Scharlach doesn’t think we should discuss the Zimmerman affair because it’s not edifying.
In a sense, he’s right. All of the discussion of the affair has been about the racial aspects of the story.
The real racial aspects of the story are wildly uninteresting. One black guy killed another black guy. If that was an interesting story, Chiraq or Detroit would be the most interesting place in the world. Instead, it’s racist to talk about either one. It’s hard to overstate how boring these facts really are.
(You have to admit it’s pretty funny that everyone who’s pissed off at Zimmerman for being a white guy this week was super concerned that the Supreme Court would take away his “right” to preferential college admissions based on the fact that he’s black a couple weeks ago. If diversity provides nothing else, it certainly provides a fair amount of humor).
Far from being an innocent young honor student, Martin was a criminal, probably the aggressor, and perhaps committing a hate crime himself.
(As an aside, is that the biggest I-told-you-so in the history of the internet there for Sailer? He perhaps had an unfair advantage since he somehow discovered an obscure book by an unknown author that explained much of what is currently happening 30 years ago and then again in another book that was published right as this case broke. Too bad the guy is so obscure – seems like his views might be worth soliciting).
In racial terms, this story is entirely dog bites man. (Here’s the opposite story, which I’m sure you’ve heard lots about).
Indeed, if instead of reading the reports of the incident in the papers, you had instead immediately jumped to the most racially stereotypical conclusions, you would have been much more correct. Yawn.
The media has demonstrated that they’re desperate to find evidence of white on black violence. The fact that this is the best they can do tells you all need to know about such violence – i.e. it doesn’t exist.
And this where Scharlach goes wrong. While the mainstream story is truly unedifying, the fact that the mainstream story exists and so completely contradicts reality is fascinating and illuminating on many levels.
If the mainstream media (even in the internet age!) can get people – lots of people – to commit acts of violence on the street based entirely on an obvious lie, what else can they do? What can’t they do?
The results would seem to suggest that “public opinion” is as clueless and easily moldable as ever. Perhaps more easily moldable than ever. As Fred Reed said:
But what persuaded me that humanity really did descend from monkeys, and would do well to ascend back to them, was the public´s near-perfect lack of grasp of anything involved in this national soap opera. From the vacant visages of over-coiffed network babes, from the empty minds and overhanging orbital ridges of anchor men, came a veritable Pacific of incomprehension. I was fascinated. Reasonable behavior is not very amusing. . . .
The coverage was so craftedly witless and dishonest that it was easy to suspect a conspiracy. Stupidity beyond a certain point can only be a work of intelligence.
We may be progressing beyond the point of that being true anymore, which is a scary thought indeed.
Foseti 
In hindsight, I should have written “discussing the details of the case itself isn’t edifying.” (Although I freely admit that I’ve read every one of Chuck Ross’s posts on it.) But you’re right that a “meta” discussion of the trial in terms you’ve done here can be disturbingly enlightening.
I hadn’t heard about the Rochester case. That’s amazing. Also amazing is that even though hundreds of reporters have been combing through the internet archives for over a year now, they’ve only been able to dredge up, what, half a dozen somewhat similar cases of black/white or white/black crime in which one party was unarmed? Like you said, such crime just doesn’t exist. The entire national discussion about this trial is essentially a discussion about a fiction. There’s no there there.
Having a hard time following your reasoning here. I’ll read your post in a minute on your site.
If the national discussion has no there there, then isn’t that reason enough to discuss it?
Yes, but it means we should discuss it on a more general level rather than getting stuck in the mire of the trial’s details (e.g., who was on top of whom, or is Rachel Jaentel functionally retarded or just functionally illiterate).
Oh, I see what you mean.
Street Cred. It’s Reactions position anyway.
[…] on religion and reaction, Foseti on the Zimmerman aftermath, and Foseti on […]
“If the mainstream media (even in the internet age!) can get people – lots of people – to commit acts of violence on the street based entirely on an obvious lie, what else can they do? What can’t they do?”
It seems to me that a new age (Jeantel’s “new school”,if you will) has sprung up in the middle of the Information Age,and it needs a new name.
This age is characterized by a majority of its individuals being functionally unequipped with the capacity to reason, or even enough truly diverse sources of information to pretend to.