Amanda Marcotte has refrained from weighing in on the Trayvon Martin case. One suspects that she learned a lesson from the little spanking she sustained during the Duke Lacrosse debacle in which she lost all credibility to anyone but the most radical feminists. But she weighs in today, ever so slightly:
Well, I have to point out that it’s conservatives, who are much more likely to not only be religious but to think that religion should be pushed on people for their own good, who are currently supporting a legal right to run around in the streets gunning people down for no other reason than you find their skin color to be darker than what you prefer around these parts.
This is the straight-line narrative – one lacking in nuance or imagination. The people making this argument see George Zimmerman, with a gun, making a phone call to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood. They then see a dead young man. In their world, the first must have caused the second. But as has been pointed out time and again, some shit seems to have happened in between point A and point B. Reuters is reporting that three of Zimmerman’s neighbors saw him bandaged with a swollen nose the day after the altercation and shooting.
So the worst you can say of Zimmerman – and this is just for precision’s sake – is that he saw a black kid and drew on the recent history of black kids burglarizing his neighborhood. This same black kid then responded to Zimmerman’s reaction and escalated the encounter. So it is completely disingenuous or retarded to argue that Zimmerman “gunned down Trayvon Martin *for no other reason* than the color of his skin.” It is likely the case that Zimmerman’s *reason* for shooting Martin was that he was getting punched in the head and slammed by a guy who happened to be black.
On a similar note, Martin wasn’t just carrying “Skittles and iced tea” and no weapon. Fists and concrete are weapons. That’s like saying “Trayvon Martin was just wearing shoes and a pair of pants.” It says nothing at all about what actions Trayvon Martin may have taken against George Zimmerman – actions which are supported by evidence on Zimmerman’s body.
This is a rehash to point out that Amanda Marcotte has incorrectly framed yet another narrative. She probably should have just kept her mouth shut.
Like this:
Like Loading...
“Well, I have to point out that it’s conservatives, who are much more likely to not only be religious but to think that religion should be pushed on people for their own good,”
Not so. This has been debunked forever and a day ago. Such people are usually not religious though they may try and protect it as an integral part of Western Civilization and culture. At most, religious types are trying meekly to hang on while getting Amanda’s religion imposed upon them.
” who are currently supporting a legal right to run around in the streets gunning people down for no other reason than you find their skin color to be darker than what you prefer around these parts.”
Again, such folks don’t run around in the streets. At all. The go to work and go home. When did you see conservatives on the corner shuckin’-n-jivin’?
If you reverse the races, that statement makes more sense.
Except for the minor detail that there’s not one single conservative that I’ve read who’s ever said that or anything close. Would it be possible to write about the Trayvon-Zimmerman case in a more emotion laden and less dealing with the known facts way?
keep gunning for these liars, it’s starting to chip away at their chutzpah.
oh, and for the record, in the interest of argumentative and semantical clarity, please in future do refer to the thing in question as ‘amanjaw marcuntte’.
yours in explosive playground taunting memes,
honorable rev. whack-a-dipshit-feminist
hmmm… lets mix this up a bit….
Well, I have to point out that it’s [Liberals], who are much more likely to not only be ["politically correct"] but to think that [multiculturalism, and diversity] should be pushed on people for their own good, who are currently supporting a [illegal] right to run around in the streets [inciting riots and beating people down for no other reason than you find their skin color to be [lighter] than what you prefer around these parts.
huh, you know after looking at it [differently], I have to agree with her.
The “race” angle flopped when it was discovered that Zimmerman was a Hispanic Democrat instead of an Archie Bunker type, so now it’s on to Plan B: demonizing gun owners and calling for new laws. Anyone else get the feeling that the gun grabbers are trying to exploit this tragic situation? Me too.
Amanda Marcotte, Amanda Marcotte, Amanda Marcotte, why don’t you just break into her house, rummage through her hamper, steal a pair of her soiled panties and take them home to make a bouillabaisse. You know you want to.
