Support NeoGAF

[Kal]

Why should you not believe the judge? Yes, I haven't analysed the history of this judge, but I also do not make claims about him being a racist or not. As far as I am concerned, ethnicity may or may not have played a role in this sentence, I do not know. You, however, are directly calling this judge a racist, based on a single case and some statistics that say nothing about the judge himself. What I am arguing is, that to make such a claim, one has to investigate the specific judge (and even then it can be hard to come to a conclusion, based on how many cases he ruled on and how ethnicity distributes). Giving someone, in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary, the benfit of a doubt when it comes to discriminating people for their sex, ethnicity or religion should be the norm. Unfounded (even if maybe correct) accusations should never be the norm.

And this is why it is pointless arguing with you. Stop putting words into my mouth. I never called the judge racist. But somehow you seem to equate the woman benefitting from white privilege with racial discrimination.

I agree on the bottom line argument that she had better chances of obtaining such a ruling over a black person and I know this is called white privilege (Though I would prefer racial discrimination here, because what is called white privilege should be the norm for all people, rather than the discriminatory reality of people of other ethnicities. So I would argue white privilege shouldn't be abolished, but instead be extended to all people; one should fight discrimination and unfair behaviour rather than the benefit of absence of it.).

I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to agree that she has white privilege on her side but then want to change the definition?

Racial bias. Which turns into systemic racism the more it occurs as it places the non-violent folks at a distinct disadvantage.

For example if my big black ass were in front of the same judge I'd be doing time. Believe it.

Sigh. I don't think he/she gets it.

 

[Yoshi]

Racial bias. Which turns into systemic racism the more it occurs as it places the non-violent folks at a distinct disadvantage.

This choice of words sounds reasonable to me.

And this is why it is pointless arguing with you. Stop putting words into my mouth. I never called the judge racist. But somehow you seem to equate the woman benefitting from white privilege with racial discrimination.

Well, since you seem to be using racism differently than I do, it is indeed not fine the way I said it, I should have said "racial bias" instead in the sentence you quoted. Regarding the rest of the posting this shouldn't change anything though, because what I meant with racism was "racial bias" all along.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to agree that she has white privilege on her side but then want to change the definition?

Not the definition, at least if what I said is what we can agree on is white privilege (the benefit of having better chances than others of not being discriminated against because of one's ethnicity). I just said that I would use a different word with the same definition usually, i.e. benefit of absence of racial discrimination to be more clear in my language when I say that it should be removed. Since I think it is important to note (also from a political point of view) that one does not want to worsen the way white people are treated in general (which one would most likely associate with removing a privilege) but to improve the way other people are treated in general (which one would most likely associate with removing a kind of discrimination).

 

[Loose Cannon]

But she is getting special treatment, even the judge said that. You add her having a promising career to ,being white, well off and decent looking girl. It all adds up to her having a advantage over many people.




Also Bashir was locked up...

Ah yes it appears he was: he lied about having a pending contract with Leicestershire Cricket Club, the case was reviewed and he was jailed. Well that does hamper my argument a little but I'd still say that his original sentencing can justify my original point.

Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of 2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of immediate imprisonment.

All of this is a moot point anyway as she won't be sentenced until September where she may face jail time, which wouldn't be unreasonable.

 

[theWB27]

Let me first note that I don't think the sentence, from what I have heard about it, is just, but the outlook of the accused does play a role in jurisdication and should do so as well. The goal of a good law system (i.e. not the U.S. one) should be to make people valuable members of the society, to see their mistakes and to not repeat them. So "what one may become" does and should play a role. But of course, it should only do so when it concerns the case directly, not "the greater good".
I appreciate your classy discussion style.
Why should you not believe the judge? Yes, I haven't analysed the history of this judge, but I also do not make claims about him being a racist or not. As far as I am concerned, ethnicity may or may not have played a role in this sentence, I do not know. You, however, are directly calling this judge a racist, based on a single case and some statistics that say nothing about the judge himself. What I am arguing is, that to make such a claim, one has to investigate the specific judge (and even then it can be hard to come to a conclusion, based on how many cases he ruled on and how ethnicity distributes). Giving someone, in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary, the benfit of a doubt when it comes to discriminating people for their sex, ethnicity or religion should be the norm. Unfounded (even if maybe correct) accusations should never be the norm.

