White Girl Bleed A Lot

UncleBuck said:
[SIZE=-1] The Three Strands of the Language of Closet Racism



Three language indicators of closet racism are evident across the continuum. These are what I refer to as "strands" because, when woven together, they form the language web of closet racists. Again, strength of language and degree of racist attitudes change dramatically across the continuum, and as a result, these strands, or indicators are more readily observable in certain individuals and groups than in others. They include fear, unaware-ness, and dis-ownership.



Consider the following excerpt taken from Jen's reaction paper from the first class meeting of Multicultural Education:



The idea of political correctness with the black race astounds me. I found it extremely interesting that some blacks in our class prefer to be called African American. In all of my classes...I have felt like I was stepping on egg shells as to not offend the blacks in my class. I am honestly glad it is not that big of an issue to my fellow classmates--it promotes a more comfortable, genuine environment for me to be totally honest and carefree.



Jen reflected each strand of the language of closet racism within this short passage. These strands can be un-woven as follows:



1. fear: "I have felt like I was stepping on egg shells as to not offend blacks in my classes..."
2. unaware-ness: "I found it extremely interesting that some blacks in our class prefer to be called African American."
3. dis-ownership: "I am honestly glad it is not that big of an issue to my fellow classmates."



Some would argue that Jen's statements as pulled apart above are arbitrary, or taken out of context. But as we consider a year's worth of interviews and written reactions, and as we discuss each strand separately, a language pattern--the language of a closet racist--undeniably emerges.

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Almost, are you arguing with the voices in your head again? They are not real. You're safe. The voices are not real.
 
PeyoteReligion said:
Ive heard of the "it's a trap reference" to star wars, it just didn't click.

But you can see how I jumped to alien and foreign tho right? Looks like a foreign car to me...just dont get the car reference still...
Click to expand...

So, you are a peyote religionist then? Have you been the water, a tree, a rock? Have you flown with the silver cord attached. Can you walk accross a flowing river? Have you been any of the wild desert animals? can you feel them when they are near? Can you feel a rattlesnake at 100 yards? If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be on the right track, and oh yes, I almost forgot, have you see the Thunderbird? Having experienced all of the above while under the influence of Peyote, I feel I know a little about the experiences, although I'm far from an expert, I've seen a few things, have you? If so, please elaborate. Interested in Vegas, medicineman.
 
medicineman said:
So, you are a peyote religionist then? Have you been the water, a tree, a rock? Have you flown with the silver cord attached. Can you walk accross a flowing river? Have you been any of the wild desert animals? can you feel them when they are near? Can you feel a rattlesnake at 100 yards? If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be on the right track, and oh yes, I almost forgot, have you see the Thunderbird? Having experienced all of the above while under the influence of Peyote, I feel I know a little about the experiences, although I'm far from an expert, I've seen a few things, have you? If so, please elaborate. Interested in Vegas, medicineman.
Click to expand...


is it legit if you use san pedro instead?
 
BigLittlejohn said:
You are the one saying there is no evidence. I am saying there is no smoking gun evidence. It's not paranoia when you sound very much in your questions, posts and positions exactly like those I have heard and seen who are exactly what you claim not to be. Above you posed this question: "If the races of perpetrators and victims were reversed, do you think this might have made the national news?"

Fact is everyday crime is not national news, but it is news when a grown man shoots an unarmed teenager and it takes a national outcry for something to be done about it legally. And I am not even saying Zimmerman is guilty, only that he should have been arrested for it. If in the examples you raised, the perpetrators were prosecuted, you have your answer as to why it wasn't national news. But I think you knew this which is why you ignored my first post and why you ignored my post to you about "profiling" in another thread and would rather focus on these sorts of posts. Why do police term Black men as "#1 males" when black men make up, what 12% of the country's males? Because that is the profile they have created for criminals which is in and of itself inherently racist.

Statistics show that crime is not a race issue at all, but rather a socio-economic issue. It just so happens that minorities disproportionately represent the poorest segments of our society. But I am sure Jim Crow had nothing to do with that at all.

Diving what you think based on what you say is actually a reasonable response, and not paranoia. And it is crystal clear. It's no longer fashionable to be a racist in America, so racists actually have to hide behind other issues in stating their racist agenda. This may or may not apply to you....I don't know.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Do you honestly think if a gang of 50 young white men went on a rampage at a state fair and assaulted a young black woman that would not have made the news?

I don't recall your post about "profiling" in any thread. You sound like an intelligent guy. I normally respond to intelligent people.

I have never heard the term "#1 male" before. What does it mean?
 
UncleBuck said:
[SIZE=-1] The Three Strands of the Language of Closet Racism



Three language indicators of closet racism are evident across the continuum. These are what I refer to as "strands" because, when woven together, they form the language web of closet racists. Again, strength of language and degree of racist attitudes change dramatically across the continuum, and as a result, these strands, or indicators are more readily observable in certain individuals and groups than in others. They include fear, unaware-ness, and dis-ownership.