Say Mandy, according to the DOJ there are about 37,000 black sexual assaults on white women yearly as opposed to near zero white on black sexual assaults. Even allowing that many of these assaults don’t come up to the standard of actual rape, and that many reports are false, it adds up to a hell of a lot of racist rape. How is it that as a feminist you are able to remain silent in the face of racist mass-rape? Do you put it on some sort of scale and balance it against the solidarity of the Leftist/non-white political union, you know, x number mass raped (and x number of those murdered afterward) but ignored in order to placate the white hating members (not all of them non-white by any means) of your political movement? Clearly a few thousand isn’t your breaking point for participating in these rapes – what would it take, a hundred thousand, a million before you broke your sponsoring silence? I would certainly be interested to know the figure, but as your friend I have to warn you that your answer may be taken down and used against you in future war crimes trials.
Basic rule of thumb everyone should live by: If you are Amanda Marcotte, shut the fuck up.
Is Reuters the only news organization that actually went out and did a little reporting, interviewing while the others were in the thrall of Mary Earwitness and playing audio tapes backwards forwards and sideways trying to hear non-existent racial slurs from GZ?
Good stuff chuck.
“On a similar note, Martin wasn’t just carrying “Skittles and iced tea” and no weapon.”
Exactly. Something always bothered me about the skittles and iced tea mantra. It’s basically code for saying he couldn’t have done anything violent, since those two items aren’t weapons. Glad some people see through this BS.
Mr. Rudd says,
So it is completely disingenuous or retarded to argue that Zimmerman “gunned down Trayvon Martin *for no other reason* than the color of his skin.
On the contrary, it is completely sincere and logical for the radical liberationist (“black” or “white”) to stand staunchly beside the original narrative. It makes no sense whatsoever to concede any aspect of the original narrative as the purpose that the original narrative serves does not justify any concessions.
De facto dykes like Marcotte are as equally fearful of “white supremacy” as any “black” liberationist. There is no reason for her to stray from the original narrative even one inch.
As Chuck Rudd implies in the post, it’s a positive good that Amanda Marcotte is such a straight shooter.
Smarter and less hate-filled people measure their words with greater care, the better to maintain plausible deniability.
Though maybe she’s not so dumb: Marcotte was on the cheer squad for the corrupt prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame, and suffered no repercussions. Being her sort of extremist means never having to say you’re sorry.
Here’s a fun idea: Sharpton could lionize Nifong in exchange for Marcotte canonizing Brawley. Everybody wins!
amac78,
If your ultimate goal is to radicalize the masses (totally liberate them) in order to destroy the pernicious system of “white supremacy” then the words of Marcotte are in no need of “measure” or “plausible deniability.” She is tasked with thickening the foam around the mouths of the radical liberationists.
I support the Second Amendment. The cops are not responsible to protect you, and if we must protect ourselves, we need the tools.
Having said that, I tend to agree, at least in part, when Cosby said this only happened because Zimmerman had a gun. That is, if he hadn’t had that gun, there is a good chance he would have waited for the cops in the car. There are people who get really brave when they have a gun, which is not a real good idea.
I still think in spite of that, the shooting was justified. The late deceased was obviously going to hurt a lot of people over the years. He picked on an armed man.
Not all liberals are incapable of seeing the truth:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/04/a-kid-with-skittles.html
^^^Anon,
Even as the radical liberals fail to concede even a single aspect of their totally self-serving AND DEADLY narrative, they are able to convince one American after another to concede one point in defense of truth after another.
One could have just as easily surmised that had GZ NOT been carrying a gun then he would not have even been patrolling the neighborhood and TM would have been free to carry out the 2nd, 4th, 7th robbery in the last 2, 3, 5 months?
Bill Cosby could have just as easily concluded that George Zimmerman HAD TO CARRY a gun in order to patrol his neighborhood.
This incident stands as the very evidence for that conclusion.
So it is completely disingenuous or retarded to argue…
So when has that really stopped anyone? From making a disingenuous or retarded argument I mean. Especially when there’s PC points to be scored.
Chuck:This is the straight-line narrative – one lacking in nuance or imagination.
This is a poor description of Marcotte’s hearsay. It does consist of “imagination” for the plainly evident reason that Marcotte is claiming to know Zimmerman’s motives, i.e. that she can read his mind. I don’t know that you mean by “straight-line narrative,” either. Lastly, the lack of “nuance” is hardly among the most important failings of the progressive narrative, not compared to their lying (e.g. NBC), race-baiting, assumed telepathy, and habit of offering images of Martin from when he was in elementary school.
You know this. So why the opaque description of Marcotte’s offering?