I agree on the bottom line argument that she had better chances of obtaining such a ruling over a black person and I know this is called white privilege (Though I would prefer racial discrimination here, because what is called white privilege should be the norm for all people, rather than the discriminatory reality of people of other ethnicities. So I would argue white privilege shouldn't be abolished, but instead be extended to all people; one should fight discrimination and unfair behaviour rather than the benefit of absence of it.).

But having a better chance of a more positive ruling is the advantage, not the outcome itself. I think a good analogue would be if you (who I now just assume to be black for this example) have a standard dice and I have a dice where the one is replaced by a six. If we both roll our dices and I roll a six, then I was more likely to get a six (which is my white dice privilege), but the event of rolling a six itself is not necessarily a result of having better odds at getting a six, it could just be the regular six. So in this case what I am saying is: She was more likely to get away with it, but the mere observation that she did says nothing about whether it is because she was lucky to be judged by a judge who values educations, intelligence and youth extraordinarily high (but would have done the same had she been black), or if she landed a judge who (in addition) judges white people more favourably.

Its not worth continuing a discussion with someone who dismisses society to try and strengthen their argument.

You were being disingenuous with trying to keep it at this one case so that facts couldn't be used. Facts that white people get favorable treatment in the justice system and her being white helps her.

Also the fact i don't have to throw out her history because I'm not the law and can still see she has a pattern with getting away with behavior that commonly would be used against a person of color.

The fact the article used favorable pics of her to gain sympathy from crowds such as yourself. When commonly a minority would have more unflattering pics used against them in a similar situation.

You keep handwaving all of this away to try your damnedest to pretend race isn't a big deal.

Truth be told your arguments are part of the reason society is able to get away with type of portrayal. They know there are people like you who would agree to make this a one off case and not part of a systemic problem.

The reason i posted word salad is because your argument is so transparent it becomes non sense to a poc such as myself. It becomes non sense when i have to continually read how people keep wanting to hand wave these issues away because you don't want to deal with reality.

You're just now even remotely giving in to the idea that her whiteness has given her an advantage. What you need to understand is just a little bit of that advantage is huge because a POC wouldn't get a single piece of that advantage.

And you keep wanting to change words to get the same meaning.... its all bs. Call a spade a spade... she's white and benefits from a society that favors her whiteness. Nothing you type will change that fact.

 

[The Maverick]

Let me first note that I don't think the sentence, from what I have heard about it, is just, but the outlook of the accused does play a role in jurisdication and should do so as well. The goal of a good law system (i.e. not the U.S. one) should be to make people valuable members of the society, to see their mistakes and to not repeat them. So "what one may become" does and should play a role. But of course, it should only do so when it concerns the case directly, not "the greater good".
I appreciate your classy discussion style.
Why should you not believe the judge? Yes, I haven't analysed the history of this judge, but I also do not make claims about him being a racist or not. As far as I am concerned, ethnicity may or may not have played a role in this sentence, I do not know. You, however, are directly calling this judge a racist, based on a single case and some statistics that say nothing about the judge himself. What I am arguing is, that to make such a claim, one has to investigate the specific judge (and even then it can be hard to come to a conclusion, based on how many cases he ruled on and how ethnicity distributes). Giving someone, in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary, the benfit of a doubt when it comes to discriminating people for their sex, ethnicity or religion should be the norm. Unfounded (even if maybe correct) accusations should never be the norm.

I agree on the bottom line argument that she had better chances of obtaining such a ruling over a black person and I know this is called white privilege (Though I would prefer racial discrimination here, because what is called white privilege should be the norm for all people, rather than the discriminatory reality of people of other ethnicities. So I would argue white privilege shouldn't be abolished, but instead be extended to all people; one should fight discrimination and unfair behaviour rather than the benefit of absence of it.).

