Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[Jansen]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/karmelo-anthony-case.1548097/page-5#post-156323806

OryxTheBakinKing

User Banned (Permanent): Racism. Post reverted for context

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/karmelo-anthony-case.1548097/page-5#post-156323806

OryxTheBakinKing

User Banned (Permanent): Racism. Post reverted for context

The part about white immigrants ending slavery is pretty weird but I don't think he's wrong here

This trial was not perfect but I think the racial conversation surrounding it is radicalizing people in the wrong direction.

[Let's Cyber]

What happened to BIPOC? Asians and Latinos be like

White adjacents have never been included.

Oh no, was my entire ass just shown? 

Reading through the thread, it feels like there's so many strawman arguments going on from both sides.

[benji]

I think "she looks a bit too young, they should tweak her a bit just to make clear she's not 16-ish" would have been a lot more convincing argument to take than immediately screaming about a mass conspiracy of pedophiles. But this is exactly why I'm not serious and nobody feels safe around me.

[Daffy Duck]

I won't link it due to extreme naughty language

but

youtube video called White for 99 cents

I must say Reee has surprised even me in this instance. Trying to argue that knifing someone in the heart because of a shove is somehow justified/not a big deal/only manslaughter at most. Bordering on victim blaming.

And why the fuck is Nep bringing up an entirely different case that's not at all related or analogous?

Sounds like arguing in bad faith to me

[benji]

What's the actual bad faith is not knowing which cases are those that whatever context I demand matters in and those in which yours don't.

[simiansmarts]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/karmelo-anthony-case.1548097/page-5#post-156323806

OryxTheBakinKing

User Banned (Permanent): Racism. Post reverted for context

three users got banned in that thread (but i cant for the reasoning for two of them)  
 
royalan got what he wanted

[Garfield]

All joking aside, the dead boy's father failed his sons. He is seeing things clearly now(says all he feels now is rage, which is the correct response) but in the past he raised his kids to believe all the colorblind do-gooderness worldview nonsense. If he had raised his son in something other than do gooder fantasy land his son would have been much more likely to avoid altercations with dangerous strangers. It's a real tragedy and I feel really bad for the kid who died and his family. At least the jury and judge got it right with the verdict and sentencing.

[simiansmarts]

That's pretty humble of Jeff to say he's not part of a marginalized group despite having "he/they" in his bio
 
Either that or he's downplaying the struggles of thirty-something white men who identify as nonbinary which in that case, is pretty chudlike of him.  
 

[Green Jupiter]

All joking aside, the dead boy's father failed his sons. He is seeing things clearly now(says all he feels now is rage, which is the correct response) but in the past he raised his kids to believe all the colorblind do-gooderness worldview nonsense. If he had raised his son in something other than do gooder fantasy land his son would have been much more likely to avoid altercations with dangerous strangers. It's a real tragedy and I feel really bad for the kid who died and his family. At least the jury and judge got it right with the verdict and sentencing.

All joking aside, you're a dumbfuck.

[Garfield]

All joking aside, the dead boy's father failed his sons. He is seeing things clearly now(says all he feels now is rage, which is the correct response) but in the past he raised his kids to believe all the colorblind do-gooderness worldview nonsense. If he had raised his son in something other than do gooder fantasy land his son would have been much more likely to avoid altercations with dangerous strangers. It's a real tragedy and I feel really bad for the kid who died and his family. At least the jury and judge got it right with the verdict and sentencing.

All joking aside, you're a dumbfuck.

You're a towel

[benji]

He was charged as an adult, since, under the Texas criminal justice system, defendants age 17 and older are prosecuted as adults

Oh, Texas.

Texas is not even close to the most radical state on this: https://www.juvenilecompact.org/age-matrix

There's few states in which murder at 17 wouldn't be prosecuted as an adult. (Otherwise they'd be paroled after just a couple years.)

[Greatness Gone]

All joking aside, the dead boy's father failed his sons. He is seeing things clearly now(says all he feels now is rage, which is the correct response) but in the past he raised his kids to believe all the colorblind do-gooderness worldview nonsense. If he had raised his son in something other than do gooder fantasy land his son would have been much more likely to avoid altercations with dangerous strangers. It's a real tragedy and I feel really bad for the kid who died and his family. At least the jury and judge got it right with the verdict and sentencing.

