Dear Tomi Lahren,
There may be mixed opinions about what exactly signifies “political correctness." After a quick review of your final thoughts”on Jesse Williams’ speech, we can see which side you favor.
After several minutes of hearing your distasteful comments about black people, the debater in me began to refute them. A few arguments stood out to me.
What does it mean when you say everyone has “equal rights?” What purpose does it serve for you to say that white people fought in the Civil War to free enslaved people? What point are you trying to make when you say, “They may be unarmed, but not for lack of trying?”
When you said black people are fighting for special treatment, I’m sure you didn’t actually believe that the system favors people of color. A person of sound mind couldn’t possibly believe that stop and frisk laws were made to target white people in urban communities, seeing as in the past year, only 11 percent of New Yorkers who were interrogated in the streets were white. Not to mention that 80 percent of people stopped and frisked were completely innocent. Laws don’t actually have to be set in stone to favor a particular group of people; they just have to work out that way.
This is especially true when communities are being policed by people who have no attachment to the people there. Police demographics should represent the people being policed, but in the case of Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, three of the 53 police officers were black in the community, which was 67 percent black. So, of course, situations that seem biased toward white people will elicit an outcry of injustice, and this should not be looked at as a call for “special treatment.”
What politically charged debate about race is complete without a racist harkening back to slavery and how innocent white ancestors are? Williams never used slavery as an argument against white people, but of course, we have to have a debate about who is right when it comes to slavery, so you made one up. You made a false argument that all white people who fought in the Union were trying to liberate slaves and therefore were not complicit in slavery.
Regardless of whether or not the Civil War was meant to end slavery or the keep the Union together and give the north an economic and political edge comes second to the key argument here: White people saved black people from slavery. Obviously, this country could not exist without the benefits of slavery, and the white people who eventually fought against it benefited as well. Saying it wasn’t that bad because they (after 245 years) saw that working innocent people against their will was probably inhumane is a moot point. I would love to believe that, in 2016, the majority of people in this country wouldn’t want me in bondage working for free, but after listening to you, I have my doubts. These arguments make light of the point that there was, in fact, a plethora of southern soldiers who fought for slavery, meaning you haven’t really gotten anywhere in saying white people fought to free the people they enslaved.
Your next argument shouldn’t even be considered a response to Williams' reference to Tamir Rice. While Williams said this unarmed 12-year-old was murdered in cold blood, you believed this was justified, saying, “Even if they are unarmed, it’s not for lack of trying.” In the case of Tamir Rice, I feel obligated to say that this is truly an instance of disgusting hatred on your part. To justify the drive-by shooting of a 12-year-old with a toy gun in an open-carry state and no chance to explain, with video evidence to display the sickening act is a clear sign of internalized hatred.
Maybe you misunderstood the point, but even talking about this as if it is right in any way is closer to justifying murder than good policing. To add insult to injury, you basically asserted, with no evidence, that all unarmed black people who are shot by police are probably trying to grab the officer’s gun anyway. At this point, there is no need to take anything you say seriously.
Sincerely,
Someone Informed
