Do you mean that we don’t prosecute racism (or don’t do so enough), or that racist people influence the judicial system?
Both actually.
I think we’re talking about cases of decades-old legal discrimination, possibly generations-old.
Yes and? Emancipation corrected a generations old wrong, as did the Civil Rights Act (and for that matter the voting Rights Act). Why do we have no obligation to correct things which were done in our name simply because of how long ago they were done?
Show me an example of someone denying the statement “there has been legal racism in the United States”.
You won't see that exact statement. And that wasn't and isn't my point.
There are commenters here who are upset that a white man who was not guilty of the charges was found not guilty of the charges, and they’re upset because of the color of his skin.
You can use my name when you talk about me. No, really, I'm ok with it.
Unfortunately you aren't characterizing my objections correctly, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
My issue, and much of the left's issue, is that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in a case that would have resulted in a black man being convicted of at least one of the many charges. We se the system functioning as it was designed, and we don't agree with that function.
I see proof that there has been legal racism in the US,
Many of those fighting CRT at school boards don't even see this, and they don't appear to want their kids taught even this.
but no proof that there currently is.
There are no longer laws that designate racism the way Jim Crow did. That doesn't mean there is no racism, nor does it mean there is no tolerance for racism in current law.
I don’t believe that it’s in the spirit of the American ideal, and it’s probably not legal, to combat past racial preferences with modern racial preferences.
why the heck not? What's wrong with doing things now that acknowledge the past hurts and seek to remedy them through government action? People who have been discriminated against can't as individuals overcome these injustices without help.
Those would be the options writ large. The issue the Left has is the very vocal parts of the right want everything regarding racism in America to be your first option and are using the label CRT to whip a frenzy to achieve that objective. They aren't engaged in reasoned debate about whether any of the others are acceptable, nor where CRT - the academic version - Actually fits into the discussion.
Republican politicians have created a wave of racial and economic grievance driven by propaganda created fear. They are now trying to ride that wave to permanent minority rule but white conservative males. Owning the libs is just another tactic toward that end.
The facts of this case are that Kyle Rittenhouse received a verdict the system is primed to deliver for him in no small measure because of his gender and race. A person of either differing gender or differing race or both would not likely have received the same verdict.
And given the circumstances that precipitated the demonstrations turned riots that led him to be in Kenosha, those facts are very pertinent to the verdict he was given by a system primed to hand him that verdict.
I haven't received any information telling me his trail was unfair.
Which has been my whole damn point. He got a lot of benefit out of being who he was. He got a lot of benefit out of contradictory laws that were designed to punt on stuff like this for white people. He got a "fair" trial in as much as the system is designed to give him a "fair" trial.
The difference with his mom is a lot of reporting said she drove him. That's bad information, not a "fair" or "unfair" system.
Tamir Rice.
Trayvon Martin.
Eric Garner.
George Floyd.
Breonna Taylor.
Muhammad Aziz and the late Khalil Islam
And so many many more. All received outcomes that were based on the system working as it was designed. So the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse also received an outcome that was as the system was designed is not shocking.
One would hope its clear that the outrage is not aimed at Rittenhouse's outcome but all those others.
I'm saying that a system that railroads people of a certain color over and over and over is, itself, a major problem. I'm saying a system that's designed to ONLY function for a certain combination of skin pigment and gender is a problem. And I'm saying IGNORING the disparate outcomes of that system you agree with what that system delivered today today is a grave moral error.
I don’t think open carry laws go well with people intentionally putting themselves in harm’s way, which is really what happened here. This violated every responsible gun owner rule in the book, even if it was lawful ... I see no problem drawing a line between having a weapon to protect yourself and going out of your way to arm up and join the insanity.
You really don't want to grapple with the meta here, do you?
Rittenhouse got all sorts of positive outcomes because of both his race and gender. Prosecutors may not have tanked the case intentionally, but they didn't withhold exculpatory evidence either. Rittenhouse got a fully functioning criminal law system because the system is designed to work for white men. The two men exonerated yesterday in the Malcolm X slaying had to wait 53 years for the system to function for them in anything close to the same way. One of them died waiting for the system to function for them in the same way.
That's a systemic problem, not an individual actor problem.
The Malcolm X convictions being over turned because the FBI withheld evidence is no hypothetical
The re-investigation found that the FBI and police failed to turn over evidence that cast significant doubt on Islam and Aziz as suspects, according to a court filing.
Well last I checked Bill Cosby had nothing to do with Malcolm X's murder, or the wrongful convictions of two people in that murder. And best I can tell Cosby wasn't any more wrongly convicted then Harvey Weinstein . . . .
On “A Different Look At How We Are Discussing CRT”
Both actually.
