OJ Effect

when large groups of people are exposed to the same exact body of facts but “intuitively” feel strongly one way or the other – polarized – based on deeper life-long accruing concerns and prejudices that have significant unconscious bearing on their decision making system (possibly selectively listening/reasoning), but generally unbeknownst to them until it is brought to light by some polarizing event that entirely reasonable people can’t otherwise see eye-to-eye on.
jesus – i was utterly shocked oj was deemed innocent by the jury, but every black person i know and love – to a person – felt exactly the opposite of my skinny white -ss. both sides bold-faced convicted to their vision of the obvious truth. something larger must be going on. ‘one million people’ (x2) can’t be wrong. the “oj effect”.

as an american i went to the j-panese war memorial museum where me, an aussie, and a brit (who never met before) were utterly dumbfounded by the official j-panese vision of the events of wwii, most notably who started the war between j-pan and the usa. only then did i realize my own john wayne exposure to the war was equally disturbing.
the preconception that any person who is acquitted of a crime who also has fame and/or vast financial means was really guilty. in other words, all rich/famous people use their money/status to essentially “buy” a “not guilty” verdict. derived from the popular notion that oj simpson was actually guilty but got off because of his status as an nfl & film star and his means to hire high-profile lawyers like johnnie cochran and robert shapiro.
d-ck: those ceos are totally guilty of embezzlement. i can’t believe they got off. they probably paid off the judge or the jurors with all of their ill-gotten gains.

jane: i think you’re suffering from the oj effect.