OldGoldBeard
A Sorry WR Like Crabtree
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 1,842
But the final point, to me, is the most important, and one in which I was showing a viewpoint sympathetic to the one Ph had been arguing. It's easy to rapidly dismiss this line of argument of hers from a position of hegemonic white privilege. You bring up a good point in saying that it's completely possible to dismantle her arguments regardless of your own status, and I completely agree with you there. But her stance is controversial because it is radical and challenges the currently accepted perception of things from many people, and those so quick to dismiss it, yourself not necessarily included District, easily play into her central thesis. You buy the narrative in some way or another because either it's acceptable to be a vigilante neighborhood watchmen carrying a gun and not following police orders and provoking people on the street, or because you genuinely believe in the inversion of victimhood, that Zimmerman was the one fighting for his life, standing his ground lawfully.
I think for lots of jaded and practiced OGBoarders (like myself), this becomes a great way to attack the entire analysis as a cop out, reading like "if you disagree, it's because you're a victim of the same indoctrination" or more reductively "questioning me only proves my point."
No offense intended, just struck me as somewhat amusing. As for the analysis itself, what makes it eye-roll-worthy--in my view, at least--is that it's entirely speculative as to GZ's outlook and thought process, and seeks to attribute the same to traditional leftist bogeymen. It's lazy, over-broad, and lacking in any sort of nuance.
The vigilante part is the most interesting part of the post. I think Americans have a healthy respect for vigilantism, from Clint Eastwood to Batman. That's the most interesting factor in this case to me.