DU is funny. When a case comes up touching on racism, sexism, LGBT discrimation,

[denem]

or poverty, not to mention race hatred, misogyny, homophobia, the oppressed nor hate crimes in general, there will be those playing defense attorney, carefully dissecting the known facts and conjectures, seeking and expressing counter argument and doubt.

While not beyond interest in itself, what is striking is the stident denials of, or at best lip service to, the wider context, let alone the deep bigotry and hatred that runs beneath the ripples of polite conversation. 'Yes, there MAY be racism, sexism or LGBT discrimination in America but THIS case is NOT one of them'. And neither is the Next nor the Next.

Some 'stick to the facts attorneys' here denounce ANY discussion of wider, darker realities. They're not AT ALL relevant to THIS case, and perhaps not that relevant in general.

So controversial and noteworthy cases become opportunities to decry accounts and analysis of hatred, bigotry and the reality of the mean streets. Don't talk with the passion of personal experience about the obscenities of injustice, nor, above all, the fault lines in society. It's not relevant. In this case. On these facts. So STFU.

[Obama2012]

1. +1

[Raineyb]

2. I wish I could recommend this more than once

You're spot on in describing my frustrations on this board.

[RainDog]

3. kick n/t

[izzybeans]

4. a lot of those 'stick to the facts attorneys' only play attorney on the internets.

[denem]

6. "those playing defense attorney"

for whatever reason: inclination, beliefs, prejudice, or an intellectual game, other than wanting to limit the scope of discussion, who knows?

[Wednesdays]

5. K&R

:kick:

[HughMoran]

7. K&R!

Fortunately I used this latest debacle as an opportunity to put those people you describe on ignore. Whew!

[denem]

8. ...

[sandnsea]

9. THIS case is one of an overzealous cop

Why can't actually be proven. In fact, he may not have been racially motivated but got his ego out of joint because his authority was challenged, like so many cops do. Doesn't matter, he was still wrong.

[AspenRose]

10. Thank you.

[Jade Fox]

11. Yes, it is very strange and disturbing.....

that so many seem to need to deny discrimination, or claim that if it hasn't happened to THEM, then it never happens at all.

I suspect it is a combination of guilt and self-absorption on the part of these deniers: If discrimination exists, it must mean they have to feel guilty about it, since everything is about them. Or they do the above and deny discrimination's existence at all because it hasn't happened to them personally. OR, they claim to have experienced the exact same thing in spite of being a different race/gender/orientation.

[Number23]

27. Beautifully said.

OR, they claim to have experienced the exact same thing in spite of being a different race/gender/orientation.

When the incident first happened, the board was flooded with white people saying "the EXACT same thing happened to me/my daughter/my nephew etc. and I didn't think it was discrimination!"

As the days went by, two things happened. A) many of these people realized what happened to them was NOT the same thing as what happened to Dr. Gates and b) many, many more white people said "I'm white and I realize that had this happened to me, I would have lost my cool every bit as badly as Dr. Gates did if not far, far worse."

[Jade Fox]

47. Good to hear there's been some evolution in thinking.....

about this event here on DU. :)

Your last line rings true to me. I think most people would have responded with anger in Gate's situation.

[mullard12ax7]

12. Outstanding observation

It happens almost everywhere, not just here, the vast middle-of-the-road conspiracy it's been called. People try to convince themselves that ugly things are extreme cases rather than being common place.

[TexasObserver]

13. FYI: These "attorneys" of which you speak are never actually attorneys.

Attorneys almost all line up the same on key legal matters here.

It's the people who don't know a blessed thing about law that like to parse here. They're the Walter Mitty attorneys, whose legal knowledge exists only in their imagination.

Any real attorney should know that the cop set up Mr. Gates, induced him to come outside to set up the arrest, and contrived the entire thing to facilitate the arrest. By getting Gates to come outside, the cop was able to claim he was arresting Gates for Disorderly Conduct, and allegation he could not have made inside the house.

[denem]

14. "playing attorneys", I was drawing an analogy only.

The rules of evidence in court are utterly appropriate to debates covering social justice.

[TexasObserver]

15. I understand. I agree with your OP.

Some might not understand, however.

[denem]

17. Well I just got a negative rec, but I doubt lack of 'understanding'

was the motivation.

[TexasObserver]

20. probably one of the Law & Order wannabes

[BunkerHill24]

16. Excellent point, TexasObserver

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[ShamelessHussy]

19. It is interesting that I never heard the situation broken down like that in the M$M

We mostly just get the enablers, and apologist side of it. :puke:

Just another reason I enjoy the www so much more.

:toast:

[TexasObserver]

21. I can tell you what likely happened.

The police officer went into the home and had a conversation with Mr. Gates. While inside, Gates said some things to the officer he didn't like. He fumed. He kept his cool, but he was pissed. He decided to arrest Gates, and the charge would be Disorderly Conduct. He induced Gates to follow him outside, because he knew he had to be outside the house to claim Disorderly Conduct. Outside, he would have the key missing component: witnesses from the public.


This cop is smart. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knows how to make a case, and he knows the elements he needs for a charge. He had to get Gates outside to find a way to arrest him, once he knew that the professor lived there.

The cop admitted that Gates pissed him off by saying something about the cop's mother. That's typically the way cops mischaracterize being called an SOB by someone they arrest.

[ShamelessHussy]

22. Thank you for sharing your insight, it makes a lot of sense considering what went down

I have a question... could Mr. Gates have legally refused to comply with the officers request/order to step outside?

[TexasObserver]

23. Yes, and Gates should have remained in his home and not stepped outside.

Gates should have told the officer his name, that he lived there, and asked the officer to call Harvard if he needed verification. Gates should not have gone outside. Any time you are inside your house, you have rights you lose the second you "voluntarily" step outside.

