All you need to do is look at a picture of this dude to understand where he comes from :
Chuck "Jayson Blair" Blow
The New York Times: Hyping Racial Intolerance Since 1993 In The Name Of... We're Not Sure.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I get what hes saying. Its doublethink. So it would be ok for blacks to hold bias opinions towards memders of their own race whereas if it were Whites they would be KKK wassists.
Aren't you misreading Blow? To me he is saying that he believed OJ to have been incontrovertibly guilty, and he couldn't believe that other blacks would disagree if they looked at the evidence as dispassionately as he did. Therefore, the only explanation for them refusing to believe the evidence against OJ because of where it was coming from, i.e. a justice system allegedly biased against blacks. He then calls this a possible intellectual argument, but not a moral one, which I took to mean it is the kind of argument an intellectual might make in order to explain black presumption of OJ's innocence, but obviously it's not an argument that could be offered as a moral defense of OJ, since any objective appraisal of the evidence must acknowledge OJ's evident guilt.
2 comments:
I get what hes saying. Its doublethink. So it would be ok for blacks to hold bias opinions towards memders of their own race whereas if it were Whites they would be KKK wassists.
Aren't you misreading Blow? To me he is saying that he believed OJ to have been incontrovertibly guilty, and he couldn't believe that other blacks would disagree if they looked at the evidence as dispassionately as he did. Therefore, the only explanation for them refusing to believe the evidence against OJ because of where it was coming from, i.e. a justice system allegedly biased against blacks. He then calls this a possible intellectual argument, but not a moral one, which I took to mean it is the kind of argument an intellectual might make in order to explain black presumption of OJ's innocence, but obviously it's not an argument that could be offered as a moral defense of OJ, since any objective appraisal of the evidence must acknowledge OJ's evident guilt.
Post a Comment