O.J. Simpson died on Thursday at the age of 76, and the media didn�t quite
know what to do.

They didn�t know what to do because O.J. Simpson was a murderer, and everyone
knows he was a murderer. But he spent the last half of his life being treated
by some in the media as though he was a sort of controversial figure.

A headline from the Washington Post summed this up: �How will O.J. Simpson be
remembered?�

The answer for everyone who remembers the O.J. Simpson murder trial is that
he will be remembered as a person who very obviously murdered his ex-wife and
a person named Ron Goldman, and then proceeded to be alleviated of the
criminal responsibility for that double murder by a jury of people who were
politically motivated, to the celebration of a wide swath of the American
population.

He�ll be remembered as a person who dramatically widened the gap between the
races in the United States, which, in some ways, has never truly closed. It
seemed as though that between the trial of O.J. Simpson and the election of
Barack Obama, America was becoming more racially reconciliatory.

But Barack Obama opened those gaps wide again in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
The O.J. Simpson trial was the moment when Americans realized that the
attempts of the 1960s and 1970s to move beyond America�s terrible history of
racism had some pretty impactful consequences, and that there were two sides
to the racial conflict in the United States because up until the Civil Rights
movement, there really was only one side.

That side had been American white supremacists treating black people as
chattel and as trash. After the Civil Rights movement, the idea was that we
would put all of that behind us. We were going to move forward in a country
that tries to actually meet the guarantees of the Declaration of Independence
that all men are created equal.

But then, in the O.J. Simpson trial, it became very clear to a lot of
Americans that the standard of equal justice for all was not only a matter of
if that could be reached, but it was also a matter of if everyone wanted that
standard to be reached.

That�s what the O.J. Simpson trial meant for a lot of people. And that�s why
he will be remembered as a double murderer who got away with it for racial
political reasons.

Simpson left the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in his wake. Not
just that; he still owed more than $100 million to their families because
they won civil trials against him after losing the criminal trial in favor of
convicting him.

The evidence against O.J. was overwhelming. Everyone knew he was guilty. No
one legitimately believed he was innocent. It was just a question of whether
you wanted to see him acquitted because of racial reasons.

Those racial reasons were explained at the time and are being explained even
now by people who believe that somehow, some sort of revenge was deserved for
America�s terrible racial history.

After he killed two white people, suddenly his cause became a �racial cause.�
And that racial logic has kept up even until today.

Marc Lamont Hill, a true believer in the perverse ideology of diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI), and critical race theory, tweeted yesterday,

O.J. Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long
before he killed two people in cold blood. His acquittal for murder
was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal
system. But he�s still a monster, not a martyr.

So he acknowledges O.J. Simpson murdered two people in cold blood and was a
monster, but he still deserved to be acquitted.

No country obviously can survive for very long on the basis that, as long as
you are a member of a particular race, you deserve to be acquitted for
murdering somebody else of another race in that sort of pure, unbridled
hatred and racism. It wrecks societies.

The more faith you show in the political narrative, the more you�re willing
to pick a bad example and say even it applies to your narrative. And O.J. is
the worst example of all.

At the time of the trial, some black people and white people responded
incredibly differently to the verdict.

Even today, there are people who are trying to make excuses for why O.J. was
acquitted because the real question is not really why O.J. did what he did.
He was a sociopathic murderer who murdered two people in cold blood. The real
question is why the legal system did what it did and why Americans reacted
the way they did.

O.J. Simpson died a free man. The idea that there is some underlying question
of justice with regard to O.J. Simpson that would have allowed for the moral
imprimatur to be placed upon his acquittal is morally unrighteous
foolishness.

O.J. Simpson was a double murderer. He should have gone to jail. And if you
believe that questions of race should take precedence over questions of
actual blood guilt, that makes you a bad person. That is not how justice
works.

When social justice, which is what this is, trumps individual justice, when
the idea is that a racial narrative � a true racial narrative about black
victimhood in America � is supposed to trump the fact that a black man
killed two white people, you have lost the thread of decency and morality.

Justice cannot work under these circumstances.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <uvon4o$1lc8m$4@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> Marc Lamont Hill, a true believer in the perverse ideology of diversity,
> equity, and inclusion (DEI), and critical race theory, tweeted yesterday,
>
> O.J. Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long
> before he killed two people in cold blood. His acquittal for murder
> was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal
> system. But he's still a monster, not a martyr.
>
> So he acknowledges O.J. Simpson murdered two people in cold blood and was a
> monster, but he still deserved to be acquitted.

And these are the people we have running our government institutions and
our universities.

A double homicide occurs and the most important thing to these people is
not that we look to the evidence to determine guilt or innocence, but
rather the skin color of the perpetrator and the victims.

On 4/17/24 2:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uvon4o$1lc8m$4@dont-email.me>,
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> Marc Lamont Hill, a true believer in the perverse ideology of diversity,
>> equity, and inclusion (DEI), and critical race theory, tweeted yesterday,
>>
>> O.J. Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long
>> before he killed two people in cold blood. His acquittal for murder
>> was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal
>> system. But he's still a monster, not a martyr.
>>
>> So he acknowledges O.J. Simpson murdered two people in cold blood and was a
>> monster, but he still deserved to be acquitted.
>
> And these are the people we have running our government institutions and
> our universities.
>
> A double homicide occurs and the most important thing to these people is
> not that we look to the evidence to determine guilt or innocence, but
> rather the skin color of the perpetrator and the victims.

That was neither stated nor implied. Do we need a primer on Mark Furman
(sp?) to recall how racism was involved, or do you need a primer of the
overarching racism in the "criminal justice" system as evidenced by
Rodney King? I think the both of you *have* to be phishing to be called
a couple of shitbags.