Yes and? Emancipation corrected a generations old wrong, as did the Civil Rights Act (and for that matter the voting Rights Act). Why do we have no obligation to correct things which were done in our name simply because of how long ago they were done?
You won't see that exact statement. And that wasn't and isn't my point.
On “Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty On All Counts”
You can use my name when you talk about me. No, really, I'm ok with it.
Unfortunately you aren't characterizing my objections correctly, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
My issue, and much of the left's issue, is that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in a case that would have resulted in a black man being convicted of at least one of the many charges. We se the system functioning as it was designed, and we don't agree with that function.
On “A Different Look At How We Are Discussing CRT”
Many of those fighting CRT at school boards don't even see this, and they don't appear to want their kids taught even this.
There are no longer laws that designate racism the way Jim Crow did. That doesn't mean there is no racism, nor does it mean there is no tolerance for racism in current law.
why the heck not? What's wrong with doing things now that acknowledge the past hurts and seek to remedy them through government action? People who have been discriminated against can't as individuals overcome these injustices without help.
"
Which of your four options do you see as most true and why?
"
Those would be the options writ large. The issue the Left has is the very vocal parts of the right want everything regarding racism in America to be your first option and are using the label CRT to whip a frenzy to achieve that objective. They aren't engaged in reasoned debate about whether any of the others are acceptable, nor where CRT - the academic version - Actually fits into the discussion.
On “Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty On All Counts”
Agreed
"
Republican politicians have created a wave of racial and economic grievance driven by propaganda created fear. They are now trying to ride that wave to permanent minority rule but white conservative males. Owning the libs is just another tactic toward that end.
"
The facts of this case are that Kyle Rittenhouse received a verdict the system is primed to deliver for him in no small measure because of his gender and race. A person of either differing gender or differing race or both would not likely have received the same verdict.
And given the circumstances that precipitated the demonstrations turned riots that led him to be in Kenosha, those facts are very pertinent to the verdict he was given by a system primed to hand him that verdict.
"
You are looking at the trees. We are looking at the forest.
"
That sort of proves my point. Even the local Wisconsin outlets aren't reporting charging or trials or please or convictions.
What conclusion do you draw from that?
"
You tell me. The reporting of the trial seems spot on.
"
no - we've been complaining for years. Its what the protests in Kenosha were all about.
"
How many of the arrestees from last year have been?
"
Trayvon Martin agrees with you. Or he would if he were still alive.
"
I haven't received any information telling me his trail was unfair.
Which has been my whole damn point. He got a lot of benefit out of being who he was. He got a lot of benefit out of contradictory laws that were designed to punt on stuff like this for white people. He got a "fair" trial in as much as the system is designed to give him a "fair" trial.
The difference with his mom is a lot of reporting said she drove him. That's bad information, not a "fair" or "unfair" system.
"
Tamir Rice.
Trayvon Martin.
Eric Garner.
George Floyd.
Breonna Taylor.
Muhammad Aziz and the late Khalil Islam
And so many many more. All received outcomes that were based on the system working as it was designed. So the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse also received an outcome that was as the system was designed is not shocking.
One would hope its clear that the outrage is not aimed at Rittenhouse's outcome but all those others.
"
Well since that's not what I'm saying at all . . .
"
I suppose it does, but that means a whole lot of news outlets on both side of the aisle need to issue retractions.
"
I'm saying that a system that railroads people of a certain color over and over and over is, itself, a major problem. I'm saying a system that's designed to ONLY function for a certain combination of skin pigment and gender is a problem. And I'm saying IGNORING the disparate outcomes of that system you agree with what that system delivered today today is a grave moral error.
"
as a liberal gun owner, I agree.
"
You really don't want to grapple with the meta here, do you?
Rittenhouse got all sorts of positive outcomes because of both his race and gender. Prosecutors may not have tanked the case intentionally, but they didn't withhold exculpatory evidence either. Rittenhouse got a fully functioning criminal law system because the system is designed to work for white men. The two men exonerated yesterday in the Malcolm X slaying had to wait 53 years for the system to function for them in anything close to the same way. One of them died waiting for the system to function for them in the same way.
That's a systemic problem, not an individual actor problem.
"
I really want to know why the prosecution has never gone after his mom for taking him.
"
See Martin, Trayvon . . . .
"
The Malcolm X convictions being over turned because the FBI withheld evidence is no hypothetical
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/exonerations-men-convicted-malcolm-xs-1965-death-81249311
"
Well last I checked Bill Cosby had nothing to do with Malcolm X's murder, or the wrongful convictions of two people in that murder. And best I can tell Cosby wasn't any more wrongly convicted then Harvey Weinstein . . . .