Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!


BowieTalk
   >> Read It in the Tea Leaves
Thread views: 4259 *Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | (show all)
WildWind
(acolyte)
09/20/07 03:27 PM
Nuances new [re: forgetthatim50]  

In reply to:

is'nt this mychal bells 4th conviction?


Had his conviction been upheld (it was vacated a few days ago), it would have been his fifth, actually. But that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

People seem to be confusing support of the Jena 6 legal defense with "they're innocent and did nothing wrong." That's not the case here. As I said in my previous post, the issue isn't necessarily that the black kids were prosecuted (though that is in itself arguable given the provocation), it's that only the black kids were prosecuted to this extent. Bowie's quotation that "There is clearly a separate and unequal judicial process going on in the town of Jena," sums the issue up pretty well.

"What's Tonga?" - Christopher Meloni

Strawman
(chameleon, comedian, corinthian and caricature)
09/20/07 04:31 PM
Re: Nuances new [re: WildWind]  

Of course in my day all of the those kids would've got six of the best, kicked the shit out of each other afterwards and no politicians, judges or fucking rock star would've got involved.

Present day:

All of those kids should've been expelled and served one years community service, or whatever it's called out there.



Starlite
(acolyte)
09/20/07 08:46 PM
Re: Nuances new [re: WildWind]  

Indeed. This is why most supporters are demanding "Justice for the Jena 6" and not, I dunno, "Getting off scot-free with no questions asked for the Jena 6."


"I have had contact with a vagina."
--strangeDivine

riley
(crash course raver)
09/21/07 01:32 AM
Re: Too complex for some new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:

The problem, Riley, isn't necessarily that the black kids were prosecuted, it's that only the black kids were prosecuted to this extent. Offenders in white-on-black incidents were given a slap on the wrist (and in the original noose-hanging case, the three-day-suspension slap was against the recommendation of the school's principal, who wanted the kids expelled). In contrast to the light punishments given to the white offenders who engaged in activity that was equally criminal,


I'm sorry but unless they were trying to actually hang kids from those nooses [assault/attempted murder] it's not as equally criminal as bashing someone.. it is a threat however and no they weren't punnished sufficiently. This I agree with.

In reply to:

they're trying to send the black kids up the river. If you can't see how racially motivated this is, you're either blind or willfully ignorant. Or possibly stupid.


wow.. I didn't realise how much of a cunt you can be.
Read again:

In reply to:

'm fine with anonymous donations.. even agree with it as I agree the charges have been hardened but I'm disapointed one side has now been 'endorsed' over the other. What I'm reading on the net basically paints them as innocent victims.


Campaigns where kids go to school wearing black jumpers in support of Jena 6 proves this.. not only is this actively encouraging segregation.. there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment or respect for the actual violence that took place. only excuses of nooses, bias and school yard politics.. sorry but thats a fucking copout. it doesn't justify beating someone up and even you have not expressed one iota of sympathy for the bashing victim, on the contrary,. you have implied he deserved it by listing all that occured beforehand yet you still felt compelled to call this cause 'noble' .
Being against racism means being against ALL forms of racism.. not picking and choosing and thinking it's acceptable because it's PC.

In reply to:

As I said in my previous post, the issue isn't necessarily that the black kids were prosecuted (though that is in itself arguable given the provocation),


From what I've read this [chain of events] started because a black kid went and sat under what was deemed the 'white tree' [they'd already self segregated obviously but I wouldn't assume it was just the whites idea]. Given the fact thats where kids sit in the playground is considered 'territory' I'm pretty sure that that kid would have known that would get a reaction..[no doubt he/she did that in reaction to something else].
That provocation did not justify the nooses being hung anymore than the nooses justified the bashing.
First you say it's not about them being charged but the excessive charge.. yet still manage to imply that he may have deserved it [violence is okay sometimes]
Don't worry.. judging by all the news reports and message boards you're not alone.

riley
(crash course raver)
09/21/07 06:19 AM
Re: Too complex for some new [re: riley]  

In reply to:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/19/jena.six.link/?
iref=mpstoryview

Racial tension in the town increased after the noose incident. In November, someone burned the main academic building. The arson has not been solved, but many believe the incident is linked to racial tension




that little.. tidbit is absent from most news reports. they've probably got no use for it.

WildWind
(acolyte)
09/21/07 08:54 AM
Like I said, nuanced new [re: riley]  

In reply to:

they're trying to send the black kids up the river. If you can't see how racially motivated this is, you're either blind or willfully ignorant. Or possibly stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow.. I didn't realise how much of a cunt you can be.


Sorry. I meant this as general-you, i.e., you can rewrite the sentence to say "If one can't see how racially motivated this is, then one is either blind or willfully ignorant. Or possibly stupid."

I agree that some of the support of the Jena 6 is misguided and oversimplified. But your view is too. This particular situation, and racism in general, is a very nuanced issue. There are questions of privilege and oppression and history.

