treatment of the whole saga.
The usual suspects, purveyors and profiteers of identity politics in both "red" and "blue" camps knew a gold-mine when they saw one.
The fact that their respective audiences seem to have no idea that they're being played is amazing to me.

It really does fucking suck.

The media here in the US always seem to feel like they have to have a hot-button news story with which to haul out its WWIII headline font-size. They're not there to report the news anymore. They're there to push emotional buttons and manufacture national passion over stories that they amplify and distort beyond reason in order to gain ratings points against their competition. It was particularly evident in the Trayvon Martin case, where the media went to great lengths (at least initially) to breathlessly report this as a sweet and undoubtedly innocent boy being mercilessly gunned down by a racist mall-cop-wannabe-type with a hair-trigger temper to go along with his gun. The media were blatantly trying to manipulate public opinion and stir up passions on both "sides".

And as you say, the audience has no idea they're being played.

The Martin/Zimmerman case is a great example of a sad but overall rather uninteresting local story that should have stayed local. But the media has pounced upon it and elevated it to the national stage; to exacerbate tensions over race while cynically striking a thoughtful pose and asking about the effects the case will have on race relations in the Unites States. Pseudojournalistic media vampire fucksticks. Makes me sick.

[bhoytony]

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of Edward Gemmer on this one - I think he's a lawyer dealing with criminal cases.

From my own understanding of the issue 'manslaughter' generally refers to a situation where someone intends to injure another person rather than kill them, but the injury they happen to inflict is serious enough that it does kill them.

.

I'm no lawyer and it may be different in the US, but here in the UK you don't need to intend injury as far as I know.
The company where I work has signs in the dispatch bay warning drivers that it is their responsibility to check wheel nuts etc. on their vehicles. If they neglect to do so and it causes a fatal accident they can face manslaughter charges.

[Dick Strawkins]

The Martin/Zimmerman case is a great example of a sad but overall rather uninteresting local story that should have stayed local. But the media has pounced upon it and elevated it to the national stage; to exacerbate tensions over race while cynically striking a thoughtful pose and asking about the effects the case will have on race relations in the Unites States. Pseudojournalistic media vampire fucksticks. Makes me sick.

I wouldn't exactly call it an unintersting local story for the simple reason that it at least highlights the problems that the 'stand your ground' laws can cause - where you can simultaneously get a verdict that is legal AND unjust.

Speaking of pseudojournalistic media vampires, Peezus has a piece on an article by Guardian writer Gary Younge that was pulled from the Guardians site just after it was posted.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... e-removed/

Peezus cannot find any problems with it and asks his readers to suggest some.

ChasCPeterson (recently banned by Zvan) points out the rather obvious points about the slant of the article:

It assumes facts not in evidence, such as Zimmerman’s intent. It changes ‘followed’ to “chased down” and “stalked” and ‘tried to apprehend’.
Since the author of the piece is not psychic and does not actually know what happened, much less what anybody involved was thinking, the rhetoric is over the top.
That would be my guess.

He is speaking about the following section:

the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin’s heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. The only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

Now all that might be true, but that interpretation WAS in dispute - and the fact that the jury found reasonable doubt in whether it was a salient fact or not is surely the reason why Zimmerman was acquitted.

[Hunt]

Ophelia's having a bit of trouble with her regulars over an image she chose to use to illustrate a story about the Texas legislature banning abortions after 20 weeks. She makes a point about some Fox news idiot making a sick joke about Liberals need to stock up on coar hanger and then uses a picture of a naked woman bent over what looks like towels or blankets that are soaked in blood.
I think the idea was to provide a visual shock to illustrate the dangers of old-style non-medical assisted abortions, but this provokes a few demands for 'trigger warnings' which Ophelia is, at the moment, refusing:

but the picture was meant to shock. That was the point. I don’t really want to get rid of all shock.

http://www.freezepage.com/1373803725TRAJOBICEY

So people tell her it can be shocking or offensive to them and she refuses to remove it?
Shouldn't the response be to remove the image or words that are offensive to others?
Isn't that what she tells everyone else? :think:

The "sigh, I suppose I can" part isn't going to win her any points either. What's next, "let them eat cake"?