Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
If this opinion is indeed common, it is so fucked up. "Yes, he is criminal, but he is my race criminal, so I am glad that he could escape accountability because he is rich (while I am not)". This seems to me just insane, or at very least deeply immoral.
Taking the above comment at face value:
The meaning you see in this is that the world is now a worse place because a guilty man walked free.
The meaning they see is that maybe this means the world is only fucked up in a classist way and not in both a classist way and a racist way.
I think it's insane to view the first as more moral, it just seems more surface level to me, it's not examining what this means about how our broader system functions. It also seems to accept the LAPD investigated evidence and theory at face value.
Well, if jury was predominantly white, I would agree with you. But if anything his acquittal was also based race, at least it can be interpreted that way. So, celebrating that blacks can be racist too is not something I would do.
He wasnt acquitted by an all black jury, and the acquittal was not an act of racism, it was an act of logic given the incompetent police investigation.
Again, if it happened when jury was predominantly white, I would agree with you. As such your statement is unproven speculation.
From Wikipedia about Simpson trial:
If you think that somehow Black juries were immune to that, you have to provide strong evidence of that.
Sounds like 70% of Black Americans had a view of our police force that white Americans only recently woke up to.
So, you are confirming my point that acquittal was racially motivated?
How did you take that from what I wrote? I said that white people were dumb and naiive in trusting the evidence from an overtly racist, corrupt, and incompetent lapd.