Blueballs we have a true nazi fascist here for you to chud check 

[Besticus Maximus]

All joking aside, the dead boy's father failed his sons. He is seeing things clearly now(says all he feels now is rage, which is the correct response) but in the past he raised his kids to believe all the colorblind do-gooderness worldview nonsense. If he had raised his son in something other than do gooder fantasy land his son would have been much more likely to avoid altercations with dangerous strangers. It's a real tragedy and I feel really bad for the kid who died and his family. At least the jury and judge got it right with the verdict and sentencing.

yeah well if you cunts just paid your stamp tax you'd have actual good football teams to support

[benji]

Knew Garfield was going to take Royalan's side.

[HaughtyFrank]

He was charged as an adult, since, under the Texas criminal justice system, defendants age 17 and older are prosecuted as adults

Oh, Texas.

Texas is not even close to the most radical state on this: https://www.juvenilecompact.org/age-matrix

There's few states in which murder at 17 wouldn't be prosecuted as an adult. (Otherwise they'd be paroled after just a couple years.)

Juvenile crime is the sort of thing where I'm not sure there's all around great solutions. Trying minors as adults seems kind of against the whole point, on the other hand I remember a case from Germany where two 13 year old girls killed another girl, stabbing her 74 times, and the justice system couldn't do anything at all. Not even juvenile court, just some mandated therapy.

[Polident]

I think "she looks a bit too young, they should tweak her a bit just to make clear she's not 16-ish" would have been a lot more convincing argument to take than immediately screaming about a mass conspiracy of pedophiles. But this is exactly why I'm not serious and nobody feels safe around me.

Agreed. They should show her bush.

[Garfield]

Knew Garfield was going to take Royalan's side.

Lol no. I still blame the murderer for his actions.

[benji]

Lot of asses being shown in this thread

In Texas you can bring a gun with you without there being intent and a lot of people would consider you to be a good guy, but have a knife on ya and people call you a cold blooded killer just for having it. I don't think having the knife makes you the bad guy. What makes you the bad guy is if you get shoved and then you think the proper response is to root around in your bag, find your knife, and then stab someone to death with it. That makes you the bad guy.

I'm pretty confident a white guy in Texas walking around with a big-ass hunting knife in like Wal-Mart would not be seen as an imminent threat.

A white guy in Texas could probably drive a tank around town and be celebrated.

Just protecting the good people from that immigrant caravan.

The proper analogy would be a white guy in a Walmart stabbing someone?

The conversation is around what he was found guilty of, the length of his punishment, and the clear anti-Black "justice" system on display here.

What's anti-Black being displayed here?

This thread is a good look at how shit internet communicating is in general.

99% of the people arguing with each other would actually just agree with each other on the two separate points: 1) The defendant is in the wrong and does require justice to be served to them and 2) There are severe issues with how that justice was served that tie into racial discrimination in America.

But for some reason the very separate points are being conflated into a singular connected argument in which you can only be on one side or the other. It makes no sense.

100%. I honestly find it one of the most maddening things on the site and it happens frequently. It's like people are more concerned with winning an argument than actually having a constructive discussion so they twist each others' arguments so much to win that the debate becomes unrecognisable.

It goes far beyond this thread and even the forum. People are looking for enemies instead of allies almost all the time it feels like.

 

Real shame too. All over stupid shit too. So many avoidable problems.

It's the algorithms and social media. There's no reaching these people going full maga. We're cooked

 And the staff do nothing.

It seems you would be one of the 1% I was not referring to and I strongly disagree with you.

People in this thread have put forth many examples of similar cases where a jury found the person innocent and they were let off without consequence. These people were often white and sometimes affluent. It's completely relevant, because a justice system should be blind and equal, so if a discrepancy is seen a natural expected response is exploring similar cases and pointing out inconsistencies.

If you have been following the thread you must have seen these examples and the discussoin they have generated. Why do you think it is not relevant?

If we can't even agree on how the justice system has repeatedly treated a white and black person different for committing the same crime when we have plenty of examples then we really are cooked

There's not a single example of a similar case in the thread?

I don't really see where these points are being conflated into a single argument when most people here agree with both regardless.

I think the underlying tension here is, even in our agreement, Black people are still perceiving racial animus in the way that people are discussing the defendant. For example, he's a "psycho" that "didn't belong there."

Black people are commonly framed as mentally unwell when we commit crimes, and we are constantly policed in our space to the point that it can lead to death if we stand our ground. The very idea that he should have left because a white boy with no authority told him to leave is literally just textbook racism. No two ways about it.

Like, I shouldn't have to point this out. Indeed, pointing this out gets met with "So you believe he shouldn't have been charged?!!!!" As if I am supposed to be okay with what I perceive as racism when leveled towards a Black person of any character. James Baldwin said to the extent of "Black people should be allowed the grace to be bad people sometimes."