Consider the following excerpt taken from Jen's reaction paper from the first class meeting of Multicultural Education:



The idea of political correctness with the black race astounds me. I found it extremely interesting that some blacks in our class prefer to be called African American. In all of my classes...I have felt like I was stepping on egg shells as to not offend the blacks in my class. I am honestly glad it is not that big of an issue to my fellow classmates--it promotes a more comfortable, genuine environment for me to be totally honest and carefree.



Jen reflected each strand of the language of closet racism within this short passage. These strands can be un-woven as follows:



1. fear: "I have felt like I was stepping on egg shells as to not offend blacks in my classes..."
2. unaware-ness: "I found it extremely interesting that some blacks in our class prefer to be called African American."
3. dis-ownership: "I am honestly glad it is not that big of an issue to my fellow classmates."



Some would argue that Jen's statements as pulled apart above are arbitrary, or taken out of context. But as we consider a year's worth of interviews and written reactions, and as we discuss each strand separately, a language pattern--the language of a closet racist--undeniably emerges.

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I actually went to the trouble of a google search to find the source of this drivel:

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/langofracism2.html

This guy sounds like a bigger mudscuttle than you, Almost.
 
UncleBuck said:
[SIZE=-1] The Three Strands of the Language of Closet Racism



Three language indicators of closet racism are evident across the continuum. These are what I refer to as "strands" because, when woven together, they form the language web of closet racists. Again, strength of language and degree of racist attitudes change dramatically across the continuum, and as a result, these strands, or indicators are more readily observable in certain individuals and groups than in others. They include fear, unaware-ness, and dis-ownership.



Consider the following excerpt taken from Jen's reaction paper from the first class meeting of Multicultural Education:



The idea of political correctness with the black race astounds me. I found it extremely interesting that some blacks in our class prefer to be called African American. In all of my classes...I have felt like I was stepping on egg shells as to not offend the blacks in my class. I am honestly glad it is not that big of an issue to my fellow classmates--it promotes a more comfortable, genuine environment for me to be totally honest and carefree.



Jen reflected each strand of the language of closet racism within this short passage. These strands can be un-woven as follows:



1. fear: "I have felt like I was stepping on egg shells as to not offend blacks in my classes..."
2. unaware-ness: "I found it extremely interesting that some blacks in our class prefer to be called African American."
3. dis-ownership: "I am honestly glad it is not that big of an issue to my fellow classmates."



Some would argue that Jen's statements as pulled apart above are arbitrary, or taken out of context. But as we consider a year's worth of interviews and written reactions, and as we discuss each strand separately, a language pattern--the language of a closet racist--undeniably emerges.

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

No such thing as closet racism, you can't be racist and not know it. A 2 year old could be scared of a big black man, doesn't make him racist.
 
NoDrama said:
Florida SYG law does NOT require you to retreat in ANY way. You got it all wrong.
Click to expand...

desert dude said:
Don't bother them with the details, ND, it's all about "feelings".
Click to expand...



I'd suggest you guys read the statute. It clearly provides for aggressors or initiators of conflict have a duty to retreat before using deadly force.

Chapter 776 of the Florida Stautues provide:
[h=6]776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—[/h]

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:



(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Emboldened sections for emphasis.

There is no way, based on the sequence of events as evidenced by the 911 call and Zimmerman's own account that he should not have been arrested. His actions were carved out of the statute unless he retreated and then fired, which everyone agrees did not happen. Unless someone is going to argue that Martin pulled Zimmerman out of his car, while being outweighed by what, 160 pounds.

Personally, my stake in the case ended when he was arrested. After that, I trust the courts and the attorneys to deal with it and if a jury of his peers finds him not guilty, so be it.

But by all means, don't listen to someone who has actually read and understands the statute.
 
desert dude said:
Oh, please. Do you honestly think if a gang of 50 young white men went on a rampage at a state fair and assaulted a young black woman that would not have made the news?

I don't recall your post about "profiling" in any thread. You sound like an intelligent guy. I normally respond to intelligent people.

I have never heard the term "#1 male" before. What does it mean?
Click to expand...

#1 Male is the term police use to describe a Black male.

As to your question, of course it makes the news because of the historical context of which you seem to be pretending I didn't mention in the very post you quoted. Were the perpetrators arrested/prosecuted?
 
BigLittlejohn said:
I'd suggest you guys read the statute. It clearly provides for aggressors or initiators of conflict have a duty to retreat before using deadly force.

Chapter 776 of the Florida Stautues provide:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—



The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:



(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Emboldened sections for emphasis.