But having a better chance of a more positive ruling is the advantage, not the outcome itself. I think a good analogue would be if you (who I now just assume to be black for this example) have a standard dice and I have a dice where the one is replaced by a six. If we both roll our dices and I roll a six, then I was more likely to get a six (which is my white dice privilege), but the event of rolling a six itself is not necessarily a result of having better odds at getting a six, it could just be the regular six. So in this case what I am saying is: She was more likely to get away with it, but the mere observation that she did says nothing about whether it is because she was lucky to be judged by a judge who values educations, intelligence and youth extraordinarily high (but would have done the same had she been black), or if she landed a judge who (in addition) judges white people more favourably.

I mean this with no offense, but you and a couple of other posters have wasted time typing up nonsense in this thread. The beginning and end is that being white affords you leniency in the courts. If you don't think that had an effect on this case, and will continue to have an effect on many cases after, you're dreaming.

Trying to harp on semantics and turn situations into one-offs is exactly why this stuff continues. Your analogy about how "it's more likely that she got off because she's white, but we can't deduce that for sure!" is just annoying.

 

[LinkAndEpona]

Lock her up now!

 

[Slayven]

Let me first note that I don't think the sentence, from what I have heard about it, is just, but the outlook of the accused does play a role in jurisdication and should do so as well. The goal of a good law system (i.e. not the U.S. one) should be to make people valuable members of the society, to see their mistakes and to not repeat them. So "what one may become" does and should play a role. But of course, it should only do so when it concerns the case directly, not "the greater good".
I appreciate your classy discussion style.
Why should you not believe the judge? Yes, I haven't analysed the history of this judge, but I also do not make claims about him being a racist or not. As far as I am concerned, ethnicity may or may not have played a role in this sentence, I do not know. You, however, are directly calling this judge a racist, based on a single case and some statistics that say nothing about the judge himself. What I am arguing is, that to make such a claim, one has to investigate the specific judge (and even then it can be hard to come to a conclusion, based on how many cases he ruled on and how ethnicity distributes). Giving someone, in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary, the benfit of a doubt when it comes to discriminating people for their sex, ethnicity or religion should be the norm. Unfounded (even if maybe correct) accusations should never be the norm.

I agree on the bottom line argument that she had better chances of obtaining such a ruling over a black person and I know this is called white privilege (Though I would prefer racial discrimination here, because what is called white privilege should be the norm for all people, rather than the discriminatory reality of people of other ethnicities. So I would argue white privilege shouldn't be abolished, but instead be extended to all people; one should fight discrimination and unfair behaviour rather than the benefit of absence of it.).

But having a better chance of a more positive ruling is the advantage, not the outcome itself. I think a good analogue would be if you (who I now just assume to be black for this example) have a standard dice and I have a dice where the one is replaced by a six. If we both roll our dices and I roll a six, then I was more likely to get a six (which is my white dice privilege), but the event of rolling a six itself is not necessarily a result of having better odds at getting a six, it could just be the regular six. So in this case what I am saying is: She was more likely to get away with it, but the mere observation that she did says nothing about whether it is because she was lucky to be judged by a judge who values educations, intelligence and youth extraordinarily high (but would have done the same had she been black), or if she landed a judge who (in addition) judges white people more favourably.

Nonsense like this is way systematic discrimination is slow to change. Folks will bend over backwards to excuse this bullshit

 

[Shiggy]

I know GAF is obsessed with white privilege. But do you folks really see that as the main reason why she didn't get jailed? Do you think she would have also avoided jail if she was white, but jobless and from a poor background? Do you think a male offender would have been spared? Yoshi is trying to make a point that it does not necessarily just come down to skin colour - and that's a reasonable point.

Nonsense like this is way systematic discrimination is slow to change. Folks will bend over backwards to excuse this bullshit

You know, you could also discuss his points by participating in this discussion instead of making a driveby post.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I know GAF is obsessed with white privilege. But do you folks really see that as the main reason why she didn't get jailed? Do you think she would have also avoided jail if she was white, but jobless and from a poor background? Do you think a male offender would have been spared? Yoshi is trying to make a point that it does not necessarily just come down to skin colour - and that's a reasonable point.






You know, you could also discuss his points by participating in this discussion instead of making a driveby post.

White people are less likely to be jailed compared to their black counterparts. What more needs to be debated?

A debate can only come about if you choose to ignore the data, which is exactly what Yoshi is doing.

