I agree. However the story is fishy considering the circumstances surrounding these victims.
What circumstances? Fishy in what way?
True, which is why I supplied both the video and the New York Times report. Why were other non-black victims paid much more? Why was these victims met in secret? These are questions I have.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. All I'm seeing here is assumptions of racist accusation, while it seems to me that there is a far more plausible answer.
Poverty is a given but again, when comparing sexual abuse with other non-black victims why were these people paid significantly less? Because they didn't have lawyers?
Errrr...... yes?
When negotiating a settlement with big filthy rich organizations that don't have just one lawyer, but
teams of lawyers, without having lawyer yourself... it's safe to say that they will be walking all over you using all the tricks of the trade.
This is literally what lawyers are for: they get you a better deal.
Seems kind of obvious!
If that is the case why were they met in secret? Why didn't the settling party have a lawyer present?
Strategy.
If *I* were on the team tasked with settling for the lowest amount possible and I knew I'ld be dealing with a poor person that has no access to quality legal advice.... the last thing I would want to do is put a big public light on the case as that would obviously compromise your negotation goals.
So, in context of a goal of having to pay the least possible, that makes perfect sense. We can question the ethical value thereof till the cows come home - and we'll probably agree on how unethical it is...
But that's not the point being discussed.
Again, I see no reason to pull the race card here. Or perhaps better put: nothing you've said tells me that it's about race.
That is, if you have a good lawyer that will squeeze them.
Sure.
And no matter what the color of your skin is - which is irrelevant for that
Protip: Never make an uninformed opinion about a story without reading on it
I wasn't uninformed. You informed me in the OP.
The stuff you said in the OP however, make no mention of any elements that deal with racism. And yet the subject of your OP is an accusation of racism, or at least: different treatement as a direct result of racial elements.
But your OP contains NO ELEMENTS at all that suggest this is the case.
I'ld think that if you would create an OP based on a case described in some article, to point out the racism involved, that your OP would at least mention the case elements that suggest racism.
The fact that you didn't (or at least: that the elements you did bring up weren't sufficient for me to conclude racism), tells me that there are no such elements.
If there were, surely you would have mentioned them.
Instead, you talked about poverty, the victim being ignorant about his legal options, due to being poor being unable to hire a good lawyer, etc.
There's nothing there about race, except for the (seemingly trivial) fact that the victim happens to be black.
This is why I started my post with "
not every bad thing that happens to a black person is related to that person's skin color".
[qutoe]Because even though you may not see any racial implications in a story there very well could be something in effect racial going on.[/quote]
Sure. There "could" be. It "could" also be that he's a democrat and the others republicans that it's political discrimination. Or, it "could" be that the most plausible explanation is correct and the only reason they only paid 15k is because they knew they could get away with it - regardless of skin color.
See, there are entirely not enough details here...
We don't even know the nature of the cases. Perhaps the one with 500k was gangraped by 10 priests while the one with 15k only had a prostate exam that went on for longer then it needed.
What about the defense of the ones with 500k? Did they do have good lawyers? Were they rich already? Perhaps a parent that's famous one way or the other or a big chief somewhere? Perhaps those other case had loads more media attention, meaning that there already was a public spotlight on them - which will automatically make wallets open up wider?
There are so many elements missing here that from what I can see, your argument amounts to not more then this at this point:
P1: poor black man without lawyer agrees with 15k settlement over undefined sexual abuse case
P2: white person with unknown financial status, unknown legal assistance, gets 500k over underfined sexual abuse case
Conclusion: therefor, racism.
It's not sounding very convincing to me.
Because admitting to haven't read the backstory yet want to make a judgment call
Excuse me..... YOU are the one making the judgement call.
I'm merely questioning your judgement call, based on the evidence that you did not present.
Once again, if there were clear elements in this case pointing to racism, I'ld expect you to mention them in the OP, since that's what your entire OP is about: accusations of racism.
Since you didn't, I assume that there are no such elements. If there were, why wouldn't you mention them, as presenting that would actually make the point you are trying to make.....
means you're taking shots in the dark without actually knowing what's going on.
I'm shooting in the amount of light that your OP is shining on the case.
