"If you didn't want to get raped then you shouldn't have dressed that way."
How he was treated (and profiled based on his skin color and name) was wrong. To suggest anything otherwise is victim-blaming.
I'm not defending what happened, but I'm just pointing
out that this could have been easily avoided.
If I walk into a gas station with a ski mask and my hand
in my jacket, I'm not breaking any laws. But I have enough
common sense not to do that.
s/common sense/privilege/rg
You want a better comparison? You are saying "I have common sense not to be a black man loitering in public." As if black men should be harassed by law enforcement at any turn. You are saying "I have common sense not to be a woman dressed (some subset of) the population finds scandalous." As if her body were owned by the public and not herself and as if it weren't her prerogative to dress however she damn well pleased.
The illogical behavior / lack of common sense is completely on the part of the system. There ought not be a suggestion other than "fix the broken-ass system."
Second of all, I labeled my analogy as "extreme". Perhaps you missed that, or once again maybe it's just that your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I used an extreme example to illustrate my point clearly.
The common sense to not bring a hollywood-macguyver-homemade-electronic device into a school knowing full well there are incompetent, conservative-minded administration who will judge you based upon your name, appearance, and the fact you have a bomb-looking electronic device. Right or wrong, it's PREDICTABLE and puts yourself at meaningless risk with no upside.
Once again, this might be WRONG. But it is PREDICTABLE. This is the concept of idealism vs realism. The way the world is versus the way the world ought to be. Perhaps this type of conversation is above your head though.
I did not suggest what happened to him was RIGHT
(which would qualify as suggesting otherwise). I
said it was PREDICTABLE.
Second of all, I labeled my analogy as "extreme". Perhaps
you missed that, or once again maybe it's just that your
reading comprehension skills are lacking. I used an
extreme example to illustrate my point clearly.
Once again, this might be WRONG. But it is PREDICTABLE.
This is the concept of idealism vs realism. The way the
world is versus the way the world ought to be. Perhaps
this type of conversation is above your head though.
In no world real or imagined was that something he should have been concerned about. Or the parents. In the real world, you fight the dickwagons who hurt you or your son. And in the ideal world, it never even happens.
To reiterate the point of my previous criticism: the illogical behavior / lack of common sense is completely on the part of the system. There ought not be a suggestion other than "fix the broken-ass system." Don't tell people what to do on the basis of a racist and dehumanizing system. You're perpetuating that shit.
It's inside a small case, with exposed wires, and a digital display. You're really naive if you don't think that's going to raise any eyebrows.
If some kid is passionate about cooking, should he bring in his homemade flour in small unmarked plastic baggies and start selling it to all his classmates? Completely within anybody's right to do that, but OBVIOUSLY a stupid idea. That's the category this kid's homemade clock falls under.
OBVIOUSLY a stupid idea
The only OBVIOUSLY stupid thing (/ person) is you suggesting that he shouldn't have done what he did because of a very wrong status quo.
Your analogy is nearly as dumb as you. More accurate is "if a kid loves cooking, should he bake cupcakes and bring it in for his classmates? YES."
Should a kid get arrested for bringing in cupcakes? Obviously not. And if there are assholes in the school who arrest kids who bake cupcakes? Well, they can suck it, and hopefully people don't sit around and let it happen without a response. #thanksobama You don't call kids who bring cupcakes to school stupid.
--
What you construe as "reality" and what you judge as stupid or smart adds nothing to the topic. If the intent of your post was to say "the status quo of conservative america sucks," you're saying something everyone knows. If you're saying (and this is what your text ends up conveying) "it's stupid to exercise your rights," this is the problem. You don't get to blame victims. Nowhere in your commentary are you saying the aggressors are responsible for changing course. You only say the kid should have changed course. You call him stupid for his actions. Do you yet see how that's shitty of you?