Wouldn't hurt to whip out the cell phone and start videoing, either. A recording of the event is your best evidence to counter lies that cops will otherwise easily get away with. Cops lie to make cases, all the time, everywhere.

[ShamelessHussy]

25. Thank you. This has certainly been a teachable moment

And that is one of the biggest lessons learned so far.

:toast:

[ShamelessHussy]

18. I run into the denial everywhere in the white community... it runs very deep.

And I certainly don't mean to imply that only whites are in denial, not at all.

And yes, the folks who try to claim no one has a right to an opinion because either
a. they were not there
b. they are not 'qualified'

are absurd in the extreme with their only purpose being to try to stifle the discussion.

another "point" they ALWAYS try to make that I've noticed, is that "not everything is racism" (or whatever ism) as if that somehow automatically means that this particular topic is now non-valid... and they do it EVERY TIME, in effect, there is NEVER a time when an ism is taking place worthy of discussion. It boggles the mind.

Those 2 tactics seem to be the default positions and often times, their only position.

Fortunately, on DU we can, and do, challenge them, unlike the M$M who often let such sophists ramble on.

[mrs_p]

24. i'd super recommend

if it were possible.

[Number23]

26. And I have a feeling I know EXACTLY who you are talking about.

:)
Kicked and Rec'd

[Karenina]

28. Great analysis!

:toast:

[Starry Messenger]

29. I can't believe this only has 37 recs.

++++++

Thank you for putting it so well.

[Echo In Light]

30. Rec

[KG]

31. +infinity

i don't find it funny. i find it sad, and relevatory.

[JI7]

32. like the kids being kicked out of the swimming pool ?

[Brewman_Jax]

33. K&R

Sadly, this is so true. :(

[Warren Stupidity]

34. thank you

[Spazito]

35. Well said!

Recommended.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Error:

you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours.

So well said.

[madinmaryland]

37. Funny, but I thought this was "GENERAL DISCUSSION". The last time I checked

discusstion involves more than "+1" or "Yes, you are right."

[Robb]

42. Yes

You are right.


































:hides:




















:D

OT: Speaking for myself, it's a lot to think about, and I'm going to do so. But it's hard not to reply, even if you don't have something to add yet.

[bridgit]

38. Pft, whada'ya talk'n; DU's *issue police* alone are a fucking laugh riot

[etherealtruth]

39. Its disconcerting, K and R +++++++

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. On person's "wider context" is another person's stereotype.

Personally, I am much more comfortable dealing with each situation rather than trying to fit the facts into a narrative of my choosing.

[MellowDem]

41. I'm glad this is the case....

It has nothing to do with "playing defense attorney" and everything to do with DU being a place that relies on facts and not group think. There are critical thinkers on here, and that scares a lot of people. When there is a case where discrimination is possible, there is a much larger contingent that will automatically assume racism, sexism, etc. regardless of the facts or with the absence of facts and will go so far as to accuse others of racism, sexism, etc. for disagreeing with them. If that's not shutting down discussion I don't know what is. You definitely won't get a critical discussion of wider, darker realities that way.

I don't see anyone shutting down critical discussion of the wider context as much as people shutting down any critical thinking and promoting group think. The presumption is guilt if it is someone that doesn't fit into the progressive stereotype and innocence if they do. It's pretty disgusting and I understand why many are critical on here of such thinking. We don't want to become like Free Republic.

I have as of yet to see anyone denounce a discussion of wider, darker realities. It just pisses the fuck out of some people that their sacred cow and view of the world is being challenged. They can't handle it, so they strike out and accuse others of not toeing the "rah rah" cheerleader line of blindly following.

[Robb]

43. Indeed. Two important equations here

1) Disagreement =/ censorship, and

2) Agreement =/ cheerleading. :)

[Raineyb]

44. Of course you're glad that's the case.

You always find some reason why some racist incident is not really a racist incident. You are the epitome of exactly what the OP was talking about.

[MellowDem]

45. If that's the case...

then you are the epitome of what my post was talking about, so of course you'll disagree with me.

[bridgit]

46. You're saying the OP is calling out racists @ DU?

[ruggerson]

48. What I find sad is the people who are appalled by one kind of discrimination

and perpetuate another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8548754

[bridgit]

50. I find sad that so many here think there *is* only one kind of discrimination...

[ruggerson]

51. completely agreed n/t

[Seldona]

49. STFU?

:rofl:

[mountains539]

52. new idea

ive got this new idea for income based on the current news

here you go

first......get yourself an ID card of some sort with the address of a house you would like to break into
second, if you are not black or latin maybe get a really dark tan

third.....jimmy the lock on the door of the house and make your way inside and start helping yourself to whatever you want.

when and if the police show up, show them the ID. they apparently are not allowed to question your presence there after you show the ID.
if, after you show the ID the police continue to question you start calling them racist or bigot or some such.....maybe after the president of the united states has admonished the police, the police may not be inclined to continue with an arrest.

tada, there you go

I already know all the assumptions DU will make about me, that's fine. im used to that
what I also know is that I wasnt there, I dont know the cop. I dont know Gates.
I do know that the police have a VERY difficult job. I also know that there are LOTS of racist cops out there that enjoy the opportunity to use their power to discriminate against citizens based on their ethnicity.
I just think it might be a problem if EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a public incident of a white police officer arresting a non white suspect under any type of unclear situation, DU almost unanimously knee jerks against the police officer.

now, you might say it was a very clear situation..........well, i beg to differ......see the first portion of my post, while Gates was not "up to no good" that possibly could have not clear to the police officer.