 

[Nepenthe]

White people are less likely to be jailed compared to their black counterparts. What more needs to be debated?

The point seems to be that institutional racism cannot be ascertained with 100% certainty and thus it's wrong to invoke it with certainty, to say "If she were black, she WOULD have been in jail" versus "If she were black, she would PROBABLY be in jail."

In the immortal words of Louis CK's daughter: "No! You don't know!"

 

[Nabbis]

White people are less likely to be jailed compared to their black counterparts. What more needs to be debated?

People do bad things, they should just stop. What more needs to be debated?

This is a forum, people tend to discuss and debate stuff.

 

[sssstententen]

I know GAF is obsessed with white privilege. But do you folks really see that as the main reason why she didn't get jailed? Do you think she would have also avoided jail if she was white, but jobless and from a poor background? Do you think a male offender would have been spared? Yoshi is trying to make a point that it does not necessarily just come down to skin colour - and that's a reasonable point.



You know, you could also discuss his points by participating in this discussion instead of making a driveby post.

The fact is that she had a better chance at a more lenient sentence because she was white. Period.

No one is trying to argue other subjects did not also come into play. But yes, a white poor female, or a white male in her role, would also have a better chance statistically at a easier ruling.

Like everyone else has said, boiling it down to semantics is the reason this stuff perpetuates, and its shitty.

"He wasn't killed JUST because he was black, but he was 250lbs and 6ft5! We have to take everything into account here!"

 

[theWB27]

White people are less likely to be jailed compared to their black counterparts. What more needs to be debated?

A debate can only come about if you choose to ignore the data, which is exactly what Yoshi is doing.

They fail to realise no roundabout explanation will change this.

Shiggy didn't come with anything o refute except some light snark.

 

[Dynasty]

I think white privilege might have played a part in this but at the same time I believe class privilege and her future job prospects played a much more significant role. The cricket player one was a good example, the judge thought the guy had a future cricket contract and so showed leniency, when later discovered this wasn't the case the guy was jailed.
The problem I find with chalking this up to mainly white privilege or that white privilege played a significant role is that you are saying that if the person was a white person from a working class background with no future joh prospectnshe would have been able to get the same deal or atleast had the chance. Which I find hard to believe but I welcome any counter examples.

Anyway this is BS and she should recieve a harsher sentencing(and I hope she does), the idea that someone can get away with a crime because if punished it would basically ruin there life is so fucking stupid, it essentially gives higher class people who are more likely to better job prospects more leniency in the court system. But I guess that is nothing new with the law.

 

[Shiggy]

White people are less likely to be jailed compared to their black counterparts. What more needs to be debated?

So for you, it's only the skin colour that mattered in this case, a notion which Yoshi and I both disagree with?

 

[hbkdx12]

But having a better chance of a more positive ruling is the advantage, not the outcome itself. I think a good analogue would be if you (who I now just assume to be black for this example) have a standard dice and I have a dice where the one is replaced by a six. If we both roll our dices and I roll a six, then I was more likely to get a six (which is my white dice privilege), but the event of rolling a six itself is not necessarily a result of having better odds at getting a six, it could just be the regular six. So in this case what I am saying is: She was more likely to get away with it, but the mere observation that she did says nothing about whether it is because she was lucky to be judged by a judge who values educations, intelligence and youth extraordinarily high (but would have done the same had she been black), or if she landed a judge who (in addition) judges white people more favourably.

this is...wow

So we should ignore the idea that racism and privilege exists simply because no one is bold enough to say that's what they base their decisions on? (Which in itself undermines subconscious biases that a lot of people, by definition, don't recognize they have in the first place)

It's shit like this why the cop in the Terence crutcher case walked away scot free. The jurors stated 1) Any cop in that position would make the same decision (which makes no sense considering there are other cops there that didn't make that decision and 2) it wasn't wreckless or accidental in that she may have been doing exactly what she was trained to do. So instead of trying to examine the dangers that are synonymous with the power structure of a predominantly white society and how that affects POC, we should just be cool because the jurors clearly just valued the immaculate police training of a white cop in Tulsa more than a human life of a person who happened to be black

 

[sssstententen]

So for you, it's only the skin colour that mattered in this case, a notion which Yoshi and I both disagree with?