In reply to:

you have implied he deserved it by listing all that occured beforehand yet you still felt compelled to call this cause 'noble' .


I did not imply that I am of the belief that he deserved it and that's it, case closed. My suggestion was that there was provocation, which makes this case more complex than just "BEATING-BAD." I don't have all the answers and neither do you. But what I do know for a fact is that in this particular case, justice was inequitably applied based on race. And yes, battling that inequity is noble.

In reply to:

Given the fact thats where kids sit in the playground is considered 'territory' I'm pretty sure that that kid would have known that would get a reaction


Well, duh. If people didn't do this, we'd have no civil rights movement. Note that the actions of the original kid who tried to sit under the tree were entirely peaceful. And hanging nooses from a tree when a member of a historically oppressed minority group tries to exercise his civil rights is an order of magnitude more threatening than one white dude even explicitly saying to another, "No way dude, I'll kill you if you sit there."

In reply to:

that little.. tidbit is absent from most news reports. they've probably got no use for it.


Dude, if you're going to be pissy about people picking and choosing facts to support their argument, you might want to be a little more thorough yourself. Particularly about the black kids being attacked with beer bottles by white kids at a party, and the white kid pulling a gun on black kids a few days later, all of which occurred between the noose-hanging and the incident in question. All of which were punished by slaps on the wrist.

"What's Tonga?" - Christopher Meloni

guiltpuppy
(stardust savant)
09/21/07 12:39 PM
Re: Too complex for some new [re: riley]  

In reply to:

that little.. tidbit is absent from most news reports. they've probably got no use for it.



Can you state more clearly what you're implying there? Because the only way I can see that supporting your other points is if you make a fairly racist assumption, but I'm trying to be fair here, so clarify.

But anyway, I think you've put yourself in a pretty hopeless situation, even if a lot of what you're saying isn't that off-base. Face it: A white kid got sent to the hospital for two hours, his attackers are threatened with 22 years in prison, and your response was to feel incensed that white civil liberties were being inadequately defended! Is the absurdity of that not clear to you?

TW's Top Fag!

riley
(crash course raver)
09/22/07 00:23 AM
Re: Like I said, nuanced new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:

Sorry. I meant this as general-you, i.e., you can rewrite the sentence to say "If one can't see how racially motivated this is, then one is either blind or willfully ignorant. Or possibly stupid."


er-okay. i thought you were just parroting guiltpuppy's "so theres".

Asserting racial objectivity is not stupid.

In reply to:

I agree that some of the support of the Jena 6 is misguided and oversimplified.


there is a petition getting around saying "free the jena 6".. they seem very much connected to the 'wear all black' mob.. why do they want them freed? I thought they just wanted justice.. unless they think the bashing was justified.

In reply to:

But your view is too.


Actually I thought I already said that it was quite complex issue..

In reply to:

This particular situation, and racism in general, is a very nuanced issue. There are questions of privilege and oppression and history.


this is very true.. though I hope you don't believe this oppression is restricted to certain races [ie. all that aren't white].. that would be ignorant.

In reply to:

I did not imply that I am of the belief that he deserved it and that's it, case closed.


well.. yeah you did. you said that their guilt for the bashing was arguable given the provocation..

In reply to:

You said My suggestion was that there was provocation, which makes this case more complex than just "BEATING-BAD." I don't have all the answers and neither do you. But what I do know for a fact is that in this particular case, justice was inequitably applied based on race. And yes, battling that inequity is noble.


The noose incident [the thing you kept saying was the trigger for the bashing] happened three months prior. thats some delayed reaction. the kid that got bashed apparently was not the kid that hung the nooses.. judging from what i've read on message boards most think he is. I haven't confirmed this.. I can't really be arsed atm as most references to are from unrelated people who only heared it from someone else but you can look into it if you're willing.

In reply to:

Well, duh. If people didn't do this, we'd have no civil rights movement.


have cliques been abolished now? you must have been homeschooled.

In reply to:

Note that the actions of the original kid who tried to sit under the tree were entirely peaceful.


peaceful? if it had've been a white kid who sat in the black kids lunch/hangout area.. would that be seen as peaceful too?

In reply to:

And hanging nooses from a tree when a member of a historically oppressed minority group tries to exercise his civil rights is an order of magnitude more threatening than one white dude even explicitly saying to another, "No way dude, I'll kill you if you sit there."


of course i don't condone the noose reaction.. i think it's disgusting but i don't buy the idea that the black kids were passive bystanders either.

In reply to:

Dude, if you're going to be pissy about people picking and choosing facts to support their argument, you might want to be a little more thorough yourself.


Firstly.. we hadn't really gotten past noose=gang bashing subject. Secondly, ommiting half a school being burnt down isn't something you just plain 'forget'.. though most news articles don't mention it. Why not? they mention the nooses alot though. I'm not just talking about yourself and guiltpuppy not mentioning it but media outlets. they seem only interested in painting one side as the aggressor and the other the victim and getting masses of people really fucking pissed off. thats called propoganda.

