Add new comment

"...if people find the strength to express outrage at only the treatment of white people accused of sex crimes, that is certainly selectively white and I do not see how you can say otherwise."
----  Yes, *IF* people do.  I don't see that they do; and you haven't shown that they do.  I'll offer one example that effectively blows your whole premise out of the water, Ben Roethlisberger.  Again you're offering a weak, basically non-argument.  'If unicorns exist, I don't see how you can argue they don't'.
"I'm arguing that that factor does nothing to dispel the possibility of racial bias, because that backlash - if it indeed exists and if it indeed is a factor at play here - is borne of racial bias."
----  The burden is on you to show that there is racial bias.  There's no reason to think there is.  Even you state here, 'if it indeed exists'.  You don't even know.  You're just speculating, which is fine, but race is a sensitive issue and IMO should not be raised with such flimsy or non-existent evidence.
"is the response, which I perceive to be as out of proportion to an expected response to someone accused of rape and who is found guilty of a related, lesser charge - driven by race, talent, his employer, attitudes towards women who try to pick up men at a bar, a Pavlovian response to Baker taking the other side, or anything else?"
----  Jemanji addressses this rather thoroughly in his post.  Also I have a news flash for you - celebrities tend to garner more attention.  As a professional athlete Leuke was more exposed than most people.  The Baker 'expose' and high profile trade pushed him, unwittingly, in to the limelight.  It happens.
"Or is my perception wrong - this community would equally support some non-athlete, non-mariner, non-white female accused of some crime and found guilty based on a nolo contendere plea to some lesser charge, [if brought to the community's attention and posted as a topic for discussion].?"
----  The attention is being drawng because the story is high-profile.  Any high-profile case is going to garner lots of attention and support on both sides of the issue, as this one has.
"..the backlash, if it exists - why is it against "a court system, and media system, that is unfair to white males accused of sex crimes"?  Whys is it not against a court and media that is unfair to males accused of sex crimes?  That is selectively white"
----  Doc's words there, not mine.  Personally I wouldn't play the racial card on either side of that argument.  That there is a backlash against injustices in the legal system period, and against males accused of sex crimes in particular, I can see that.
"The comparison to discussions of slavery misses the mark.  Antebellum American slavery is a discrete, historical topic.."
----  Your arguments are thin and drop even further in my esteem when you redirect arguments this way.  I offered slavery as one example of any of the billions of injustices that have happened in human history that would have served as an adequate example to refute your position.  It was the first injustice that came to mind.  I probably should have run with this example:  My coffee this morning was 1/3 empty when I bought it.  Discuss that injustice against me and that would be an 'injustice against cabinetmakers and tellingly silent about other injustices'.  Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with it.
"But what is the reason to single out white males charged with sex crimes and treated unfairly as opposed to males charged with sex crimes and treated unfairly?  Is that such a large and discrete class such that it must be separated out from other similarly situated males?"
----  I agree.