Why is George Zimmernan refered to as "Zimmerman"...

[-..__...]

and Trayvon Martin referred to as "Trayvon"?

One of them (at least here), is more often than not referred to by his last name... the other, by his first name.

Why not just simply refer to both by either their first or last name... or full name?

It's not like posting "George did this"... "George did that"; "Martin did this"... "Martin did that", and we're left wondering whom is being talked about when everyone here knows whom is being discussed.

It just seems like an odd imbalance to me.

[MADem]

1. Because one is an adult and the other was a schoolboy.

We generally refer to adults by their last names, and give them a Mister or Miss or Missus or Miz if we respect them.

We generally refer to schoolchildren --even those in high school--by their first names.

[Fawke Em]

30. You're "sorta" right.

It's AP Style.

Trayvon is a child, so he's referred to in his first name. Zimmerman is an adult, so he's referred to by his last name unless the story contains both him and his wife - at that point, reporters can either use Mr. or Mrs. or refer to them by their full name. I always chose to go by the full name - it's more respectful to a woman to be known by her name not Mrs. So and So.

Anyone under 19 is referred to by their first name.

Which is why I hated those "Hillary!" and "Sarah!" bumper stickers. Women aren't children, even if one (Palin) is ignorant.

[treestar]

107. My first thought too

Trayvon is a young man still in high school or that age.

Zimmerman is an adult.

[Electric Monk]

2. I hadn't really thought of it, but maybe because one is an adult and the other was still a youth?

Or, alternately, because the name Martin can be someone's first or last name?

Or, possibly because the names George and Martin are quite common, while the names Zimmerman and Treyvon are much more specific to this case?

[Cali_Democrat]

3. LOL

You wanna call the shooter George? Go for it. You wanna call the dead kid Martin, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.

BTW, who is George Zimmernan?

[Skip Intro]

4. I've been referring to both by their last names.

Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I think psychologically referring to one or the other by his first name imparts a certain sympathy on behalf of the poster.

Being impartial would move the poster to refer to each in the same manner, last name/last name or first name/first name, imho.

Failure to do that implies a strong bias on behalf of the poster, imho.

[X_Digger]

13. I have too. n/t

[CreekDog]

16. lol

always trying to be fair by trying to convince us that we're favoring the black person.

getting old.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Yup.

It's amazing how some people don't realize how transparent they are.

[Skip Intro]

29. "some people" - ? nt

[Skip Intro]

27. and I won't take the bait this time either CreekDog, but keep trying...nt

[CreekDog]

32. i didn't ask you to post more crap...you already did that

[Skip Intro]

33. Goodnight CreekDog.

[CreekDog]

37. what will we white people do now?

then we'll be at a total disadvantage --the race card will be used against us without mercy! isn't the race card worse than actual racism?

[freshwest]

21. I call 'em both by their last names usually. Simpler.

[-..__...]

24. Same here...

or by their full names.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Color Me Biased In Favor Of The Dead Kid/EOM

[sabrina 1]

91. I am very biased towards victims. Not too much sympathy for

for violent aggressors. So I have no problem treating the victim more gently, that is how it should be. I am against the DP, and am for humane treatment of people no matter what crimes they commit, and very much in favor of rehabilitation.

But right now, I am biased towards the victim, who is dead. He and his family deserve justice, NOT revenge. So being biased towards the victim does not mean hating the person who killed him, but it does mean wanting to see justice done.

[yardwork]

102. I'm strongly biased in favor of the dead child.

[gateley]

5. Trayvon is easily identifiable -- more so than Martin. George could refer to

zillions of people.

Plus, I think referring to Trayvon by his first name is gentler, somehow. Making him more of a real person, acknowledging who he was.

[freshwest]

34. I was misspelling his name and gave up. And George is too common. Last names for me.

[gateley]

42. I always call people by their last names, a habit I've had for years.

My username is my last name!

[freshwest]

56. Oh, I thought it was your first name! Don't tell everything here, though.

[gateley]

144. I wouldn't use it if I knew then what I know now, that's for sure!

One time when I was engaged I was going to change it to my first name with and take his last name (because he was kind of locally famous and it opened doors :eyes but I chickened out and never married him.

Most of my friends call me Gateley, so it almost SEEMS like my first name. It drove my mother nuts.

[Quixote1818]

6. I use both their last names most of the time

Zimmerman is easier to type than George and Martin is easier to type than Trayvon. I guess I am just lazy.

[polly7]

7. Age, for me. nt.

[sabrina 1]

8. Well, there WAS a huge imbalance in the entire tragedy. One was an adult with a gun, Zimmerman, the

other was an unarmed teenager minding his own business, Trayvon. Sympathy naturally goes to the victim, who lost his life.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Framing and identity development are powerful, but often fallacious, rhetorical tactics.

You want people to identify and sympathize with one person or group, and to alienate "the other."

Using the first name for one and the last name for the other is a subtle way of doing this.

[-..__...]

22. Someone gets it.

And at least the media/press gets it as well.

It's a way of dehumanizing one, while elevating the other.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. So people are dehumanizing George Zimmerman when they refer to him simply as Zimmerman?

ROFL.

Stop it, just stop it. You're killing me!

[-..__...]

38. Try reading and grasping the post above mine.

The practice doesn't necessarily apply to each and every individual circumstance... but when applied subtlety; you just need to learn to read in between the lines.

[Skip Intro]

40. Some People have little use for fact, reason, logic or sublety -

especially when their preconceptions and self-importance are at risk.

[CreekDog]

122. why did you call this statement "factual"? it would suggest you have major racial bias:

"Liz2 (1 post) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
9. Stats

The point is whether his stats are true, not whether you can call him names. I'm not sure they are true, but what I'll do is look them up. And understand what he's saying, the police are not making the stuff up or targeting minorities, which is why he's including the cab guy. I've read other stats in liberal places like The NY times that give 90 percent of all murders and 96 percent of all shootings being caused by minorities in Nyc. DO some research."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002513901#post10

Skip Intro
10. Good luck with trying to be honest and factual on this issue here. nt

[fascisthunter]

154. what's factual?

[Bluerthanblue]

113. oh bullshit-

in my opinion calling Mr. Zimmerman "George" would be a way of dehumanizing him. I can't help but think of the Bush's every time I hear that name.

As for 'elevating' Trayvon, by the use of his first name only, I think some people use it to denigrate him- because it IS unique, one that some may identify as an ethnic name- which could bias people either positive or negative way.

[dansolo]

159. Why is Zimmerman referred to as a vigilante?

The term vigilante implies that Martin was guilty of something. See, the bias works both ways.

[Skip Intro]

31. +100 nt

[yardwork]

103. Yes, and that's why I do it. I am biased against Zimmerman, who killed a child named Trayvon.

I'm strongly biased, and I will continue to use framing, identity development, and every other rhetorical tactic I can to influence more people into recognizing that Zimmerman chased and murdered an unarmed child.

[ZombieHorde]

117. "Chased" and "child" are good buzzwords against the unaware too.

Your sophistry is likely to be effective against many slower readers.

[yardwork]

131. Thanks. I work hard at it.

[ZombieHorde]

132. Then I will offer some suggestions.

Refer to Zimmerman's truck as big, and Martin's bag of skittles as small. The goal is to have the reader create additional associations within his or her own mind. Having the reader create his or her own associations is supposed to be an extremely effective rhetorical tactic.

An example using both your rhetoric and my suggested rhetoric: "Zimmerman was in his big truck and chasing a child with a little bag of Skittles."

Another rhetorical trick you can use is to ask specific nonsense questions.

Examples:
"Can't a kid walk down the street in peace?"
"Are threats protected speech now?"
"Why are women beaters allowed to have guns?"

[yardwork]

134. Thanks, but I have a lot of practice with this and prefer to do it my own way.

[ZombieHorde]

135. You're right. Personal style is very important, and my suggestions may

come off as unnatural coming from someone else, and therefore, fool less people.

[yardwork]

137. Fool fewer people, you mean.

[ZombieHorde]

139. You're right again. I have an essay to write today, so I better put my grammar hat on. nt

[snagglepuss]

10. Martin and George are extremely common so people use the names that stand out.

[October]

129. Agree. That's what people do... use the less familiar/common name, so every knows who they mean. /

[morningfog]

11. George and Martin are both common names. Zimmermen and Trayvon are more distinct.

Aside from that Zimmy is a murderer and Trayvon a dead victim.

[madaboutharry]

12. Because if we call him George,

people might confuse him with another George. Like George Bush, who is also a criminal.

[-..__...]

23. Not in the same thread/posts or current events.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Calling someone by their first name is more personal

Even if, as obviously is the case with the vast majority of people in this particular case, you've never met the person you're talking about. Some sort of connected feeling happens. It's easier to put yourself in their shoes.

Call someone by their last name, when again, you've never met the person you're talking about, creates, or keeps, distance.

[CreekDog]

15. he's referred to both ways

[obnoxiousdrunk]

17. I do it

because I am biased. I can't stand the mother fucker Zimmerman.

[RZM]

19. I've noticed this too

Much of it might just be coincidence. Same thing happens in our circles of friends and acquaintances. Some people get called by their first name, some by their last, some by both, and some by nicknames.

One possible explanation (really two) is that 'Trayvon' and 'Zimmerman' are much more unique and identifiable than 'Geroge' and 'Martin.' This could also be the racial aspect of the case bleeding in as well. 'Zimmerman' is pretty white sounding (being a German name), while 'Trayvon' is pretty black sounding. 'George' and 'Martin' are both race-neutral.

BTW, depending on where you look, you do get their full names a lot as well. Using only one here might partly be a function of message board/internet culture, because it's faster to type one name than two.

[itsrobert]

20. You confused me when you spelled "Zimmerman" name wrong the first time.

n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. Because out of each person's name, "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" are the most identifiable.

"Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" are much more unique and therefore discrete than "Martin" or "George" - leading to less chance for confusion. I don't think it has anything to do with bias or imbalance.

[-..__...]

35. WTF is there to confuse?

Without question... the "Martin"/"Zimmerman" shit is easily the most discussed topic on DU.

The "unbiased" media uses the full names of both... so, why not remove any doubt or perception of "bias" here as well?

[Electric Monk]

41. George Martin was often referred to as "The Fifth Beatle"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin

[RZM]

44. While 'Trayvon Zimmerman' was in the German Disco Group Boney M

Or maybe not. I'll have to check on that.

[-..__...]

45. LOL!

It took awhile, but I was wondering when a George Martin reference/joke would show up.

I would have done it myself... but as you can see, I already have my hands full.

[madinmaryland]

62. There is NOTHING to confuse. One is a victim of the NRA and the other has been duped

by the NRA.

[-..__...]

71. Awww fuck it...

you win.

[JoePhilly]

138. I think I'll start using, "Captain Hero Complex" and "Innocent Dead Kid" ... those better?

[Ecumenist]

28. REALLY?? This is imbalanced AND unfair? Because people are disgusted by what he did and use HIS

LAST NAME??!! He's lucky that people are using his last name because people could be calling him the "SUMBITCH" he is? How about that?

[JDPriestly]

36. Because George and Martin are common names,

while Zimmerman and Trayvon are not so common and therefore the names Trayvon and Zimmerman identify the two best.

[JI7]

39. kids are usually referred to with First Name , i think it sounds weird when they refer to him as Mr

Martin as Zimmerman's brother did. and he probably did it to make it seem like Trayvon was on the same age level.

[lpbk2713]

43. Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacey.

I'm sure when they were not in the news they were not referred to by three names.

[-..__...]

47. Martin Luther King, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy..

WTF are you talking about?

[tularetom]

46. Why the fuck is this worthy of a post?

FWIW I've used the "last name" convention when posting about either party, but really, who gives a shit?

[Electric Monk]

48. And, from the same poster who posted THIS a couple of weeks ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002471753

I think I smell an agenda...

H&M thread on it here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124067079

[-..__...]

52. Christ...

do I need to do the research for you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=554981

[MADem]

57. You should have done the research before you threw that picture up here. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. It's A Good Thing George Zimmerman Didn't See This Picture Of The 2010-2011 NBA MVP, Derrick Rose

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/derrick-rose-gang-sign-ph_n_214590.html


He would have shot him.

[-..__...]

66. Who says I didn't?

or maybe I did, or maybe I didn't have enough info to go on and asked here about it.

Maybe... just maybe, I was uncertain about it, got lazy about it (and I'll tell you right now... if I have to spend more than 5 minutes Googling something, it ain't worth my time and effort), I figured
I'd ask rather than post that pic and say "Hey... have you seen this unreleased pic of Martin"?

But, I didn't do that... did I?

Funny thing how people jump to conclusions without bothering to look into it more... isn't it?

[MADem]

79. If you did do the research, and you still put that photo up, that tells us more than perhaps

you realize you're revealing.

I don't buy the "laziness" excuse, or the disingenuous "Gee I was just ASKING" excuse. If you were just asking, you could have just asked Google. You tossed that thing up to get a rise out of people, and they asked you to take it down, but you preferred to snark along and someone hit the button and got a fair jury on it.

It sure IS funny how people jump to conclusions--like you did when you threw that picture up here on this progressive board, without bothering to spend five lousy minutes of your precious time doing the Google and verifying it. But you could spend an hour out of your "busy" life giving shit to people who took issue with your posting that pic.

We all have your number, now. You aren't even subtle or clever.

[-..__...]

85. Because I am fucking lazy and I was fucking asking...

what's so fucking hard to understand about that?

How much fucking honesty do you want?

Do yourself, me and everyone else here a favor by not trying to over analyze any of my posts.

We all have your number, now. You aren't even subtle or clever.

"We"... or you?

Think about what you're posting.

If you're insinuating that I'm not what I appear to be, then I'm probably way more clever or subtle than you think I am (seeing as I've been here since 2003).

Or maybe it's just you have no fucking clue whatsoever?

[MADem]

90. I'm not insinuating anything. I am telling you that you show yourself, with your comments, your

pictures, to be exactly what you show yourself to be.

You should think about what you're posting, and where you are posting it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[polly7]

87. Newest member of the 'we' club here. nt.

[MADem]

92. Yes, ma'am. Welcome aboard! nt

[Skip Intro]

61. Don't confuse them with fact - they're not interested in fact -

only in assumptions and insinuations - that's how we got to this discussion to begin with...

You voice opinions, like I do on occasion, that buck the DU consensus makers. They don't like that. So they attack - not your message, but your character. See the response to my "Goodnight..." post just above for an example.

Here, they are trying to label you a racist, their favorite label by far, by implying that you garnered an image from a racist website, therefore, bla bla bla, you're a racist, and have some undefined hidden agenda (something I was accused of recently as well).

By doing this, they hope to encourage enough other simple minds to join in their attack and in short order to frighten you into compliance with their opinions or at least silence you, lest you be exposed as the racist they say you are.

It's a sick game played out almost daily here, and I thank you for not cowering to the intimidation.

I refuse to as well.

[Electric Monk]

64. Did you catch the part about their photobucket account?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124067079#post35

[-..__...]

70. And don't you think that if I had something to hide...

or being deceitful that I would have made that account private?

Nothing hidden there, chum... 90% of those pics (give or take), I've used here before in an appropriate manner.

Some go back years.

Now try and guess where the account name "556308" comes from?

[Electric Monk]

74. You're doubling down on it? Ok, what's an "appropriate manner" for those Rachel Maddow PSs?

[-..__...]

77. Back on DU 2 in the Gungeon...

not all that long ago.

She made some poorly informed/ignorant statement regarding high capacity magazine/"assault weapons" or something similar (I don't recall the exact details... but it was something poorly researched).

If I have the time or inclination... I'll find it and post a link. If not, find it yourself.

And let me just say, there are no sacred cows with me; be it Maddow or anyone else held in high regard here.

[Electric Monk]

80. Would you mind if I call you Kit?

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0213584/

[Cali_Democrat]

75. So what's up with the two pics of Rachel Maddow and the other one about posting on DU?

Do tell....

[-..__...]

78. Post above yours

[Cali_Democrat]

82. Spin...spin...spin away

And what about this post of yours where you said you might find ethnic slurs amusing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9303210&mesg_id=9304360

[-..__...]

89. Because maybe I'm not that anal or wound up tighter than a clock spring.

what.... you never got a laugh out of a single ethnic joke (without feeling dirty about it)?

Ethnic doesn't have to mean Black/Hispanic/Asian... there are ethnic jokes about whites/Irish/Italians/Polish etc too... and I fit into 3 of those categories.

Never got a chuckle out of George Carlin, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock or Howard Stern?

"Blazing Saddles" (the bleeped out version), "All In The Family"?

Do you automatically assume there's some deep racial shit or hatred behind it all?

[CreekDog]

120. you weren't anal when you posted the fake Trayvon Martin photo (bouncing around right wing blogs)

so it seems like you are anal when it comes to defending Zimmerman, but you'll participate carelessly and cluelessly in any effort to disparage Trayvon Martin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002471753

"s this a more recent pic of Trayvon Martin.."

[fascisthunter]

155. Oh Snap!

somebody else got it.

[CreekDog]

161. so why would you keep that fake photo of Trayvon Martin (the one that isn't him)?

the photo circulated, i think, to replace the real image of Trayvon Martin and which seems to be a favorite of right wing bloggers?

[-..__...]

162. You again?

Give it a rest.

[CreekDog]

168. so i guess you don't have any explanation of that post

if you would give those kinds of posts a rest, then you'll be justified in asking others to give the criticism a rest.

until then, you aren't justified.

[Skip Intro]

73. I have now, and I'll say this about that -

Number one, I don't for one second back off my characterization of the DU intimidation game - I've been on the receiving end of that one too many times to pretend it doesn't exist. Espousing a view contrary to the DU consensus often times opens one up to all sorts of personal attacks and insinuations - I know this first hand. It's like you're on trial, and I always come back to - who the hell is anyone to pass judgement on me? That kind of intimidation has never has worked on me, and it never will.

As far as the poster in question in your post, and his/her photobucket account, I have looked through that image gallery and can say my image gallery would look far different. But I will judge the poster by what he/she posts here, and so far, aside from one image of Martin that he/she posted, asking if it was real, I haven't seen anything posted that causes me to think this poster is guilty of some horrible travesty. He/she has been here since 2003 it seems, and I would think that if he/she were here spreading racist ideas, his/her account would have been shut down long ago.

I'm here on DU to discuss ideas, concepts, and current events in an honest and respectful manner. I'm not here to jump on some bandwagon. I'm not here to have others think for me. I'm not here to censor myself or others, or to be censored. I'm not here to point fingers. I'm not here to help conduct witch-hunts, or be the subject of one.

Moving on...

[MADem]

82. So, when people object to racist or other discriminatory invective or jokes, that's

"the DU intimidation game?"

Please.

[Skip Intro]

86. You're playing that game right now -

Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:52 AM - Edit history (2)

heavily edited:

I didn't describe people objecting to overtly racist language, I described people trying to silence others who hold views contrary to the DU groupthink by accusing them, directly or by strong insinuation, of being racist, among other things.

I've described it as per my own experience

and I think I described it pretty well

you need look no further than your own twisting of my words for an example, but there are many examples to be found...

look at almost any Martin/Zimmerman thread and see how those who don't jump on the "Zimmerman is a cold blooded racist killer" bandwagon get labeled as racist themselves, simply for advocating that we should wait for all facts to come out before making a judgment. They're called "Zimmerman defenders," or "Zimmerman apologists," and more often than not subsequently labeled racists. Simply for advocating for due process.

what a sick game

[MADem]

93. Let's be quite clear here--I am not playing any "game."

I am seeing some racist remarks in this thread and I find it tremendously disturbing.

This isn't about cutesy phrases or word games--this is about dogwhistling racism and some pretty ugly commentary.

I am not "twisting" anyone's words. I'm just reading 'em. If you find my observations "intimidating," well, maybe that's because you know damn well what you are doing is wrong.

Don't blame me if you're feeling edgy, nervous or guilty because of your own deeply held prejudices and your enthusiastic support for those shopping racist remarks on this thread. That's all on you.

If you're feeling intimidated and beleaguered, you're doing it to yourself.

[Skip Intro]

94. Oh yes you are -

Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2012, 04:45 AM - Edit history (7)

Your words: "So, when people object to racist or other discriminatory invective or jokes, that's "the DU intimidation game? Please."

You said that in response to what I described as people here being labeled as racist among other things because they dare to question the consensus. I said nothing about people objecting to racist invective or jokes, yet you responded as if I did. You twisted what I said, twisted my point, playing the same sick game I was railing against.

Please indeed.

And MADem, just so you know, I don't feel intimidated, by you, despite your efforts here, or anyone else. I've got nothing to feel "guilty, nervous or edgy" about. That my insistence on fairness and honesty would illicit such a response simply proves my point.

If you're gong to accuse me of doing something "wrong" please provide an example of such.


******* HANG ON ONE FUCKING MINUTE ******


You just said this to me: "Don't blame me if you're feeling edgy, nervous or guilty because of your own deeply held prejudices."

WTF?!

THAT is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. What "deeply held prejudices" do I hold, and how the hell could you possibly arrive at such a conclusion? This is you - playing that same sick game I was talking about. You are insinuating that I'm a racist without any proof to back up such an insinuation. Really, MADem, why do that? WTF?

You have just proven my point beautifully.

You don't like my point of view, don't like my opinions, so you insinuate, pretty blatantly, that I'm a racist - attacking my character instead of discussing honestly the issues I raised. The same damn sick screwed up game I was talking about, that you just denied you were playing, yet here you are doing exactly that.

Wow.

[MADem]

118. You might want to remember what YOU wrote before you accuse anyone of anything.

You said:

Number one, I don't for one second back off my characterization of the DU intimidation game ...

YOUR characterizaton. Not mine. You invented a little game, and you're playing it for all it is worth.

Some people see what you are doing, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you weren't feeling a bit edgy, nervous or guilty, you wouldn't be writing long diatribes in an effort to try to mitigate or excuse your horrible behavior on this thread.

Wow, indeed. No sale.

[Skip Intro]

124. You just got busted doing exactly what I described,

and this is your response?

Because you don't like my opinions as expressed in this thread, you try to attack my character by pinning the "racist" label on me through a not so sublte insinuation.

That is the sick game I described and you just got busted playing it.

I'll just say thanks for proving my point, and leave it at that.

[MADem]

126. Keep digging--you'll hit oil soon if you keep on.

You're the one who brought up "game playing."

Racism isn't a joke or a game to most of us, though.

[Skip Intro]

130. Sad.

Wont even own your own words and actions. Just keep attacking. Don't know why I expected more from you.

But the facts are there in black and white.

Rather than discussing the issues at hand, you chose to accuse me of having "deeply held prejudices," attacking my character and trying to label me a racist.

You said it, doing exactly what I was talking about. That's the game right there, it is your game, and you've got it all over you.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

See ya.

[MADem]

142. Yes, very sad indeed, your attitudes in this thread and on this board.

Yes, the facts are indeed "there in black and white," and you wrote them.

I'm not "doing" a darned thing--I'm just observing your conduct. No game on my end, just yours.

[CreekDog]

141. no, you got busted

"According to the Police Department, 96 percent of shooting victims last year, and 90 percent of murder victims, were minorities."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/nyregion/fighting-stop-and-frisk-tactic-but-hitting-racial-divide.html

but you posted this instead:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002513901#post10

agreeing with the following:

"The NY times that give 90 percent of all murders and 96 percent of all shootings being caused by minorities in Nyc"

[MADem]

143. +1,000 nt

[Skip Intro]

145. ? - my once a week reply to CreekDog

I figured I'd do it tonight so as not to keep you from your homework, CD.

I'm going to kick myself for asking, but what, my stalker, do you thnk your obsessive research on me come up with this time?

[CreekDog]

147. you agreed with a comment that said that minorities cause nearly all of the violent crime in NYC

when in fact, the NY Times actually said, they are the victims of it.

if you can't deal with nor understand your own statements of a few weeks ago, then you are even less credible than those statements suggest you are.

[Skip Intro]

156. CreekDog, don't you get tired of being wrong?

I've entertained your inexplicable crusade against me for several days now, just because I find it fascinating that someone would become so obsessed with me. But I gotta tell ya, your stalking is starting to get a little creepy.

Yet once again I will explain what should be obvious to you, although this may be the last time because, frankly, I'm not good with kids for extended periods. So try to follow along this time, ok?

In your effort to find something with which to label me "racist" (playing the same sick game I described above - and playing it badly, I might add), you find a reply I made to a poster in another thread who said something about stopping name calling and focusing instead on fact. And I said, pretty much, good luck with that. Now pay attention, ok?

I was not agreeing with the stats she presented, which should be clear because I didn't comment on the stats she presented, pro or con. I commented on the effort to focus on fact instead of dramatics and diversionary attacks (like those you've hurled at me over the last several days). My point was that some DUers are not interested in fact, but choose rather to focus on drama and fauxrage and personal attacks, etc. Wasn't agreeing with the stats presented, didn't mention the stats presented, made a comment on the difficulty of having a serious discussion of fact, without the games and drama and attacks.

Can you see the difference between that and what you're trying to accuse me of? Most reasonable people would be able to, even a child could, so I'm guessing you can too. But we know from the past few days that you only like to accuse, you're not so much into saying you're sorry when proven wrong. That's ok. I don't expect it.

And I'll ask again, CreekDog. Instead of discussing the topic at hand on any given thread, why do you feel the need to try to dig up dirt on those with whom you disagree, with some witch-hunt mentality, in an effort to smear them? That doesn't say a lot for your comprehension or debating skills, you know.

And I'll say this too, CD, then I'll be done engaging your childishness for a few days, at least, but do know this: I don't answer to you buddy. I have no reason to explain anything, at all, to you, and have only done so now and the last few days for sheer entertainment value. But you know, at some point, the kiddie rides get boring.

[CreekDog]

157. just to be clear, you're saying now you only agreed with the non-racist portion of the racist post?

even though you didn't say that then.

and you did say good luck being "factual" in a subthread saying talking about the black/minority crime rate and to the post which the only thing presented as "fact" was the black/minority crime rate (which was stated completely opposite of what the fact was).

and now you're saying that you weren't agreeing with that part of the post, but the other part of the post?

apparently you're asking us to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. but how many times in how many years are we expected to do that? especially in light of how you've been posting on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

[Skip Intro]

160. ROFL!

Wow, went right over your head, did it?

I made a one sentence statement that said good luck with trying to be factual on this board, which, as you have proven time and again, is not something that is easily done. But think whatever you want about it, man. Try to get this straight, ok? I'm not asking you to believe anything. I don't care what you believe. Believe whatever you like. You can comprehend that, can't you?

And dude, really, the "us/we" thing? How old are you anyway?

Yet having lost this round, you want to now hint at some supposed racist posts from me "many times in many years" and hint that I've made racist posts the Zimmerman/Martin threads. Yeah, CD, I've been around here for ten years just spouting all kinds of racist nonsense, just barely escaping being tombstoned, and it took you to uncover it all. Yay you. Golly.

Same bullshit game, insinuation and personal attacks. Are you sure you're in the right party?

[CreekDog]

163. Yes, I must be stupid and not get it, just like all the other posters here asking you the same

even though, your whole explanation rests on us giving you the benefit of the doubt that you will not for a second give us, nor Trayvon Martin.

what else can i say?

[Skip Intro]

165. Yes, you must be. A final challenge for you, CD, time to put up or shut up.

You're either playing stupid or you really are, I can't tell which. I kinda feel sorry for you, but I'm quickly losing interest.

However, I will make a challenge to you. You're now accusing me of not giving Martin the benefit of the doubt - no proof, just an accusation. Just making stuff up and running with it.

Here's the challenge - prove that accusation with quotes, in context, and links to back it up. Offer some proof of that assertion.

I won't hold my breath.

Btw, while you were busy twisting my words and reading all sorts of bs into them, I found this...Sound familiar?

