Rittenhouse vs. Arbery > Understanding Each Other Better

[Isaac]

Earlier today I was thinking: I wonder if there could be any - maybe not a lot, but any - increased understanding between polarized political sides in our nation if every well known conservative or Republican voice would send out a strong post today: "I believe justice was done for Ahmaud Arbery!"

Every fellow conservative I've talked to - family, friends or observation of those near my circle - all seem to have the same basic position in their feeling about the Arbery defendants.

For any person who has trained themselves to be honest with themselves, and combines it with frequent introspection, and has also been on the "liberal side" of the sentiments about the Rittenhouse case, the outcome of those 3 things put together ought to produce a new perspective. I realize that the first two attributes at the same time are possessed by very few, unfortunately, but think of the good it might do.

Hmm ... those people all consistently disagreed with the prosecution of the Rittenhouse kid, but seem to thoroughly agree with the prosecution of the Arbery defendants. What an interesting juxtaposition with what appears to be some kind of consistency in principle. Wonder if they're on to something there? The rule of law and fairness, perhaps?

Everyone has a part to play in trying to see things in a better way, but right now, if conservatives spoke with one voice in a very public and massive way about the way most of them do, indeed, seem to feel about Arbery...........the result would be, it would be incredibly difficult for anyone to keep up this charade about "conservatives are racist".

Wouldn't it!?
Upvote if you agree, Downvote if you don't I won't take it personally, and couldn't care less about my star level

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This is one white conservative/libertarian who is not particularly racist. I've worked for minority-owned companies for over 25 years and the two best bosses I had were black. They treated me fairly and I gave them my full attention to the job at hand. My worst boss ever was a white "yuppy" type whose knowledge and appreciation of government contracting could perhaps be politely expressed as "limited."

The Arbury and Rittenhouse cases were totally different and anyone who tries to generalize them is doing a grave disservice to the law and to logic.

The three defendants in the Arbury case decided to roust a black man who, based on the evidence, was not at that time fleeing from a crime. Their "citizen's arrest" defense required that they catch him in the act. His actual crime? Being black while around idiots.

The Rittenhouse "self-defense" required that the other party at least brandished a weapon, which occurred in each case. Kyle's actual failure? Going to a place that was more dangerous than he first might have anticipated.

I was severely troubled by the apparent balance of preliminary events around the Rittenhouse case (because that made it harder for me to find the "real" wrong) but I have no trouble accepting the verdict. I never once had any doubts about the Arbury case.

Your question seems unusually hard for me to answer, though. I'm gonna say "It is not guaranteed that conservatives are racist." I'll also say that proper justice was done for Arbury. You decide which way the thumbs should point in your little pollice verso test.

 

[Jon]

Nobody can agree on what the term "racist" actually means, so it's a non-starter.

 

[Isaac]

@The_Doc_Man I'm going to say thumbs up! It sounds to me like the way you're viewing the cases is at least kind of what I'm talking about. Yes..they were totally different, and the correct verdict was reached in each time.

My point is that liberals mourned over the first verdict, while rejoicing over the second one, to no apparent possible meaning of any type of principle other than identity politics.

Conservatives for the most part at least it seems, rejoice over both verdicts. My hope is that there are a few on the other side who by pondering that, can begin to understand the consistency therein...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Nobody can agree on what the term "racist" actually means, so it's a non-starter.

Racist = makes decisions partly or fully based on racial considerations even though race has nothing to do with the actual subject of the decision. AND even though technically, "race" is the wrong word to apply anyway, since there is only the human race among humankind. Sort of a tautology.

By my standard, saying some black child should be tested for Sickle Cell Anemia IS NOT racist, it is playing on known hereditary odds, just as saying that a Jewish baby of eastern Eurpoean heritage should be tested for Tay-Sachs Syndrome. But denying someone service solely because they are black might well be racist.

 

[AccessBlaster]

@Isaac I haven't seen any coverage liberal or conservative today that disagrees with your statement. I do get the sense that liberals wanted a twofer when it comes to the Rittenhouse Arbery cases regardless of the evidence, whereas conservatives were content with the split. Just my opinion.

 

[Jon]

Racist = makes decisions partly or fully based on racial considerations even though race has nothing to do with the actual subject of the decision.

Since nearly everything on the Left is viewed through the prism of race and yet they view themselves as the opposite of racist, that means we can agree that different groups have different definitions for the term "racist". In fact they are polar opposite definitions.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac I haven't seen any coverage liberal or conservative today that disagrees with your statement. I do get the sense that liberals wanted a twofer when it comes to the Rittenhouse Arbery cases regardless of the evidence, whereas conservatives were content with the split. Just my opinion.

Yep