It's like when that whole Jussie Smollett shit happened and people, even folks here, who were outraged that he "set racism back" (as if most people genuinely care about anti-racism) and "wasted officers' time" (I thought we were about ACAB???) should be "punished to the fullest of the law" and go to prison for years and years, as if we are unaware of what prisons are actually meant for.

Meanwhile, how many white people have faked hate crimes on themselves? And how many of them were seen as threats to the social fabric? Hell, that one "Blacks rule!" guy is a meme around here.

Ultimately, this entire thread ultimately reeks of people finally having a chance to stone a beautiful Black body, and even if I largely agree with the ruling (albeit not really the length of the sentence,) it's like some of y'all can't help yourselves whenever a Black defendant is undeniably guilty. Some people here need to examine themselves, but they won't. 🤷🏿‍♀️

 And the staff do nothing about it.

There was another recent Texas trial that was brought up in regards to this one. A 19 year old white man shot and killed a 19 year old black man, and after it was all said and done he served two years out of a four year prison sentence.

https://dallasexpress.com/crime/mugshot-immediate-parole-eligible-after-2-years-served-jury-compromised-in-denton-county-teen-shooting/

Ethan Couch should have received 20 years for his manslaughter conviction. Not if you're white and rich, however.

Adamson had faced a first-degree murder charge and a possible 20-year sentence, but jurors deliberated about 13 hours before reaching a compromise verdict and sentence,

Prosecutors had asked the jury to impose the maximum sentence, with First Assistant District Attorney Jamie Beck later saying the verdict did not make sense. “If this was a crime, and if there was no defense, then this is a murder,” Beck reportedly said, adding that she and the family were disappointed in the outcome.

Defense attorney Sarah Roland argued that the jury’s decision was a compromise between jurors who leaned guilty and those who leaned not guilty, in a post-trial statement to the Record-Chronicle.

This literally disproves the argument in the thread. The prosecutors pushed for the maximum sentence for a white guy.  

That's where the bullshit lies. This kid gets 35 while Rittenhouse walks free. There isn't any balance. You can smell the shit in the system from miles away and it hasn't change.

The problem is people shouldn't have to think back to Kyle Rittenhouse to understand why people are upset. You can go back through the entire history of this country and it should be obvious. It's ingrained into our society.

Rittenhouse shot all white guys? And it was clear self-defense? How is this even relevant?

How can you not see that you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of here?

Is your implication that someone here calling him a psycho is more likely to mean they want him stoned to death and would call him the n-word than the likelihood of them also thinking a white person stabbing another kid to death for a push is also a psycho? Do you genuinely think the former reading is more realistic than the latter and you're happy enough making that judgement about people based a post that wouldn't be questioned once if it was about a white killer?

It's not particular clear if that's what you mean but the only other reading of your last paragraph is you think that there's a significant number of people in here who want to stone a black person to death for other vague reasons. This is what the post you responded to is talking about. Just assuming the worst about someone rather than actually considering their point of view and the likelihood that they're probably not vicious racists who want black people killed.

And surely the fact that the 'blacks rule' meme is so popular here suggests the majority of people here also call it out when white people do it? I'm genuinely confused what you're arguing but it feels disrespectful to label people in this thread as hateful racists with so little evidence.

I think ostensibly liberal and even progressive people hold anti-Black biases because being a liberal or progressive is not actually contingent on any meaningful internal deconstruction of racist biases.

I think ostensibly liberal and even progressive people are comfortable labeling Black criminals as "psycho" in part because they're Black despite other, potentially performative concerns about how ableist this would be when leveled at other people, including those who have higher body counts like our politicians.

I also think ostensibly liberal and even progressive do not consistently treat white criminals and Black criminals with the same level of condemnation or grace respectively as the other, and this actually bears out with data; support for harsher sentencing and the death penalty actually goes up when you mention that Black people are more likely to be sentenced regardless of whether or not they're guilty.

Subsequently, I think the way in which people froth at the mouth on Era sometimes for Black people who do bad things to be sent to prison for the longest of sentences, to simply suffer, is extremely uncomfortable to me not just as a Black person navigating this space but as someone simultaneously interested in prison abolition and alternative forms of justice and rehabilitation for all in general.

Your extremely defensive yet expected reaction also doesn't really refute the notion either, and I'm not going to entertain the idea that a presupposition that racial bias is at play here is completely irrational given what I know both about this community and the issue of anti-Black racism within an American context in general.