I think they are naturally getting mad because of the rather dismissive way you are both basically bending and weaving around the topic and gunning for any other reason.

Life is complex and other reasons come into play, but racial discrimination in this country is insane and even subconciously affects minority groups every day.

 

[theWB27]

So for you, it's only the skin colour that mattered in this case, a notion which Yoshi and I both disagree with?

Her being white is what enables the conversation to move to her class.

More often than not class doesn't matter because skin color lessens anything good about them. That's what the justice system sees and its an automatic anchor in fairness.

What is so hard to understand?

 

[Shiggy]

I think they are naturally getting mad because of the rather dismissive way you are both basically bending and weaving around the topic and gunning for any other reason.

Life is complex and other reasons come into play, but racial discrimination in this country is insane and even subconciously affects minority groups every day.

It's just a very strange behaviour to just focus on racial bias, when in this case a lot of factors come in. I mean, everyone who's been around has most likely experienced racial discrimination and thus knows that it sucks. But you're making your life a bit easy when you just say "oh, it's because she's not black". There's also a sentencing gap in terms of gender when it comes to get sexual assault, for example.

Her being white is what enables the conversation to move to her class.

More often than not class doesn't matter because skin color lessens anything good about them. That's what the justice system sees and its an automatic anchor in fairness.

What is so hard to understand?

So you believe that the legal system would not favour a black girl who studies in Oxford and who is the daughter of a billionaire/CEO over a white girl with jobless parents and no future? Or would the "biases" even out and both would not be getting a jail sentence but still a tougher sentence than the girl in this case?

 

[theWB27]

It's just a very strange behaviour to just focus on racial bias, when in this case a lot of factors come in. I mean, everyone who's been around has most likely experienced racial discrimination and thus knows that it sucks. But you're making your life a bit easy when you just say "oh, it's because she's not black". There's also a sentencing gap in terms of gender when it comes to get sexual assault, for example.






So you believe that the legal system would not favour a black girl who studies in Oxford and who is the daughter of a billionaire/CEO over a white girl with jobless parents and no future? Or would the "biases" even out and both would not be getting a jail sentence but still a tougher sentence than the girl in this case?

Been explained already. I won't do it again.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

So you believe that the legal system would not favour a black girl who studies in Oxford and who is the daughter of a billionaire/CEO over a white girl with jobless parents and no future? Or would the "biases" even out and both would not be getting a jail sentence but still a tougher sentence than the girl in this case?

Ah class vs race. OK.

Let's talk about that. Let's talk about the systemic wealth that's been denied to people of color regardless of how hard they've worked over the last few generations. Let's also discuss the racial bias in education and vocation that would have prevented a Black man of her fathers/grandparents generation from even being a CEO and a billionaire. Let's talk about the inability due to systemic racism that would have kept a Black man from producing intergenerational wealth for her to enjoy her life of luxury.

The point is valid. If this was a Black woman no one would be tolerating this "it'd destroy her future" bullshit.

But keep fucking that chicken...

 

[Shiggy]

Been explained already. I won't do it again.

Ok.

Ah class vs race. OK.

Let's talk about that. Let's talk about the systemic wealth that's been denied to people of color regardless of how hard they've worked over the last few generations. Let's also discuss the racial bias in education and vocation that would have prevented a Black man of her fathers/grandparents generation from even being a CEO and a billionaire. Let's talk about the inability due to systemic racism that would have kept a Black man from producing intergenerational wealth for her to enjoy her life of luxury.

The point is valid. If this was a Black woman no one would be tolerating this "it'd destroy her future" bullshit.

But keep fucking that chicken...

That's a different discussion though, and I don't see the point of a wider "minorities have it so much harder in all parts of their life" discussion in this thread as it's not quite related to this topic.

And I don't think people are tolerating the "it would destroy her future" line in this case either, even though she's not black.

 

[Dynasty]

The point is valid. If this was a Black woman no one would be tolerating this "it'd destroy her future" bullshit.

But keep fucking that chicken...

Bit agressive dont you think?

I think 2 pages back there was link to another crime about a muslim man who was going to get away with a more serious situtation due to "it'd destroy his future"(Which I agree is BS), later it was revealed the judge had been misled and so the guy was sent to jail.

