Some more on lynching
Lynching is a terrible thing, and it's a thing we have a terrible history with.
There are two ways people tend to see it, and the conflation of the two is no small part of how the rhetoric of the last post's seed crystal came about.
In the West, lynchings tended to take place because the public thought a miscarriage of justice had taken place. That, I suspect, is what Bay Buchanan was trying to get across (i.e. Esptein did a wrong, he was charged, made a plea bargain and should be allowed to move on with his life. "The Left" refused to accept justice had been done and dragged him out and, "strung him up").
Her failure is that she seems tone-deaf to the greater connotation of the word.
For more than 100 years lynching was used as a means to keep blacks from, "stepping out of line." It didn't take a court failure to end up hanged, beaten, or burned to death. All it took was to look at a white woman, "wrong", or to be, "uppity". In some places a black who was literate risked death.
Marcus Epstein didn't have that happen. He has had nothing like that happen. I don't know what he intended to do with the law degree he want's to get, but I don't think he's going to suffer much. He's already been the beneficiary of some wingnut welfare (a place to live for several months, a guaranteed job for when he got out of rehab... I'm pretty sure he intends to stay in politics, and with this stuff in his background the odds are he wasn't going to be running for office; the law degree was probably just a way to get better looking when his CV was posted on someone's staff page. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I somehow doubt he was looking to a career before the bar; and I really don't think I want to picture him as a US Attorney, all things considered).
So "lynched" isn't the right word.
For what lynching really means, and what it really looks like Without Sanctuary has a whole lot of photos.
This is not what was done to Epstein.
There are two ways people tend to see it, and the conflation of the two is no small part of how the rhetoric of the last post's seed crystal came about.
In the West, lynchings tended to take place because the public thought a miscarriage of justice had taken place. That, I suspect, is what Bay Buchanan was trying to get across (i.e. Esptein did a wrong, he was charged, made a plea bargain and should be allowed to move on with his life. "The Left" refused to accept justice had been done and dragged him out and, "strung him up").
Her failure is that she seems tone-deaf to the greater connotation of the word.
For more than 100 years lynching was used as a means to keep blacks from, "stepping out of line." It didn't take a court failure to end up hanged, beaten, or burned to death. All it took was to look at a white woman, "wrong", or to be, "uppity". In some places a black who was literate risked death.
Marcus Epstein didn't have that happen. He has had nothing like that happen. I don't know what he intended to do with the law degree he want's to get, but I don't think he's going to suffer much. He's already been the beneficiary of some wingnut welfare (a place to live for several months, a guaranteed job for when he got out of rehab... I'm pretty sure he intends to stay in politics, and with this stuff in his background the odds are he wasn't going to be running for office; the law degree was probably just a way to get better looking when his CV was posted on someone's staff page. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I somehow doubt he was looking to a career before the bar; and I really don't think I want to picture him as a US Attorney, all things considered).
So "lynched" isn't the right word.
For what lynching really means, and what it really looks like Without Sanctuary has a whole lot of photos.
This is not what was done to Epstein.