Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 6 of 6 pages
modern liberalism's excesses
Denying race: still the new racism. And SBB's preferred flavor.
Are you ever going to address the false and exaggerated public accounts of this incident and their experiences issued forth by the Glanvilles? You know, the stuff you've airbrushed out of existence?
The cop presumed guilt *because he was black.*
I thought denying that there is such a thing as race was the province of liberals.
False. The cop questioned Glanville because Glanville fit the description of the complaint the cop was investigating -- black, male, in his 40s, carrying a shovel (*). See all those different factors? See how that's several factors and not just one ("black")?
I forget what subject you teach but hopefully it's something fluffy in the liberal arts arena (history, political science, literature, performing arts) that doesn't involve logical thinking.
Again, because he was black.
But don't worry; I understand Bruce Springsteen is going to perform his new song "American Shoveling" at the next West Hartford Town Hall meeting. He'll be emoting and have a pained look on his face as he sings "One rude question... One rude question..." over and over again, sweat pouring off his brow.
Chait's cover story on Obama and race had a very telling data point showing the wholesale flight from reality of the white modern liberal. The split in unfavorable reaction to the OJ verdict among white Democrats and white Republicans was a mere four percent (57-53). The split in unfavorable reaction to a similarly racially-charged incident -- the George Zimmerman verdict -- was 43 points.
Again, there were other factors involved, and "black" was about as relevant as "purple shoes" would have been.
Because RayBot's algorithm says so. Beautiful.
Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.
If there had been no actual complaint; if the cop wasn't actually investigating anything; if the description of the person being complained about didn't fit Glanville; if the cop didn't simply turn around once Glanville answered; then maybe we could explore this fantasy about racism or racial profiling being involved.
You can call me a robot and turn around with your hand in the air looking for high fives from all your progressive friends, but the charge is ironic because the person here who is following a narrative without stopping to think whether it makes any sense in this case is you.
Please, keep going with this for another 300 posts, and then tell us how you're driven purely by cool logic rather than emotion. You're the one pouring hours of his life into loudly and publicly insisting that you are more qualified than Glanville to speak to the particulars of the incident.
to speak to the particulars of the incident
And yet this must be the weakest effort of slander in the history of the internet, because you can google from now to Sunday and his name still hasn't been revealed by Glanville or anyone else in the lynch mob.
It's not a matter of who is more "qualified" to speak. Anyone with knowledge of the relevant facts is "qualified." This is yet another display of your limitations in these areas.
Either we're judging people and incidents -- all people and incidents -- on their individual facts and actions, or we're not. Which is it?
He used it as an excuse to talk about the problem of racial profiling, acknowledging how his own class privilege allows him the ability to do so. And he we are, 500+ posts later, discussing what Glanville did wrong. Crazy town.
If Glanville himself had asked for anything more punitive than that
The bottom line is that the motivation for both Glanville's complaint and Glanville's article was raising awareness and deterring future incidents like this,
You don't know anything about the topic. You're an ideologue, committed not to objectivity and exploration and data, but to a narrative. Your tools and conclusions are the sociological equivalent of "grit," "clutch," and "closer's mentality."
Yes. Thank god for this "deterrence." I'm sure no cops will ever speak to us rudely again.
Do you really think this will "deter" cops from rude behavior even a tiny bit?
It is almost - almost I say - as if you really didn't have anything else to say and were afraid of my questions. Hmmmm.
You wanted to use this incident involving no evidence of racism or racial bias to talk about the issue of racism and racial bias, because the "possibility" can't be ruled out that somewhere deep in the cop's mind he was race-obsessed
You wanted to use this incident involving no evidence of racism or racial bias to talk about the issue of racism and racial bias, because the "possibility" can't be ruled out that somewhere deep in the cop's mind he was race-obsessed.
Didn't the guy profile Glanville?
How is it not the case?
Someone in W. Hartford reported a black guy going door to door asking to shovel snow for money. Roughly 40, carrying a shovel. Cop goes a few blocks, slips into Hartford, comes upon Glanville shoveling snow, rudely asks him if he's shoveling for money. Glanville says this is my house, cop says ok, enjoy shoveling.
Ridiculous and silly and worthy of Glanville getting pissed off about. Not racial.
The false and exaggerated account of the Glanvilles and their attribution of racial profiling/animus to the situation when it wasn't there.
Saw the thread title. Saw the post count.
No -- as that stacks the deck "procedurally" in favor of your issues. The predicates were not met for a discussion of your issues, as the author of the cited essay did not in fact personally experience them. Moreover, the essay actually raised other issues of equal or greater importance to your issues.
do you think that a White cop has the right to pull me over when i have not broken any laws to ask me "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (which is a DWB stop)
- do you think that a White cop has the right to pull me over when i have not broken any laws to ask me "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (which is a DWB stop)
- and do you think i have the right to reply - why have you pulled me over? instead of directly answering his question, which is actually not only none of his business, but rude?
Do you really think that any West Hartford policeman is going to keep framing his introductory "questions" in the form of an accusation, as Martyr Policeman did to Glanville?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.8498 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed