Kidlaw
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Kidlaw
-
-
I think I've watched Hated in the Nation three times. It's my White Bear this season.
-
10 minutes ago, natyxg said:
My question for this one was how exactly did the video show that what's his name was masturbating to photos of kids.
I assumed that maybe he wasn't looking at photos. That was just a lie he said to absolve himself in some way. But, that it was actually a video he was watching in which case a person could hear what he was watching and realize it was the terrible awful. That or they displayed his search/browser history or something. His mother only screamed that there was a video of him looking at kids. She didn't say it was photos.
-
25 minutes ago, Negritude said:
If there is a season 4, please more of this and less San Junipero, and while we're at it, just keep it British and leave the Americans (British actors playing American) out of it.
Ugh, yes! The American accents by most of the British actors were glaringly awful. I noticed this throughout the series with the actors in Men Against Fire being the absolute worse (probably because a few were trying to mimic AAVE with positively awful results).
-
1
-
-
A super genius on Reddit has an updated list of all the connections between the episodes. Definitely check it out. I think the universe is starting to fall together.
-
2
-
-
This episode was so messed up. I figured pretty early he was watching kids because just masturbating, while incredibly embarrassing, is still not worth committing crimes to hide. I do wonder about what the motorcycle guy did. I think his family called him a pervert, but maybe he wasn't watching child porn as it seems the pedos received the worst punishment.
Yeah, I've covered my cameras on my laptops and muted my mics too. Now, I'm wondering what to do about the cameras on my tablet and phone. Seriously, after this season of Black Mirror, I think it's just time to live off the grid.
-
3
-
-
This one hit me much like White Bear and Shut Up and Dance. The revenge episodes of Black Mirror are always the most brutal to me and therefore are my favorite episodes.
I was wondering why this guy was sacrificing people who were bullied on social media like his friend. His stated purpose didn't make sense until the reveal because even if people knew their threats on Twitter would come to fruition, I don't think they would care. It wasn't until I started asking why he left all these clues, around the same time as the police detectives, that it made sense it was all a plot to kill thousands of people at once to teach society a lesson. Hey, if the Black Mirror universes are connected, maybe this is why people in Nosedive expect you to be overly friendly and shun those who exhibit "anti-social" tendencies? lol
But, seriously this episde made me think of all those "DIAF" comments I've seen people leave on social media and blogs and newspaper sites, etc. Well, I remember that being a thing in the first decade of the 2000's anyways. I'm not really on Twitter, but leaving comments that people die (or get raped/otherwise assualted) is something massive amounts of people do everyday on the internet. I feel like this was a very timely episode.
ETA: Blue left forensics because of Victoria Skillane case (Ian Rannoch was Vicktoria's boyfriend).
-
7
-
-
Sorry, I couldn't come up with a clever title for this. I think there has been some discussion on universe theories in episode posts, but I thought a theory discussion should probably have its own post. Specifically, I thought we could at least start the discussion on whether we are watching stories from one universe or a sort of multi-verse.
When I first started watching this show, I really thought it was just random, disconnected, stories. But, it seems the idea of one universe was thrown out in White Christmas with all of its Easter eggs.
So, my theory is that we are watching one Universe, but at different points in the timeline. Further, I don't think there is much time between the earliest episode in the timeline (IMO, National Anthem) and the final episodes in the timeline (IMO, White Christmas/The Waldo Moment Epilogue/15 Million Merits).
Technology is always at the heart of this series and we have all been witness to how technology can move at a rapid pace. I think, so far, Black Mirror covers about 25-30 years in time with technology making really huge jumps.
So, here's what I'm thinking as far as timeline order of the episodes so far:
- National Anthem - The technology in this episode is not far off from our own. People are using Youtube and Twitter and they clearly have iPhones similar to our own.
- The Waldo Moment (Prologue Only) - I think this episode occurs over two parts of the timeline. Most of the episode establishes how Waldo comes to create a dystopian society. I kind of had a hard time placing this episode, at first. At one point, I thought it was much later in the timeline, but again, looking at the tech being used by the characters, it seems like most of the episode is pretty early on. People are using iPhones, iPads, and even Blackberries! So, this has to be pretty early in the timeline or close to our time.
- White Bear - The giveaway to me that White Bear is still pretty early in the timeline were the phones used by the audience to record Viktoria's actions. Again, these were clearly based on current iPhone design. So, while technology had jumped to alter neurology (i.e., erasing Viktoria's memories), it's still not as advanced as the tech we see in Be Right Back.
- Be Right Back - In Be Right Back, we see a lot of advancement in laptops and cell phones (and, of course, androids). Halley Atwell's phone was clearly more advanced than the iPhones in National Anthem and White Bear. It is thinner, smaller, and appears to have some other advanced capabilities. I don't think Be Right Back is as advanced as other episodes, however, because no one at this time seems to have integrated eye tech as of yet.
- Entire History of You - The eye tech in this episode seems like a precursor to the eye tech in White Christmas. An important note, however, is that not everyone has the "grain" in Entire History of You. Also, if you have it, you can still get rid of it which is not possible with the eye tech in White Christmas.
- White Christmas/15 Million Merits/The Waldo Moment (Epilogue)- So, White Christmas has plenty of references to past episodes. We see the same news channel from National Anthem, a news alert that Viktoria's appeal was rejected, the MP from Waldo was mentioned, and we see the talent show from 15 Million Merits (as well the singer who won the talent show in the beginning of 15 Million Merits). The eye technology in White Christmas seems more advanced than the Entire History of You as people can now be blocked and it doesn't seem as if people need that little silver remote control to change the function of their eye devices. Additionally, in White Christmas, once you have the eye tech installed you can't have it removed which is a change from Entire History of You.
In relation to White Bear, it appears the whole "vengeance is totally okay" attitude is even more pervasive at this point in time. We see law enforcement torturing Jamie's cookie and doling out a really harsh punishment for relatively minor offenses from Jon Hamm's character. Also, I feel like the guy who picked up the snow globe at the end of White Christmas appeared ready to exercise his on vengeance against Hamm who was basically given the Scarlet letter A.
Considering that one of the dating coaches in White Christmas had the username I AM WALDO, it seems to me that White Christmas, 15 Million Merits, and The Waldo Moment (epilogue) are possibly contemporaneous. I actually feel like the look of Waldo's epilogue and 15 Million Merits mirror each other. Both have a very dark, sleek look about the settings with lots of digital screens conveying content (also, there's the fact that everyone knows Waldo is an Avatar and in 15 Million Merits the characters all had avatars).
Anyhoo, that's my theory as far as one universe timeline goes. Any thoughts or different outlook on things? I'm ready to discuss. :)
-
5
-
12 minutes ago, auntl said:
I think that TPTB mishandled this case at every level. No one did a good job - the police, the evidence gatherers, the prosecutors, or the judge. It's like anything else in life. If you don't do a good job, you won't get a good result. In all fairness, how many "mistakes" was the jury supposed to ignore before they said forget it, we can't trust any of this. I know that juror 9 said it was payback, but I honestly believe that if there wasn't such gross incompetence, they would have at least had a hung jury.
I once read that the founding fathers knew that it was impossible to set up an air tight justice system. Consequently, they tried to set it up so that if there was an error, it would be on the side of a guilty man going free, rather than an innocent man going to prison.
Even though I think that OJ was guilty, I think that our justice system worked properly in this case.
Well said and I agree completely. While I'm not God and can never say 100% OJ did it, I still believe he did it. I think he believed Nicole was his property and he wasn't going to let her go. Ron Goldman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unfortunately, the state's police force in LA was run by a bunch of racist frat boys and the DA's office made high school Mock Trial level mistakes (including employing the "I have a Black friend!" bingo spot by putting Darden on the case).
When all of your actions become case studies and legal training for District Attorney's offices around the country on how to NOT prosecute a murder trial, then it's quite clear that you did a crappy job proving your case. And if the state does a crappy job proving its case, then the state should rightly lose. You don't become the bad hypothetical in legal training when you've done a great job.
As you stated, this is how our Constituition is set up. To protect the innocent even if it means letting the guilty go free. Now, I'm sure our founding fathers didn't expect the justice system they created to work in favor of a Black man who is likely guilty, but there it is.
-
7
-
-
2 hours ago, KBrownie said:
And those are just the more recent examples.
The history of injustice and failure of the system for the black community in America is crucial to even beginning to understand some of the reaction to the Simpson case. On all sides.
Was the level of outrage that the majority of White America has for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown the same for Emmett Till? The four little girls in Birmingham? Medgar Evers? The thousands of blacks lynched during Jim Crow? The unnamed millions of those killed during the horrors and atrocities of slavery? The numerous other people who don't get any kind of justice across this country? Of course not. Especially when it comes to people of color who were deliberately left out of the system and denied any sort of justice for centuries. To say otherwise would be an absolute lie. White America for the most part has been okay with the injustice in this country when the victims were black and the perpetrators were white. Not all of course, but a pretty substantial majority.
Of course it's not just the celebrity and fame factors. Those are just distractions from the heart of the issue that so many don't ever want to deal with. And until we do, as a nation, nothing will ever really change.
Agree with all of this. And that's why I feel it is what it is. No one wants to face the bitter truth, so we as a nation will never really change.
If there is ever to be another doc on OJ, I think it would be good to examine why this case resonated so much with White America. I feel like this doc did a good job explaining why many Black people felt the way that they did - and others have explored the Black American angle as well. Now, let's answer the question of the outrage from White America.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see this exploration. As you had mentioned up thread, this is a concept that no one wants to touch, deal with, or contemplate.
-
9
-
-
1 hour ago, GreatKazu said:
And a great percentage have openly stated their outrage at both of these murderers walkung free. Anytime Trayvon Martin's killer is in the news, the amount of people wishing death upon this bastard, is enormous.
Sometimes, our immediate circle of friends and family can blind us to how the rest of the country actually views racial injustice and brutality. I think it's really great that you, and other White people here, care about the injustice of the most recent murders of Black children and adults by police officers and random neighborhood watch thugs. And I don't mean that faceitiously. It is a good thing; but, it's not right to assume most of the country feels the same way as you. Sadly, most people do not.
Studies from the Pew Research Center and others show most White Americans simply do not have the same viewpoint as most Black Americans when it comes the murder of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown to use two examples.
In a Pew Research survey, 60% of white Americans stated race received too much attention with regard to the murder of Trayvon Martin. In an NBC/Marist poll, 52% of whites also stated they have a great deal of confidence that police officers in their community treat blacks and whites equally. Only 25% of white Americans think there's police brutality in their area.
In the Pew study, 63% of white Americans believed race received more attention than it deserved or had no response about race in regard to Michael Brown's shooting. 67% of white Americans believed the police response in Ferguson had been the right course of action or offered no response. 69% of white Americans have a great deal/fair amount of confidence in the shooting investigation of Michael Brown or have no opinion on the matter.
I think when you see these sort of opinions self-reported by the majority population about Black murder victims, it is a fair question to ask when examining the OJ Simpson trial -- Why was there so much outrage by the majority about the murder of Ron and Nicole? Why do we not see the same level of outrage for Black victims whose murderers walk free? What is the difference? From looking at the Pew Research study, it doesn't seem like celebrity and fame tells the whole tale.
If anyone is interested, here's a link to the Pew study I referenced -- http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/18/stark-racial-divisions-in-reactions-to-ferguson-police-shooting/
ETA: Some of the numbers above came from an NBC/Marist poll which you can read about here -- http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6302614.html
-
18
-
-
5 minutes ago, GreatKazu said:
IMO the difference between the killers of Tamir and Trayvon and the killer of Nicole and Ron is, Simpson the murderer (yes, I believe he is guilty) continued to be in the media whether it was due to the media going after him or Simpson putting himself out there. Simpson was sued in civil court which put him in the forefront of the public again because of the media following the case. Simpson "wrote" a book. That meant more publicity. He had a reality-type show that was eventually canned. He was a well-known figure before he killed Ron and Nicole. Trayvon's killer was a nobody. His killer has popped up now and then in the news for his criminal behavior and his so-called art work. I get a sense of rage from the public when his actions bring him to the forefront. Simpson has an inflated ego. That ego was caressed by the public. He was not going to let that go. I am reminded of the rage towards Casey Anthony after she got away with murder. That killer went into hiding. The rage still exists, but there is no attention made about it because she is not walking around in the public eye seeking attention.
Unfortunately, a great percentage of the public has openly stated that they support the killers of Trayvon, Tamir, Eric, and so on and so forth. They have even donated millions of dollars to the killers who have murdered these young men, given the killers jobs, etc. I question the amount of rage the "public" really feels when there's so much financial support for these murderers, but I digress.
In fact, about the only slightly "positive" note I can make about this OJ mess is that I never heard of any folks from the Black community at large donating money to OJ. He had to buy that legal team on his own dime. lol
-
6
-
-
15 hours ago, AuntiePam said:
I'm a 71-year-old white woman, and can totally understand why the jury reached that verdict. If any of them were predisposed to a Not Guilty verdict, then Fuhrman's perjury, the forensics confusion, and the glove that didn't fit gave them what they needed to let O.J. go free, in good conscience.
Also, in the back of their minds -- convicting O.J. wouldn't bring Nicole and Ron back to life. Could there have been a little bit of that kind of thinking? What does it hurt if one black man goes free when so many thousands have been unjustly convicted, lynched, killed without benefit of a trial. I was shaken, almost in tears, watching the cheering crowds. This was the result of years of racism, lynchings, mistreatment in America -- the cheering was sad but SO understandable. Finally, a victory of sorts for the other side. And then to think that it's been twenty years, and it's still happening! What's it going to take to end the injustice of racism in this country?
Of course O.J. did it. He had the means, motive, and opportunity, and the evidence proved it. It's just too bad that Fuhrman was the one who found the glove. The only question I'm left with is would the verdict had been different without Fuhrman, and the glove that didn't fit.
I have to agree with everything you've written here. Above all else, I do not understand Peter Hymas expecting Black people to be anything other than human beings. If the American majority legalizes keeping a group of people downtrodden and oppressed, then the only natural reaction is that those people will emerge seeing the system as "us vs. them." If Hymas has an issue with that then he should work within his community to make a change.
I too believe some people may have felt that Ron and Nicole are gone and there's nothing that can bring them back. Just like there's no bringing back Latasha Harlins, Emmett Till, and the millions of other Black Americans lynched, murdered, or who died enslaved. "If the killers of Black people can walk, why can't OJ? Why should a Black man be exempt from the American justice system for privileged people?" I definitely think that was the larger sentiment for many folks.
For me personally, I never heard anyone talk about progress. Just that the OJ verdict seemed fair considering this is how the US operates when others kill Black people. No one I know thought the OJ verdict represented some sort of progress for race relations or for Black people, specifically. Progress for race relations wasn't on anyone's minds because many people have sadly come to the conclusion that there is no further progress that can be made.
I also question whether OJ would've walked if Furman wasn't a witness and the DNA collection wasn't so abysmal. I think it would've been a hung jury and, depending on the double jeopardy rules, maybe California could've retried him. Maybe. I really don't think he would've been found not guilty if the LAPD wasn't so incompetent and full of racists (and maybe if Chris Darden wasn't put on the case -- sorry, not sorry, but he wasn't ready for prime time).
In any case, I really applaud this documentary for presenting how justice really works in the US and how this trial was more than just OJ. It truly was a spotlight on the nation as a whole and I think they explored it really well. They didn't shy away from how racism has harmed the people so easily condemned by others when it comes to the OJ verdict. I really appreciated that aspect of this series.
-
15
-
-
1 hour ago, KBrownie said:
Sure, but this happens every day and has been from the founding of this country and system. So why them? That's a question I don't think America will ever really want to confront and answer.
That's been one of the lingering questions for the last 20+ years. No one wants to answer it because it legitimizes many of the thoughts and feelings behind why this case resonated so much with Black America.
You look at poor little Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin (just to name two). People can't even be bothered at this very moment that the killers of those two boys walk free. But, OJ? OJ is the greatest injustice that has ever occurred!
It's more than celebrity at play here. It's more than wealth. But, you have to have the right frame of mind to see it and many people simply don't. Sadly, it is what it is.
-
20
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
What I'm left with after watching this documentary is the gall of people like Peter Hymas who actually find fault in an oppressed people who would find joy in seeing institutional racism and injustice hit the majority population in the face. To actually say that Black people's reaction was "offensive" and that it was Black people who made things worse (i.e., "put a huge redline across society.")? I would say I couldn't believe it, but really what I think is how can you have seen all that has happened throughout history, and LA's recent history at that time, and still have the audacity to find fault in the emotions of those who are the ones who have had to live through your oppression? Are you really without any understanding or empathy? Really? Wow.
I mean, the unmitigated gall. After hundreds of years of majority injustice, white juries nullifying without impunity, shame, or condemnation, without the nation caring at all about this climate that it created -- and then you still see white people in this documentary basically boil it all down to, "Damn, these Black people. I thought they would do better than that."
I mean...all I can do is laugh. Hypocrisy at its finest.
-
31
-
- Popular Post
We're based on limiting the government's ability to throw the wrong person in jail. Juries have a duty to the defendant, to make sure they get a fair trial and that the government acted within the laws we've established. I keep seeing people say that this case was about Ron and Nicole, and it wasn't. it never is in America. Trials are about defendants, they aren't about victims. Because if we let the jury system become about victims, then it becomes about revenge, and juries will convict for no other reason than the victims deserve justice. And as tempting as we may want that to be the case, it's not the way our legal system has been set up. It never has been, and hopefully never will be.
Been lurking here for a few weeks, and this is my first post. As a lawyer (not a criminal lawyer), I just want to thank you for this. All of your post was on target, but particularly this section. People generally have a misunderstanding about the purpose of our legal system and you can see that with claims that the jury had a duty to victims. If the jury's duty was to victims of a crime, we would never find defendants not guilty considering the state is claiming in court the defendant is responsible for the crimes against the victims.
In any case, I'll just finish up by saying this episode, well the whole show actually, really highlights why District Attorney offices nationwide use the OJ trial to train their ADAs how to NOT prosecute a murder trial. Every bad decision that could be made, was made. I find Furman was actually just the personification of the prosecution's many bad decisions.
Anyways, back to lurking. Just wanted to high five this very excellent summation of the true nature of the American justice system (or at least, its idealized vision of itself).
-
31
S04.E03: Crocodile
in Black Mirror
Quick question regarding the male and female cop at the end. Did they appear in a previous Black Mirror episode? They look so familiar and my memory is terrible. Just wondering.