And I'm suggesting the Blacks Rule meme is popular here because Era doesn't take what that man did all that seriously. Certainly most people nowadays don't think that man should go to jail for it. But Jussie Smollett lying about a hate crime? People on Era absolutely wanted him imprisoned, which again bears out with the basic data.

People just really like jailing niggas. This isn't actually controversial.

Ban this fucking bigot, Nepenthe. Don't let him spread this white supremacist shit!

[Let's Cyber]

EDIT: I'm a dumbass who can't read. Garfield was talking about parents of the kid who died, not the assailant. Which complete changes the context of the post and my reply. 


Leaving my dumb post up anyway 

It was a track meet, not a drug deal.  

I mean, he could have just taught him not to take a knife on school property, and especially not to stab motherfuckers in the heart with said knife, but I'm not a parent, so 


This would have been a random dustup that had been broken up in like 10 seconds if the knife hadn't been involved. Maybe one or both students would have been suspended for a few days, and everyone would have gone on with their lives.

[benji]

Read those above Nepenthe posts and remember that she was not only defending a nearly decade long sentence in Brazilian prison over a comedian making offensive jokes, she was hating America and calling it a failed society for not doing it.

[benji]

Ethan Couch should have received 20 years for his manslaughter conviction. Not if you're white and rich, however.

Or because he was sixteen:

Three hours after the incident, Couch, who was 16 at the time of the incident, had a blood alcohol content of 0.24%, three times the legal limit for adult drivers (21+ years old) in Texas,[8] and he also tested positive for marijuana and diazepam.[6]

And oh, look, the prosecutors did push for that:

Couch was charged with four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault. Couch entered a guilty plea, and Tarrant County prosecutors were seeking a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for Couch.[27][28]

And oh, look, it's part of trying to reduce sentences for first time offenders:

Critics complained that the presiding judge — District Judge Jean Boyd — had given a much harsher sentence to another 16-year-old intoxicated driver 10 years earlier, who killed one person. In February 2004, Boyd sentenced Eric Bradlee Miller, who stole a truck and killed a 19-year-old father,[38] to 20 years telling him, "the court is aware you had a sad childhood  ... I hope you will take advantage of the services [offered by the Texas Youth Commission] and turn your life around."[39] Eric Bradlee Miller had killed one person, not four, and had a much lower blood alcohol level (0.11% compared to Couch's 0.24%), but was from a much poorer family.[39][40]

According to The New York Times, however, it is unclear what, if any, part, Couch's family's wealth played in his sentence. "[I]t is not uncommon for minors involved in serious drunken-driving cases and other crimes to receive probation instead of prison time", and the sentence may be part of "a growing trend of giving a young person a second chance through rehabilitation instead of trying him as an adult".[8] Boyd had a history of attempting to place youths in rehabilitation rather than jail.[41]

And the Nazi governor agreed with a harsher sentence:

The leading Republican and Democratic candidates in the 2014 Texas gubernatorial election, respectively, Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, commented on the sentence. Davis referred to it as a "disgrace" and Abbott, then-Texas Attorney General, said his office was looking to appeal the case.[42]

So yet another case cited in the thread that disproves the theory being advanced in the thread.

[Nintex]

do gooder fantasy land

where can I find this level

[Shecky Fragbaum]

How long would would a post simply stating, "RIP to the victim", last in that thread before being actioned?

[benji]

I mean, the Menendez brothers have had extensive support and were resentenced in such a way as to be eligible for parole, despite the fact that objectively they murdered their parents as defined by the law. Hell, while Brock Turner didn't kill anyone, that rapist piece of shit still walked because of his "bright future." These types of opportunities and sympathies are not usually afforded to non-white folks.

On January 28, 2015, Turner was indicted on five charges:[63][64]

rape of an intoxicated person
rape of an unconscious person
sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an unconscious woman
sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an intoxicated woman
assault with intent to commit rape

So again we have the prosecutors advancing heavy charges. And pursuing a large sentence:

Prosecutors recommended that Turner be given a six-year prison sentence based on the purposefulness of the action, the effort to hide this activity, and Miller's intoxicated state.[68] Santa Clara County probation officials, including his probation officer Monica Lassettre, recommended that Turner receive a "moderate" county jail sentence with formal probation based on Turner's lack of criminal history, youth, and expression of remorse.[69]

And yet he didn't "walk" in the slightest:

On June 2, 2016, Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in the Santa Clara County jail[2] followed by three years of probation.[69][71] After three months in jail, Turner was released on September 2, 2016.[12][72] He is permanently registered as a sex offender[12] and was obligated to participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program.[3]