In reply to:

Particularly about the black kids being attacked with beer bottles by white kids at a party,


Hey at least they got invited to the same party!
..hey wait a sec.. that doesn't make any sense. why would they be at the same party if there was so much racial annomosity between these groups? i mean they couldn't even sit under the same tree! ..right? so who crashed who's party? not excusing the throwing bottles.. but i just think it's painfully fucking obvious we're only being given half the story. the end part of it.. that version of events contradicts itself.

In reply to:

and the white kid pulling a gun on black kids a few days later,


again. only half the story. the part where the guy in the cape is twirling his mo and tieing the girl to the train tracks.
that white kid may have pulled a gun on some innocent black kids at a poetry recital in a book cafe because he hates blacks.. or he might have pulled a gun after seeing baseball bats. give me these events in context and i might be alot less skeptical.

riley
(crash course raver)
09/22/07 01:27 AM
Re: Too complex for some new [re: guiltpuppy]  

In reply to:

Can you state more clearly what you're implying there? Because the only way I can see that supporting your other points is if you make a fairly racist assumption, but I'm trying to be fair here, so clarify.


why do you keep trying this tactic? i already said that calling me racist won't make me back down.
Alright then.. why would a news outlet ommit news?
To sell more newspapers you fucking dolt. it's clear they are pouring petrol on the fire by deliberately trying to create more racial friction. guess what? when two groups hate eachother.. they sometime clash. VIOLENCE IS NEWS; the [public] time line has all these evil things whites did.. and ends with an assault by blacks. the fire doesn't 'belong' to anyone and if it's discovered that a black was guilty of it they wouldn't be able to paint the black kids as victims anymore and civil rights groups might distance themselves and the case would lose momentum/support. rather than have that question marks hanging.. it's better to pretend it's not there and no one will ask about who burnt down the school because most don't even know/care about it or are too revved up already over emotive subjects like nooses.
I think it's called wearing blinkers.

In reply to:

anyway, I think you've put yourself in a pretty hopeless situation, even if a lot of what you're saying isn't that off-base. Face it: A white kid got sent to the hospital for two hours,


my auntie had major heart surgery and was out in four. you can get shot and be home the same day.. just because that bullet didn't kill you doesn't mean they weren't aiming.

In reply to:

his attackers are threatened with 22 years in prison,


And you put it in bold too! how clever. I think it was in my first reply that I said I don't think they should go to jail for 20 years. said it twice now. Repeating and arguing points I already agree with just shows you're not really trying at all. maybe you should just call me a racist again.

guiltpuppy
(stardust savant)
09/22/07 05:35 AM
Re: Too complex for some new [re: riley]  

In reply to:

if it had've been a white kid who sat in the black kids lunch/hangout area.. would that be seen as peaceful too?



Um... yeah, it would have. In fact, I can't imagine what bizarro world you live in where a white kid trying to cross color lines is seen (de facto!) as an act of aggression.

In reply to:

i think it's disgusting but i don't buy the idea that the black kids were passive bystanders either.



Holy god! You consider it an act of provocation if a black kid sits down in an area normally populated by whites? Hell, that kid even asked the principal's permission first!

In reply to:

Firstly.. we hadn't really gotten past noose=gang bashing subject. Secondly, ommiting half a school being burnt down isn't something you just plain 'forget'.. though most news articles don't mention it. Why not? they mention the nooses alot though. I'm not just talking about yourself and guiltpuppy not mentioning it but media outlets. they seem only interested in painting one side as the aggressor and the other the victim and getting masses of people really fucking pissed off. thats called propoganda.



The media coverage is terribly dumb, I'm not contesting that. They're interested in creating controversy, but there's no real need for controversy. It's very obvious that there's a huge miscarriage of justice going on, and a totally unequal application of justice.

In reply to:

And you put it in bold too! how clever.



And you used an exclamation point! How clever. You also used the quote function. How very clever! You also made it clear that you are capable of observing my formatting decisions. Supremely clever! Too bad you weren't clever enough to respond to my point.

In reply to:

I think it was in my first reply that I said I don't think they should go to jail for 20 years. said it twice now. Repeating and arguing points I already agree with just shows you're not really trying at all. maybe you should just call me a racist again.



You're still missing my point, there. Read the part beyond what you quoted (sorry if my bold type distracted you from the end of the sentence!). To make it clearer, I'll ask you a simple question (although you've tended to ignore these): Why should a civil liberties group be involved on behalf of someone whose civil liberties are being vastly, vastly overprotected?

I'm not calling you a racist. I'm explaining that you're a racist. See my clever use of italics? It's to emphasize the two disparate concepts that you seem to be confusing with one another.

TW's Top Fag!


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | (show all)
*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!


Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems