Rash Judgment and Detraction on Phatmass

[Peace]

racial justice was one of the AG's biggest priorities during his tenure, and he worked very hard on it, being particularly active with suing under the Civil Rights Act. His most significant success was in changing the conversation about incarceration rates for black men (an issue that now has bipartisan interest). He intends to continue his work by founding the "Eric Holder Insitute for Race and Justice."

Specific examples include US vs FDNY and US vs Austin, Tex. 

Thanks. I am just reading the Wikipedia article on Eric Holder - and there seems to be very little of that mentioned. There is a small section on the Voting Rights of 1965. Other than that I do not see much.

US vs FDNY appears to be a case that was filed under the Bush Administration - before Holder was AG.  So I don't think that case counts.

http://www.justice.gov/crt-fdny/overview

I can't find anything about the other case you mentioned (US v. Austin) - do you have a link?

"Changing a conversation" about something is cool but not exactly something that can be verified quantitatively. I am guessing that there are plenty of folks who think that he didn't change the conversation in any significant manner at all . . .

It seems that many people have that perception of Holder (perhaps based on that speech on race he gave while back). And perhaps it is something that is personally important to him. But I really don't see many significant Civil Rights actions that were initated by Eric Holder that would indicate that this was a focus of his administration. This article below mentions some rule changes he initiated, but I honesty don't see a whole lot that he accomplished in terms of specifics.

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-eric-holders-civil-rights-legacy-his-achievements-arent-well-known-experts-say-1791976

So yeah - I am still not convinced that it was a centerpiece of his adminstration, but if you have some specific evidence of that I will consider it.  I could be wrong, but I am not sure what it is specifically that you guys are referring to . . .

[Basilisa Marie]

No one asked for it but I dont care; here's my experience of phatmass since that seems to be the real issue behind this thread:

Since I've joined, the phorum has always had a management clique of old timers who basically did what they wanted. It's all the old staff and a few others. We even have a rule BASED ENTIRELY off of one member doing whatever the heck he wanted. But you know what? So what! That's the way it was and if you didn't like it you didn't stick around.

 

The difference between then and now is that there once was a lot of banter and diversity of opinions. The "other side" of any issue always had a strong showing, even if it was by one or two passionate people. That's what made phatmass interesting to me.  

 

It's no secret that I usually sympathize more with some of the people in the party line than others. And it's no secret that I think people like Lillla, Socrates and the like do a really good impression of cantankerous coots with the emotional range of a teasepoon who glorify ignorance and couldnt empathize their way out of a paper bag. But I also know it's a two way street, they might think I throw my hat in with the pseudo-intellectual bleeding heart baffoons who couldn't identify truth if it kicked me in the face. that's just how it is. 

 

The thing that seems different now is that half the people have stopped engaging and started totally drawing back and shutting things down instead.  Phatmass has ALWAYS taken a liberal approach to defining what counts as a personal attack, where the too far line is, and more. Sometimes it was confusing and seemed unfair. So what. 

 

Unless both sides start engaging again without just trying to shut each other down, it's going to stay boring. Like look, lilllabettt and beatitude going at it, that's interesting. If you just keep talking past each other it's just another way to disengage. 

 

Anywho, no one asked, but I hate all this vague "you know who you are maybe I can be the great sage who facilitates your examination of conscience" stuff, so there you go. 

[Ice_nine]

This is what happens when people are sucked in to systems thinking.

Which is obviously an inferior way to think because you don't think that way. I'm losing a little bit of patience with your attitude. You come off as rather condescending and seemingly frustrated that not everyone thinks like you, with the implicit charge that we're obviously too feeble minded and susceptible to groupthink or other unrightthinks. You don't care about the experiences about others yet you expect your experiences should have weight in convincing people of their shame. You may be smarter than me or anyone else here but that doesn't automatically make you right and that doesn't mean you we should yield to your authority on how we should think.

You honestly believe it does not matter that an innocent man's reputation was ruined on the internet.

I really think Mr. Wilson will be fine. He has people in his corner and last I heard he crowdfunded over a half-a-million USD. Furthermore I don't think anyone here said anything slanderous, but I might have missed some things. I mean we were all engaging in guesswork and commenting on a public case. You're telling me you never try to get at the motives of people and don't assume the worst of people sometimes? I mean I don't think any of us can say we don't do that. And with how our media distributes information is a hot mess and you can't blame that on us either. We're only going on what we know but I don't remember anyone (on here) saying Darren Wilson is a racist, he should be hung, he'll never get a job in this town again!

And that's what prejudice is - a sin

 

So making partial judgements about people based on the life choices they make is prejudice now?

 Maybe your life is charmed enough you've never needed them - hope it stays that way. 

Speaking of being unmoved by arguments . . .

 

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm a long time phatmasser and now Meh, and I apologise/apologize if I seem cliquish. That is not my intent, though admittedly I have friends here who are very dear to my heart and have seen me through some rough times, so that probably is why it seems like we are "tight" 

Just put on a Golden Girls avatar, relax once in a while, share a good joke and voila, welcome to my clique. It helps if you like art. 

But seriously, at the end of the day, especially for those of us that are Catholics and believers -- see the forest for the trees and have some balance in how you spend time on here (and I intend to try to follow my own advice). Healthy debate is fine. Healthy. But I think what is concerning me at the moment is how much energy we spend with fighting and drama when a lot of other good threads and boards don't seem to get as much attention. Especially the prayer room. Phatmass is building up the Church and Preaching Holy and Apostolic Truth. Hey, we're not perfect. I'm not perfect. But ideally, the boards should be a place that has a positive impact on your day and reminds you to keep things holy and real, not something that trips you up into an internet pillow fight. 

That's all I've got. I'll keep everyone in my prayers today.

Back to your regularly programmed charitable dialogue.

 

 

 

[Archaeology cat]

Amen, @Ash Wednesday. I always figure if some seem cliquish, it's just because some know each other better than others. People come and go on here, and those who have been here together for a longer time naturally gravitate towards each other. Some of us know each other IRL, too, which of course changes things. Goodness, I met my daughter's godmother through Phatmass!

[Credo in Deum]

This thread is proof we are a true Phamily, beautifully dysfunctional.  I love this place. 

[MIKolbe]

This is all about me, isn't it?

 

Mea culpa.

[Anomaly]

Phatmass has ALWAYS been cliquish.  Since year one.   I know, I've been here since then.   

PM goes through stages.  Dust is a regular guy who doesn't involve himself in drama or the practicalities as many think he should.  Sorry about your luck.   

He has always leaned toward letting people have their say.  Right, wrong, intelligent, stupid, interesting, boring, nice or sorta mean.   Extremely hateful tends to be discouraged.   When I was a faithful Catholic and teaching high schoolers about Catholicism, me, the dozen adults and three priests involved in youth ministry, all would not recommend visiting Phatmass to the teens as a general rule.  Stupid, mean, and unorthodox are allowed since it's a public forum.  Just like in the real world.  

Back to the OP.  I think Lillla may have been impolitely blunt, but still, the main point is that defending or fostering ANY injustice is not justified by prior injustice, prejudice, or wrong.    Defending injustice by anyone only serves to establish a mindset that some injustice can be defended or justified.   That just plays into an unending argument about defending a wrong because circumstances deem it allowable.  

[Lilllabettt]

 

Which is obviously an inferior way to think because you don't think that way. I'm losing a little bit of patience with your attitude. You come off as rather condescending and seemingly frustrated that not everyone thinks like you, with the implicit charge that we're obviously too feeble minded and susceptible to groupthink or other unrightthinks. You don't care about the experiences about others yet you expect your experiences should have weight in convincing people of their shame. You may be smarter than me or anyone else here but that doesn't automatically make you right and that doesn't mean you we should yield to your authority on how we should think.

You are incorrect. I do not not think systems thinking is an inferior way of thinking. It can provide important insights. The cosmic dimension of salvation history is systems thinking.

The problem arrives when we become so engrossed in systems thinking that people - human beings - no longer appear to us as individual moral agents but as cogs playing a particular role in a social machine. Certain cogs do this, other cogs do that. If the machine is not functioning as we wish, let us fiddle with the cogs. 

 

We're only going on what we know but I don't remember anyone (on here) saying Darren Wilson is a racist, he should be hung, he'll never get a job in this town again!

The cop will never get a job in "this town" again, that's for sure. He will be lucky if he ever holds a steady job again, period. People who have had that level of exposure rarely ever find regular work. Maybe if he changes his name? He will most likely have to move - leave his family, his friends, everything he knew. Most people who heard others call him a racist murderer will never hear that he was cleared. His reputation will never be restored. If you ever have the experience of losing your reputation - among your coworkers, among your family - you will learn that your reputation is among the most priceless things you have. 

Rash judgment matters. Whether you do it in the silence of your heart, or on the street or on the internet. You might be able to comfort yourself by saying "well, I never said he should rot in hell." Right - among those who helped ruin this man's reputation, there are many who were not prepared to follow their rash judgment to its logical conclusion.

of course, some people do take rash judgment to its logical conclusion. I mean, think about it. It's not really a stretch to believe that a racist cop who uses his power to brutally murder an unarmed teenager in broad daylight deserves to die.  once someone assumes this man is guilty of this heinous crime, all kinds of consequences are justifiable in their mind. 

Add to that a general prejudice against cops, because as you suggested - it is close to impossible to be both a good man and a cop - and it makes perfect sense for people to go "put wings on pigs" or "wrap pigs in a blanket." (These two cute sayings are not recent inventions.)

 

 

So making partial judgements about people based on the life choices they make is prejudice now?

 

Yes. That is prejudice. Resisting prejudice is a Christian duty. It's a human duty. That is what you expect the police to do - right. right?

Yes, everyone fails in this area, myself included. Admitting we are all guilty is completely different from claiming your particular kind of prejudice is OK, doesn't really matter, or is even justified.

[Lilllabettt]

It's no secret that I usually sympathize more with some of the people in the party line than others. And it's no secret that I think people like Lillla, Socrates and the like do a really good impression of cantankerous coots with the emotional range of a teasepoon who glorify ignorance and couldnt empathize their way out of a paper bag. But I also know it's a two way street, they might think I throw my hat in with the pseudo-intellectual bleeding heart baffoons who couldn't identify truth if it kicked me in the face. that's just how it is. 

 

You know, I really object to being lumped in with Socrates.  (Sorry Socrates.)

I like to stick up for the less popular side, inject some cognitive dissonance. If you believe I am an ideologue, that is perception, not reality. Believe me I am bored and would love to go back to needling traditionalists and tea party-ers. But we don't have a lot of that on here, right now, do we? What we do have is people telling the current Team Modesty Girl that she looks ugly.So yeah, even though a lot of the Team Modesty Girl's posts make my skin peel off my face, I am not going to join the crowd in sticking fingers in her eye, rather I am going to join her team and get busy sticking fingers in you all's eye.

The Ferguson incident is one example where phatmass had gobs and gobs of people on a moral high horse, bemoaning the obvious guilt of the cop. On that original thread I said; you all should not be doing this ... there are many different ways this could have gone down ... you are lacking imagination if you don't think theres a way you could be wrong about this ...   the response was Charlie Brown teacher voice. 

So ... there is something so necessary and proper about showing people how their rash judgment of the cop in this case allows their righteous indignation to be turned around on them.  Proper, because the cop was not guilty. Necessary because, if you have a hard fall off a high horse, you'll think twice before getting back on.  

.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Peace]

The cop will never get a job in "this town" again, that's for sure. He will be lucky if he ever holds a steady job again, period. People who have had that level of exposure rarely ever find regular work. Maybe if he changes his name? He will most likely have to move - leave his family, his friends, everything he knew. Most people who heard others call him a racist murderer will never hear that he was cleared. His reputation will never be restored. If you ever have the experience of losing your reputation - among your coworkers, among your family - you will learn that your reputation is among the most priceless things you have. 

I dunno know about all that. People know that he was cleared. You can find the information very easily on the internet. And you have people raising hundreds and thousands of dollars to support him. There are plenty of people out there that support him.

As for him not being able to work as a police officer in "this town" again. First - he resigned. Nobody fired him. Second - the fact remains that he killed a man in the community in which he works and significant numbers of people in that community believe that it was not necessary to have killed him. It's not like the police officer has some God-given right to work in Furguson notwithstanding the fact that most of the people in that community are dissatisfied with the manner in which he performed his job.

He should not have gone to jail for what he did. There is not enough evidence to indicate that he committed a crime. But that does not mean that he is a good police officer or has a right to continue working as a police officer.

[Lilllabettt]

I dunno know about all that. People know that he was cleared. You can find the information very easily on the internet. And you have people raising hundreds and thousands of dollars to support him. There are plenty of people out there that support him.

It's very rare for someone with his level of exposure to ever be able to go on to regular work. George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, OJ , etc., Monica Lewinsky moved to a different country and in 20 years has not been able to get a regular job.  The cop in this case has not worked for the past year. It's very rare for them to ever be able to go back.

 The money raised for him might cover his legal fees, maybe.

If I remember correctly, his wife was pregnant. Because of the need for isolation it will be very difficult for his family to function normally.

His life is, in a very serious way, over.