 

[PtM]

She looks like a soon to be serial killer. Something in the eyes gives me concern.

Thanks, Dr. Questions.

 

[Any Questions]

Thanks, Dr. Questions.

Sorry. Maybe it's just me, but those eyes remind me of my ex. She had some complications. But that's a different story and not for general discussion.

 

[Dynasty]

Sorry. Maybe it's just me, but those eyes remind me of my ex. She had some complications. But that's a different story and not for general discussion.

 

[Messofanego]

I know GAF is obsessed with white privilege. But do you folks really see that as the main reason why she didn't get jailed? Do you think she would have also avoided jail if she was white, but jobless and from a poor background? Do you think a male offender would have been spared? Yoshi is trying to make a point that it does not necessarily just come down to skin colour - and that's a reasonable point.

The unemployed and poor white would still have an advantage over a highly educated and wealthy minority.

 

[PtM]

Don't put your dick in crazy people.

But what about the insane sex?

 

[Captin Quacker]

Where's that htown post about racism being quantum locked

 

[Any Questions]

Worse

 

[Shiggy]

The unemployed and poor white would still have an advantage over a highly educated and wealthy minority.

I wonder how you can say that with such certainty when there are no statistics on that (unless you can link them) and when a wealthy person has so much more resources to get a good lawyer, good advice, potential to tap connections through money, etc.

 

[4444244]

The unemployed and poor white would still have an advantage over a highly educated and wealthy minority.

Absolute bollocks, money trumps everything.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Bit agressive dont you think?

I think 2 pages back there was link to another crime about a muslim man who was going to get away with a more serious situtation due to "it'd destroy his future"(Which I agree is BS), later it was revealed the judge had been misled and so the guy was sent to jail.

Sorry wouldn't want to be too agressive. I know that can make some folks uncomfortable....

So the Muslim guy went to jail? Gotcha.

Ok.




That's a different discussion though, and I don't see the point of a wider "minorities have it so much harder in all parts of their life" discussion in this thread as it's not quite related to this topic.

And I don't think people are tolerating the "it would destroy her future" line in this case either, even though she's not black.

You're mentioning "what if the Black girls dad was a super wealthy CEO" my point is that argument is fucking ridiculous as how many rich black cross you know. It's a shit comparison...

Where's that htown post about racism being quantum locked

People will defend white supremacy to their dying breath. All while swearing up and down they're not racist.

 

[Mr. X]

I wonder how you can say that with such certainty when there are no statistics on that (unless you can link them) and when a wealthy person has so much more resources to get a good lawyer, good advice, potential to tap connections through money, etc.

Because there's studies that exist where white felons are more likely to get hired than black names with no criminal history.

 

[Yoshi]

this is...wow

So we should ignore the idea that racism and privilege exists simply because no one is bold enough to say that's what they base their decisions on? (Which in itself undermines subconscious biases that a lot of people, by definition, don't recognize they have in the first place)

It's shit like this why the cop in the Terence crutcher case walked away scot free. The jurors stated 1) Any cop in that position would make the same decision (which makes no sense considering there are other cops there that didn't make that decision and 2) it wasn't wreckless or accidental in that she may have been doing exactly what she was trained to do. So instead of trying to examine the dangers that are synonymous with the power structure of a predominantly white society and how that affects POC, we should just be cool because the jurors clearly just valued the immaculate police training of a white cop in Tulsa more than a human life of a person who happened to be black

No, we should not ignore systematic discrimination, but systematic discrimination can only in few cases be reliably identified in an isolated case and I'd argue, as it stands, this is not one of these cases. It is OK to say "she had better chances of getting such a result", because it is true. It is however not OK (without further information I am not aware of) to state that she got this specific result due to her ethnicity. This is not just a semantic argument, it has real world consequences. The former is a valid conclusion from the statistics at hand, the latter is the specific claim that the judge (willingly or not) favoured her because of her ethnicity, which is a serious allegation that is not based on any factual information. I have no set opinion on if ethnicity did or did not help her in this case, but I do think it is supremely unlikely that, if it had, the significance was higher than that of her age, education and intelligence, which are obvious necessities to even come to the conclusion the jude reached. Which, I repeat, is not to say that I think the judges conclusion is right, I think in fact it is not.