----------------
CreekDog:

I explain to you what I said 100 times and you are telling me what I really said?

that's ridiculous. you don't agree with me, and that's your right. but something in you decides that you have to tell me that I think something worse or different than I said --though I've been perfectly willing to explain myself and what I think.

you accuse me of some other meaning in my words, when I always post on these issues at DU and have done for years.

there is no hidden agenda --though you accuse me of one of trying to justify racism, which I didn't do and don't approve of.

don't tell me about reality --it's you that's trying to make my posts into something they aren't. that's YOU distorting reality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002526765#post84
----------------

Turns out you're a hypocrite too, eh CD? It was that thread that got under your skin, wasn't it? People, myself included, called you out for your silliness and you didn't like it, hence the witch hunt. That's it, isn't it? Poor guy.

Oh well, on to the challenge. Will you back up your words with proof? Will you show me not giving Martin the benefit of the doubt? "We'll" be *yawn* waiting...

[Skip Intro]

166. Called you on your bs and you run.

Again.

I'll tell you this, CreekDog - you keep stalking me from thread to thread and accusing me of bullshit you can't back up, I'll be in touch with Skinner and the admins about it.

Take your sick game elsewhere.

[JonLP24]

150. Nice sidestep

and you wonder where this racism stuff comes from when you say, 'no one here likes facts'(including this thread), but have trouble owning up that you & that troll, perhaps didn't have the facts.

[CreekDog]

158. and that the poster is more critical of my posts than he was of the racist, who posted false data

[MADem]

81. That was disturbing. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. You're A Hero. Maybe You Can Get Your Face In Granite At Stone Mountain

lol

[Skip Intro]

69. just interested in the truth my friend

[-..__...]

76. I may or may not agree on many issues posted here...

but right or wrong, I refuse to be assimilated or absorbed into the collective simply because it's the popular opinion and if I disagree... I'm an outcast.

This isn't free thought... it's indoctrination.

[CreekDog]

140. an outcast for your posts --like the fake picture of Trayvon Martin

...you posted.

and basic broadsiding of liberals for several years here.

don't paint yourself as the victim anymore than you're trying to paint Zimmerman as one.

[MADem]

55. Jesus. About as subtle as a train wreck. nt

[obamanut2012]

104. OMG I cannot believe they posted that discredited photo

Thanks for posting that link -- it really puts the OP in a new light.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. Don't you get it? It's a subtle conspiracy to dehumanize Zimmerman and elevate Trayvon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=591320



As you can see, I use Zimmerman to refer to George Zimmerman and I use Trayvon when referring to Trayvon Martin.

I'm in on the conspiracy.

[Zax2me]

49. To accentuate racial differences.

I still think to myself, when seeing pics of George Zimmerman - 'He's white?'

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. Because "george" and "martin" are too generic?

You need to let this one ride, IMO.

Find another line.

[-..__...]

58. Never mind...

fuggaedaboutit... if you haven't been following/understanding this thread so far, it's not worth my time discussing it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I Don't Refer To James Earl Ray And Byron de la Beckwith As James And Byron

I don't refer to James Earl Ray and Byron De La Beckwith as James and Byron.


Is that subtle enough for ya?

[ScreamingMeemie]

59. Why not?

This matters how....??????

[madinmaryland]

60. Because Mr. Zimmerman has bought into the Gun-nut mentality that has

over-run this fucking country.

Thread has been un-recced.

[Hoyt]

63. Trayvon was an innocent victim of a hopped up likely racist, police wannabe, gun nut

It just doesn't feel right to refer to an unarmed, innocent victim of a gun toting, worthless POS as "Martin. " I hope Zimmerman forever evokes thoughts of a vigilante, worthless, gun toting POS coward who would have stayed in his car without his gun.

[LiberalFighter]

67. Why do I use Z and Trayvon?

Shorter and most aware of the situation should know the reference.

[Blue_Tires]

72. Not sure what you're talking about

I've always referred to them by full or last names...And the vast majority of times I've seen them mentioned on DU, it's by their last names...

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. Trayvon has no catchy shortening like Zimmy does.

[dionysus]

151. you could call him Tray i suppose...

[Whisp]

95. Trayvon is a unique name and George isn't?

Martin is sort of common compared to Zimmerman?

That's how I can relate to why.

[saras]

96. Thanks for speaking up. I noticed, and changed, but didn't say anything.

Zimmerman sounds normal (i.e. white). So does George. Either works.
Trayvon sounds unusual. Martin makes him sound normal (i.e. white).

Zimmerman is a last name - more respect
Trayvon is a first name - less respect

I use Martin simply to dodge xenophobia. It's Zimmerman & Martin, like attorneys.

I'm sure there's other reasons, but I can't think of any without going back and reading the responses to this OP

[obamanut2012]

111. The OP means the opposite of what you just posted

Just FYI.