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm a long time phatmasser and now Meh, and I apologise/apologize if I seem cliquish. That is not my intent, though admittedly I have friends here who are very dear to my heart and have seen me through some rough times, so that probably is why it seems like we are "tight" 

Just put on a Golden Girls avatar, relax once in a while, share a good joke and voila, welcome to my clique. It helps if you like art. 

But seriously, at the end of the day, especially for those of us that are Catholics and believers -- see the forest for the trees and have some balance in how you spend time on here (and I intend to try to follow my own advice). Healthy debate is fine. Healthy. But I think what is concerning me at the moment is how much energy we spend with fighting and drama when a lot of other good threads and boards don't seem to get as much attention. Especially the prayer room. Phatmass is building up the Church and Preaching Holy and Apostolic Truth. Hey, we're not perfect. I'm not perfect. But ideally, the boards should be a place that has a positive impact on your day and reminds you to keep things holy and real, not something that trips you up into an internet pillow fight. 

That's all I've got. I'll keep everyone in my prayers today.

Back to your regularly programmed charitable dialogue.

 

 

 

Good points Ash... By the way I haven't noticed cliquish posts from you. I also dont think that having friends is cliquish. I think what personally bugs me too is the drama here. Totally agree.  

[Peace]

It's very rare for someone with his level of exposure to ever be able to go on to regular work. George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, OJ , etc., Monica Lewinsky moved to a different country and in 20 years has not been able to get a regular job.  The cop in this case has not worked for the past year. It's very rare for them to ever be able to go back.

 The money raised for him might cover his legal fees, maybe.

If I remember correctly, his wife was pregnant. Because of the need for isolation it will be very difficult for his family to function normally.

His life is, in a very ser

Well. I will grant you that it may be tough for him to find a good job in the short term.

[Ice_nine]

 

The problem arrives when we become so engrossed in systems thinking that people - human beings - no longer appear to us as individual moral agents but as cogs playing a particular role in a social machine. Certain cogs do this, other cogs do that. If the machine is not functioning as we wish, let us fiddle with the cogs. 

So I and all the other people you call out see people as cogs in the machine and not human individuals? How the hell do you know that? I mean you talk about people being on a "moral high horse" and you seem quite unaware that you're in the saddle as well.  I could accuse you of rashly judging those whom disagree with you in this debate.

What you fail to understand is that individuals seem to get lost because they merely launch these debates on wider issues, and as I've said before, people come into this thinking racism is not real and so "darren wilson probably did not act out of racism, and if he did he is an outlier," so the response to that is well "darren wilson joined an inherently racist occupation so it's entirely likely that he did act out of racism, whether he was conscious of it or not." You see that as horrible, horrible slander but both sides are making presumptions in favor and against someone whether it's the person who got shot or was doing the shooting. I don't think here was doing any character assassination, and if they were, believe me there's plenty of that on both sides. (i.e. Freddie Gray was a drug-dealer so he deserved to die, Eric Garner was a CRIMINAL sell tax free cigs so he deserved to die). In addition, and I want to make this very clear so I will bold it, even if someone is part of a racist organization and holds racist ideals that individual may not even be aware of it, in fact he may be a victim of it. That doesn't mean Darren Wilson, even if he was brainwashed to fear Black people, should be lynched, but we need to address that possibilty. Of course you'd view that as ruining his reputation. Again I don't see you pitching a fit about the reputation of the people actually killed in these scenarios, perhaps because you implicitly believe they must have deserved it.

OR you are not addressing those who attack the dead because you're not confronted with people who do that here. Just as folks like me feel the need to compensate for those who think we're in a post-racial society, and prove that racism still exists every time these debates come up.

 

The cop will never get a job in "this town" again, that's for sure. He will be lucky if he ever holds a steady job again, period.

We'll see. The court of public opinion is NEVER a good place to be for ANYONE. Should we not talk about anyone on a public phorum?

Yes. That is prejudice.

Oh bull****. the profession someone chooses says something about them. It is not the sum of their being, no one is saying it is, but you can glean something.

 

 

 

But you do have a point. We should be careful not to judge the hearts of others and perhaps we should pay more attention to the individuals involved in addition to the wider social phenomena, and make sure the actual people don't get lost in the debate. BUT you have couched this point with accusations of your own and outright DEMANDS that people answer to YOU. That's why people are so pissy.

I should be more careful about how I talk about people. And how I judge them. It's a good point. But you've buried that valid point in your attitude and in your judgments of others.