 

[Dynasty]

Sorry wouldn't want to be too agressive. I know that can make some folks uncomfortable....

So the Muslim guy went to jail? Gotcha.

Also no need to apoligize, I thought it was funny.
Yh went to jail after discovering he didnt have proffesional cricket contract, when the judge thought he was, he was going to get the same situation as this white girl. Dont know if you are being abtuse on purpose.

 

[PtM]

I recommend having a look at the somewhat similar case from March where Mustafa Bashir, aged 34, (who you might note is both a man and not white) was given a suspended sentence for assaulting his wife with a cricket bat.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017...-prison-because-his-wife-was-too-intelligent/

And then having a look at the post written about this case:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017...read-knife-so-why-is-she-not-going-to-prison/

Good read, thanks.

 

[Shiggy]

You're mentioning "what if the Black girls dad was a super wealthy CEO" my point is that argument is fucking ridiculous as how many rich black cross you know. It's a shit comparison...

Your argument was "I don't want to discuss". My comparison was to question the notion that it's not all just coming down to race. Please don't try to misconstrue my posts.

Because there's studies that exist where white felons are more likely to get hired than black names with no criminal history.

I don't see how that is relevant in that case, do you care to elaborate how you come to the conclusion that those studies show that racial bias is always outranking all other biases? When you apply for jobs, you typically don't talk about your parent's income over here.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Also no need to apoligize, I thought it was funny.
Yh went to jail after discovering he didnt have proffesional cricket contract, when the judge thought he was, he was going to get the same situation as this white girl. Dont know if you are being abtuse on purpose.

No. I'm not attempting to be obtuse. Just reiterating what you pointed out. There qas a similar situation in which a Muslim man was going to no be held to account for their crime until that didn't happen and they went to jail.

 

[Dynasty]

No. I'm not attempting to be obtuse. Just reiterating what you pointed out. There qas a similar situation in which a Muslim man was going to no be held to account for their crime until that didn't happen and they went to jail.

You are leaving the the crucial information that links to this situation and then seperates it.
The Judge is led to believe the muslim man has a proffesional cricket contract to be assigned to him in the future so the judge shows leniency, it is later proven that the judge was misled and that there is no contract so the judge reverses his decision. If you dont see the change in situation, I honestly believe you are being obtuse.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Your argument was "I don't want to discuss". My comparison was to question the notion that it's not all just coming down to race. Please don't try to misconstrue my posts.

"please don't misconstrue my post now allow me to misconstrue your post"

Let me be blunt: Your attempts to obfuscate wealth and race in regards to the disparity in the criminal justice system is hollow as fuck considering how black people don't and haven't had the access to wealth and the accumulation of wealth that white people have. So even when you try to make the argument of wealth being the primary factor you intentionally fail to realize race is ALSO a huge factor in that.

So I'm saying you're full of shit. Sorry.

You are leaving the the crucial information that links to this situation and then seperates it.
The Judge is led to believe the muslim man has a proffesional cricket contract to be assigned to him in the future so the judge shows leniency, it is later proven that the judge was misled and that there is no contract so the judge reverses his decision. If you dont see the change in situation, I honestly believe you are being obtuse.

You're fucking up when you're comparing a case in the UK to a case in the US. But let's pretend they're the same.

Nothing in that link changes the fact that there's a distinct racial disparity in the US justice system. But hey, that chicken ain't gonna fuck itself.

 

[PtM]

I think white privilege might have played a part in this but at the same time I believe class privilege and her future job prospects played a much more significant role. The cricket player one was a good example, the judge thought the guy had a future cricket contract and so showed leniency, when later discovered this wasn't the case the guy was jailed.
The problem I find with chalking this up to mainly white privilege or that white privilege played a significant role is that you are saying that if the person was a white person from a working class background with no future joh prospectnshe would have been able to get the same deal or atleast had the chance. Which I find hard to believe but I welcome any counter examples.