And the judge definitely got away with it:

Although he did not face any opposition in an election held five days after the sentencing, Persky faced a campaign to recall him.[82] Online petitions calling for Persky to be removed attracted over a million signatures by June 10, 2016.[83]

And the Nazis came out against this too:

The demands for recall received support from Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas), who spoke in the United States House of Representatives to condemn Turner's sentence as too lenient and to call for Persky's removal.[89]

And the population showed their offense:

In June 2016, at least ten prospective jurors refused to serve in a misdemeanor trial for possession of stolen property where Persky was presiding, citing the judge's sentencing of Turner as a reason.[93] The following week, Rosen filed a peremptory motion for recusal in a case where Persky was to preside over the criminal trial of a surgical nurse charged with sexual battery for allegedly touching the genitals of a patient under sedation. Rosen called his move to have the judge removed from the case, "a rare and carefully considered step for our office."[93]

As a result of the backlash in the wake of his sentencing, Persky asked not to hear any more criminal cases and was reassigned to the Civil Division of the California Court system.[94]

Then made sure Persky did not "walk" either:

In the June 5, 2018 primary election, nearly 200,000 Santa Clara County voters turned out, voting to remove Persky by 61.51% to 38.49%, a margin of over 23%. Persky was the first judge to be recalled by voters in California in 86 years and the first in the United States since 1977.[104]

And what did public defenders have to say?

The move to recall Persky was opposed by the Santa Clara County public defender, who said she was "alarmed by the hysteria" about the Turner sentence. A group of 70 public defenders petitioned in support of Persky, warning against "mass incarceration" brought upon by state legislatures or indiscreet judges, and fearing that the backlash against Persky could hurt their clients (mostly poor Black and Latino Americans) by compelling judges to give out harsh sentences. Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan wrote "rather than using robotic, one size fits all punishment schemes, we want judges, like Judge Persky, to engage in thoughtful, case by case, individualized determinations of the appropriate sentence for a particular crime and particular offender."[17][18]

In 2023, Harvard Law School lecturer Rebecca Richman Cohen produced the short documentary The Recall: Reframed exploring the unintended consequences of the recall of Judge Aaron Persky which came at the height of the #MeToo movement in 2018. The film cites the Turner case to critique the demand for harsh sentences to address sexual violence, which Cohen says disproportionately impacts low-income and people of color.[105]

So that's a third cited case, this time by Nepenthe, which disproves Nepenthe's and the threads central claims.

[Green Jupiter]

How long would would a post simply stating, "RIP to the victim", last in that thread before being actioned?

I’m curious but one of you assholes changed the riotous password so I can’t try.

[benji]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said here but that wasn't the argument you made before. You used the most extreme examples possible to label fellow members as bloodthirsty racists. Perhaps you were using hyperbolic examples but that wasn't clear and my actual point is that you were doing the exact thing the original post you responding to was critiquing.

Assuming the very worst of someone, interpreting their posts in the most extreme way possible without any actual evidence and barely knowing a single thing about the people you're mass labelling as the most extreme kind of racist. You don't know their lived experiences or their race or much of their identity at all. Someone calling the kid a psycho or believing the sentence is just might have had a family member murdered for all we know. I don't think it's reasonable to label someone a psycho but I also have very different life experiences than others and I have my own traumas that I'm sure effect how I judge certain crimes.

I wholeheartedly agree that people have inherent biases against black people, whether consciously or not. I agree that race played a role here, even if I think the overall verdict was correct (but not the actual court proceedings or the sentence or the racist debates surrounding it). I like to think I'm not racist but I accept that I likely have inbuilt biases due to being white and raised predominantly around white people in a mostly white country. I can't outright state that this doesn't play a role in me agreeing with the verdict but I can categorically say that I don't want black people stoned and have no hate in my heart minorities - quite the opposite, and if you knew me personally you would know that. I'm sure the same is true for the majority of people posting in here.

I'm not interested in tempering my language on this matter, especially to placate a white person on the Internet. If you felt called out as a bloodthirsty racist, then deal with that however you need to. Just know you'll be okay regardless.

 

In a thread where she can't even be coherent, attacking people for not being abolitionist at the same time she bitches about people not being sent to prison for life thanks to progressive-minded sentencing. Accusing the very movement she claims to be a part of as the vanguard of the white supremacist plot she sees everywhere.

[Taco Bell Tower]

[benji]

Footage of benji reading Nepenthe posts: