Keep those races sepArate

[Sueven]

my examples are Jackson and criminals who are willing to exploit the protections given to them. I did not specify the race of the criminals, because it doesnt matter.

Bullshit. You mentioned "high profile men like Jackson." Jackson is a black man. Most prominent advocates for racial justice (especially those who are accused of manipulating their positions for fame and personal gain, as Jackson is) are black. You also mention "common miscreants who believe that the civil rights movement amounts to a get out of trouble free card in his pocket." In what circumstances is a white "common miscreant" (not criminal!) going to think that the civil rights movement will get him out of trouble (not jail!)?

This is a perfect example of why colorblindness is just a bunch of crap. Race is implicit in both of your categories, even if you were careful to choose words which are facially race-neutral.

The race DOES matter, because the vast, vast majority (I would say 'all' if there weren't an exception to every rule) of people who fall into those two categories are minorities.

Yet it leaves the same impression on those exposed to the situation, albeit on a local scale, of diminishing the integrity of the defense and perpetuating the idea that maybe race DOES matter.

I mean, I'm not in favor of playing "the race card" when unjustified, just as I'm not in favor of crying wolf in any situation. But perhaps the enduring power of the race card is in fact an indication that RACE DOES MATTER. It's not perpetuating the false idea that race matters-- it's evidence of the FACT that race matters.

correct, and situations like that are why its so important to maintain the integrity of his right. to maintain the power of it rather than letting it become cried wolf so many times that it is no longer able to protect him.

Perhaps it would be vastly more worthwhile to focus on trying to end the injustices in the system that necessitate him attempting to exercise his right in the first place, rather than criticize those who you think are attempting to exercise the right in inappropriate contexts?

Basically: It's much more important to end (or significantly reduce) racism than it is to end (or significantly reduce) complaining about racism. The former must necessarily precede the latter. As long as the system results in explicitly racist outcomes-- crack sentences that are vastly harsher than coke sentences, vast racial imbalance in death penalty application, selective prosecution of drug crimes, etc-- then there will continue to be people who complain about the racism of the system.

[cadalano]

my examples are Jackson and criminals who are willing to exploit the protections given to them. I did not specify the race of the criminals, because it doesnt matter.

Bullshit. You mentioned "high profile men like Jackson." Jackson is a black man. Most prominent advocates for racial justice (especially those who are accused of manipulating their positions for fame and personal gain, as Jackson is) are black. You also mention "common miscreants who believe that the civil rights movement amounts to a get out of trouble free card in his pocket." In what circumstances is a white "common miscreant" (not criminal!) going to think that the civil rights movement will get him out of trouble (not jail!)?

This is a perfect example of why colorblindness is just a bunch of crap. Race is implicit in both of your categories, even if you were careful to choose words which are facially race-neutral.

The race DOES matter, because the vast, vast majority (I would say 'all' if there weren't an exception to every rule) of people who fall into those two categories are minorities.

"because it doesnt matter in relation to the next thing that i'm about to say. My examples are minorities because I was speaking in terms of the benefits of the racism CARD, which I did not clarify."

fixed. i'm aware that a white person cannot play the race card. i guess i should have clarified my clarification.

correct, and situations like that are why its so important to maintain the integrity of his right. to maintain the power of it rather than letting it become cried wolf so many times that it is no longer able to protect him.

Perhaps it would be vastly more worthwhile to focus on trying to end the injustices in the system that necessitate him attempting to exercise his right in the first place, rather than criticize those who you think are attempting to exercise the right in inappropriate contexts?

Basically: It's much more important to end (or significantly reduce) racism than it is to end (or significantly reduce) complaining about racism. The former must necessarily precede the latter. As long as the system results in explicitly racist outcomes-- crack sentences that are vastly harsher than coke sentences, vast racial imbalance in death penalty application, selective prosecution of drug crimes, etc-- then there will continue to be people who complain about the racism of the system.

I dont see why preventing the abuse of the right OR extinguishing systematic injustice need to be mutually exclusive in any capacity. Dealing with one extreme of the bullshit injustice does not mean that you need to turn your back on the other.