There is no way, based on the sequence of events as evidenced by the 911 call and Zimmerman's own account that he should not have been arrested. His actions were carved out of the statute unless he retreated and then fired, which everyone agrees did not happen. Unless someone is going to argue that Martin pulled Zimmerman out of his car, while being outweighed by what, 160 pounds.

Personally, my stake in the case ended when he was arrested. After that, I trust the courts and the attorneys to deal with it and if a jury of his peers finds him not guilty, so be it.

But by all means, don't listen to someone who has actually read and understands the statute.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you are reading that correctly.

That section is about who can't use stand your ground.

A person that has tried to get someone to attack them can use stand your ground laws if they attempted to leave and was still attacked.

That in no way states you have to try and leave.
 
no, he is reading it correctly.

example: if i shout in your face for ten minutes laying on every despicable pejorative i can throw at you (fighting words) and you punch me in the nose, i can claim you assaulted me under the family car trip "Im not touching you" principle, however if you pull a knife or grab a chunk of concrete and come at me with murder on your agenda then i can defend myself under this moronically written law.

neither the stand your ground law, nor it's subsequent sections applies in the travon martin case.

zimmerman was stalking martin. this is an aaggressive act under every statue law and judicial ruling in the land. he followed martin, by car and on foot, cornered him and martin justifiably reacted in the manner that evolution has prepared, when flight fails, its time to fight. zimmerman being armed only upped the stakes, and trayvon lost his bid to defend himself.

zimmerman is a murderer. he had no right to follow martin, (i presume alternating between nervously fingering his gun, and pulling on his semi-turgid member), no right to corner him in a dark breezeway, and no right to confront martin and demand he justify himself. martin on the other hand had every right to resist the aggression of that asshole. regardless of how effectively he was kicking zimmerman's ass, zimmerman had no justification for drawing his gun and no justification for shooting martin in the fight HE started with his creepy stalking. for all martin knew, zimmerman was a pedagogue looking for a new victim, or a member of the klan scouting for a star for his next lynching. its a shame martin didnt dash zimmernman's tiny brains onto the pavement fast enough.
 
BigLittlejohn said:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—



The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:



(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Click to expand...

That's what he posted. I bolded where it says a person cannot use stand your ground.

So it's saying you can't use it if you provoke the attack unless:
The person who provoked it tries to withdraw and is still attacked.

That does not say you must retreat before you use stand your ground in general.
 
Antidisestablishmentarian said:
That's what he posted. I bolded where it says a person cannot use stand your ground.

So it's saying you can't use it if you provoke the attack unless:
The person who provoked it tries to withdraw and is still attacked.

That does not say you must retreat before you use stand your ground in general.
Click to expand...

zimmerman could not use the defense that he tried to withdraw, as there is no evidence that he tried to withdraw at any time. he followed martin in his car, and then on foot despite being told by the 911 operator to not follow martin. his only defense is

"(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; ..."

but that doesnt fly either, he was armed, his victim was not.

zimmerman has no chance with any self defense argument. he is fucked by his own stupidity. he deserves the lengthy prison time and the inevitable anal rape he has earned by being a dipshit.

the only way he could possibly defend his actions is if his lawyers cook up some silly crap about he believed martin was engaged in, or fleeing a felony, and he was attempting a citizens arrest.

zimmerman is a murderer and a depraved coward of epic proportions.

he started the fight with his stalking, and martin failed in his lawful attempt to defend himself. this does not relieve zimmerman of his culpability.
 
BigLittlejohn said:
I'd suggest you guys read the statute. It clearly provides for aggressors or initiators of conflict have a duty to retreat before using deadly force.

Chapter 776 of the Florida Stautues provide:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—



The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:



(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Emboldened sections for emphasis.

There is no way, based on the sequence of events as evidenced by the 911 call and Zimmerman's own account that he should not have been arrested. His actions were carved out of the statute unless he retreated and then fired, which everyone agrees did not happen. Unless someone is going to argue that Martin pulled Zimmerman out of his car, while being outweighed by what, 160 pounds.

Personally, my stake in the case ended when he was arrested. After that, I trust the courts and the attorneys to deal with it and if a jury of his peers finds him not guilty, so be it.

But by all means, don't listen to someone who has actually read and understands the statute.
Click to expand...

Ummm nope, that law doesn't say you have to retreat, look at the preceding sentence: Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
White Widow auto 17 days with LOTS of foliage but little stretch?
Replies
2
Views
161
MtRainDog
MtRainDog
Hijiri
New Member, Hello!
Replies
16
Views
838
curious2garden
curious2garden
Silver Foxtail
1st inside grow. Week 13: The state of things.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Silver Foxtail
Silver Foxtail
Darkskywa1k3r
First attempt at growing , (White Widow)
Replies
15
Views
1K
1212ham
1
ClaytonNewbilFontaine
For beginners wanting to learn
Replies
4
Views
651
ClaytonNewbilFontaine
ClaytonNewbilFontaine
Back
Top