|Wed11AprMXII - Clk2Enlrg|
The whole Trayvon vs. Zimmerman fiasco has deliciously devolved into a fascinating post-OJ indictment of the "Post-Racialism" promised in 2008 by Barack Obama (who btw is possibly the greatest hoax ever visited upon the Western World).
Here's what is interesting: consider the ways in which the opposing sides in the Trayvon Hoax are fortifying / solidifying their own moral positonments :
Here's what I mean: anyone who has been following Trayvon-O-Mania with any attentiveness, or should I say obsessiveness (as I have), have probably spent beaucoup hours (as I have) gobbling up any and all information available on the case online.
But: you can be sure that those who support Zimmerman's condemnation (for example) have been spending more time on The Root.com or Newsone.com (news for black America) than they have on Drudge, or Occidental Dissent, or this site.
So the question is: how much is "observer bias" responsible for these increasingly entrenched views on the Trayvon Hoax?
Think about it: those who are convinced that Trayvon was a victim of a greater anti-minority conspiracy - as in: Da Man keeping down the poor disenfranchised oppressed minority that Trayvon (huh?) was a benighted member of - are more likely to obsessively log on to The Root.com to get their news about the case.
Conversely, those of us who are convinced (um, know?) that Trayvon's inner chimp came out violently when he was confronted by concerned-for-his-gated-community George Zimmerman, the hybrid progeny of diversity-for-white-nations-homogeneity-for-Israel-Zionist Bob Dylan (aka George Zimmerman père, Robert Zimmerman), have more likely been getting all of our information from Drudge or other HBD-reality slanted sites.
So the question I suppose is: how much is observer bias responsible for the elective ideological clamp-downs in the respective Trayvon vs Zimmerman camps in this affair?