[CreekDog]

97. YES! That TRAYVON gets all the breaks don't he?

my goodness, how unfair to favor him like that! he'll probably be a rich man after th-

oh.

[99Forever]

98. Please explain to me why anyone should...

.. worry about an admitted murderer being treated "fairly" in the press (presuming the ridiculous assumption that it's the actual reason for it or that it true) ?

I have zero compassion for a vigilante killer and a lot for his innocent, unarmed teenage victim. Guess you feel differently.

[varelse]

99. That's not how he's referred to in my household

We don't call him "George" either, FYI.

[yardwork]

100. Because one of them was a child, and he's dead, killed by the other.

[obamanut2012]

101. He was the victim and a minor

I think it's okay to call a murdered child by his first name.

[NNN0LHI]

105. Because Zimmerman is an adult and Trayvon is a kid

I commonly refer to unrelated adults by their last name. Hardly ever refer to an unrelated kid by their last name. I have done that my entire life.

Does that answer your question?

Ever recall doing the same thing yourself?

Don

[Ikonoklast]

106. I refer to them as 'Asshole On A Power Trip With Violent Tendencies And A Gun' and 'Murder Victim'.

Makes it easier that way.

[AzDar]

108. Respect for the dead, perhaps? One thing *is* certain...

A troll by any other name would smell as offensively.

[Bluerthanblue]

109. because Trayvon is more distinct than martin and Zimmerman is more

distinct than george.

Why did people say "Hillary" and "Obama" during the primaries in 2008?

[ZombieHorde]

164. Hillary Clinton used the name "Hillary," on her posters. It is how she wanted to be called. nt

[krispos42]

110. I noticed this early on...

... and used the last names for both of them in nearly all of my posts about his subject.


Plus, there are lots of "Georges" on DU... the two Bushes, for example.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

112. And why is Trayvon Martin a 17 year old referred to as MR. Martin?

I'm sure while he was alive he was never referred to as Mr. Martin. It's
a tactic to make him sound older, and every time I hear it I cringe.

[4th law of robotics]

114. Zimmerman is more unique than George. Trayvon is more unique than Martin.

[CreekDog]

115. why did you post a Stormfront-sourced fake photo of Trayvon Martin?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002471753

and then after being corrected, left it to stand (luckily a jury took care of it).

[IcyPeas]

116. hannity and others refer to him as Mr. Zimmerman

[11 Bravo]

119. Because "murdering, cowardly, asshole, piece-of-shit, mother-fucker" couldn't get by the censors?

[mzmolly]

121. I didn't realize we were supposed to be

balanced?

[noiretextatique]

123. as someone already posted: its the AP style naming convention, not a fng "imbalance" or "conspiracy"

this is a post worthy of limbaugh. you started out with a false premise, and you failed to educate yourself on the premise (if you had, you would know it was false) and you reached the wrong conclusion, based a faulty premise and failure to research your position.

[MADem]

127. +1,000 nt

[MattBaggins]

125. It is nothing more than ease of association

George is too common... Zimmerman is not.

Martin can be a first or last name and is too common. Trayvon is not

[Iggo]

128. Because if you said "George" and "Martin"...

...I wouldn't know who the fuck you were talking about.

[lunatica]

133. I like the name Trayvon which is why I say it and

he was a teenager. A child. You don't refer to children by their last names like you do with adults. Saying Zimmerman about the adult is correct use of his name.

[jpak]

136. Cuz he's a douchebag?

[LeftyMom]

146. It's a conspiracy. You've caught us.

[CreekDog]

148. well I think the OP has scattered to the four winds

or possibly the safety of the RKBA group.

[-..__...]

149. I've been hiding under your bed the whole time.

One... this thread has gone as far as it can go. Further responses only bumps this thread to the top of the page... fine by me, if that's what you want.

Two... I've already answered the questions worth responding to. If they're not satisfactory to you... that's your problem.

Three... I don't live my life posting here on DU (or anywhere else for that matter), especially on a Saturday.

or possibly the safety of the RKBA group.

Well... why don't you just saunter over there and take a look?

Never mind... let me save you the trouble; I've only posted there 2-3 times at the most since the inception of DU3.

Besides... Thanks to many here... GD is the new "Gungeon".

[CreekDog]

152. well of course i'm more likely to post here than you --i actually like it here

do you?

[fascisthunter]

153. because its a leftwing conspiracy!

[Honeycombe8]

167. I call him Martin often. I use GZ 'cause it's shorter. "Trayvon" is attempt topersonalize the victim

I think Trayvon is used by some to personalize the victim. That's often done. "Natalie" for Natalie Holloway.

He's also a minor, so there's a tendency to refer to minors by first name.

Nothing sinister or racial in it, that I see. I think it's the personalization of the victim, and is often done by those in DU and elsewhere who think GZ is guilty of murder.