Anyway this is BS and she should recieve a harsher sentencing(and I hope she does), the idea that someone can get away with a crime because if punished it would basically ruin there life is so fucking stupid, it essentially gives higher class people who are more likely to better job prospects more leniency in the court system. But I guess that is nothing new with the law.

It doesn't sound as if it's about the job quality. Did you mean "more jobs prospects"?

 

[Shiggy]

"please don't misconstrue my post now allow me to misconstrue your post"

Let me be blunt: Your attempts to obfuscate wealth and race in regards to the disparity in the criminal justice system is hollow as fuck considering how black people don't and haven't had the access to wealth and the accumulation of wealth that white people have. So even when you try to make the argument of wealth being the primary factor you intentionally fail to realize race is ALSO a huge factor in that.

So I'm saying you're full of shit. Sorry.

I don't dispute that they are linked, i.e. I don't dispute that it may be harder for black people to get wealthy. Nonetheless, that is not quite relevant in this case as that comparison showed that there are different biases at play. You seemingly prefer to ignore that.

But as you are unwilling to participate in a civilised discussion, or simply lack the ability to do so, I have nothing to add here. If all you are capable of are personal attacks, then that's not a good foundation for a fruitful discussion. I hope you have your manners better in check in real-life.

 

[Yoshi]

Let me be blunt: Your attempts to obfuscate wealth and race in regards to the disparity in the criminal justice system is hollow as fuck considering how black people don't and haven't had the access to wealth and the accumulation of wealth that white people have. So even when you try to make the argument of wealth being the primary factor you intentionally fail to realize race is ALSO a huge factor in that.

Well this is the difference between causality and correlation. Since most rich people are white in the west, favoring rich people has a statistical effect on non-white people as well, but it is still not favoring white people. Please note that this is not to say that systematic preferential treatment of white people does not exist.

 

[Moze]

The unemployed and poor white would still have an advantage over a highly educated and wealthy minority.

That's highly unlikely imo. We don't know because underclass whites aren't an ethnic minority group and aren't statistically tracked. The only (mostly) white ethnic minority group that is statistically tracked are travellers/gypsies, and they are by far the most overrepresented group in the prison system in the UK. By far.

I am not arguing white privilege doesn't exist. It's just relative. Comparing a well off black or asian person to an underclass white person from the council estate isn't what white privilege is.

 

[Dynasty]

Well this is the difference between causality and correlation. Since most rich people are white in the west, favoring rich people has a statistical effect on non-white people as well, but it is still not favoring white people. Please note that this is not to say that systematic preferential treatment of white people does not exist.

I like the disclaimer at the bottom, it almost as if someone isnt arguing in good faith and is just assuming the worst of some posters.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I don't dispute that they are linked, i.e. I don't dispute that it may be harder for black people to get wealthy. Nonetheless, that is not quite relevant in this case as that comparison showed that there are different biases at play. You seemingly prefer to ignore that.

But as you are unwilling to participate in a civilised discussion, or simply lack the ability to do so, I have nothing to add here. If all you are capable of are personal attacks, then that's not a good foundation for a fruitful discussion. I hope you have your manners better in check in real-life.

So it may be harder for Black peoppe to acrue wealth but it's irrelevant when you claim wealth is the primary factor? And you scoff that I claim you're full of shit?

And no, I'm not polite to people that defend white supremacy. I don't do so in real life either. Sorry. I am not your negro.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I don't dispute that they are linked, i.e. I don't dispute that it may be harder for black people to get wealthy. Nonetheless, that is not quite relevant in this case as that comparison showed that there are different biases at play. You seemingly prefer to ignore that.

But as you are unwilling to participate in a civilised discussion, or simply lack the ability to do so, I have nothing to add here. If all you are capable of are personal attacks, then that's not a good foundation for a fruitful discussion. I hope you have your manners better in check in real-life.

Gotta love that 'angry black man' jab at the end.

Not that you'll admit it, I fully expect you to act insulted and use the 'now you're calling me a racist' card...

Coward.

 

[Greddleok]

I mean...she is really hot. If I were the judge I'd have let her off too.

 

[commedieu]

One day we will be able to pin that elusive instances of racism down on a tangible scenario that all can agree on.


Until then, I've brought more mats for the gymnastics team!! Check under your seats.