HATE CRIME?

[jay_a2j]

- Had two white teens beaten an elderly black man to death... Yeah, it would be on 4 major TV networks for 24 hours.

Because we all know that the victim must be non-white to be considered a "hate" crime....

Affirmative Action is racist. BET is racist. Ms. Black U.S.A. is racist. Imagine how long WET would stay on the air? Or if someone started a group to help employ Caucasians. Or if Ms. USA went BACK to not allowing blacks?

[patches70]

Ok lets ignore "hate crime", but instead look at it from the other angle. Do you agree there are mitigating circumstances in some murder cases? What about self defense compared to a murder? I mean the net result is the same (one dead person, one "life-taker"), but the two scenarios are vastly different.

The taking of someones life is not black and white (pun not intended) and should never be treated as such.

Even ignoring "hate crime", that's already all on the books. That's why there are different degrees of murder. The crime of passion you mentioned earlier is manslaughter and carries a far less sentence than willfully harming people with no regard to safety (murder in the 2nd) and premeditated murder (murder in the 1st). They are all forms of murder, and all dealt with differently without ever having to bother with the hate crimes.

The hate crimes litigation was just political pandering, a move done by politicians because it makes them look good for their voters who demanded wanted it and didn't even bother looking at the moral and ethical considerations. Hate crime legislation is very bothersome, as it assigns different values on human life. That's not really equality under the law, is it?

[Lootifer]

Eh you're right about disliking the political pandering, so do i. However I still find the title useful.

See my previous definition. (oh and of course I dont think Trayvon case was a hate crime, it sounds like Nobungas original one was a type of hate crime, and the last one was likely not).

[Serbia]

I also think that the whole "hate" crime label is useless. If it's Murder 1, it's Murder 1. Hating the other person's race/gender/orientation/religion/what-have-you shouldn't increase the punishment given. In my opinion, punishing a so-called "hate crime" harsher than an equal crime without the "hate" label only serves to further insult the victims of the non "hate" crime.

Bollocks.

Ok lets ignore "hate crime", but instead look at it from the other angle. Do you agree there are mitigating circumstances in some murder cases? What about self defense compared to a murder? I mean the net result is the same (one dead person, one "life-taker"), but the two scenarios are vastly different.

The taking of someones life is not black and white (pun not intended) and should never be treated as such.

You realize that what you are referring to has exactly zero relevance to what I'm talking about, right? Positively affirm that for me, then I'll attempt to answer your question without treating you like I think you're an idiot.

Bollocks.

[BigBallinStalin]

I like Serb's point:

If we want to decrease first-degree murders,
and if we assume that harsher penalties (e.g. hate crime law) would more effectively deter murder,
then why not increase the penalties for all first-degree murders--regardless of the hate crime label?


One answer: it's politically profitable to place higher punishments with the intermediate goal of allegedly* protecting minority groups. The politician's main goal is to curry favor with such groups.


*I don't think harsher punishments for murder yield significant deterrents past a certain sentence (e.g. 10-15 years).

[Phatscotty]

What kind of world are your children going to grow up in? Time to face the truth that all the political correctness is complete BS.

I Hate White People’: Random Racial Rampage in New York Leaves One Man Brain Dead

The New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating a savage attack that took place Wednesday afternoon in Union Square, after witnesses say a man vowed to attack white people before assaulting multiple individuals and leaving one man brain dead.

The black suspect, Lashawn Marten, 31, was playing chess before randomly jumping up and declaring “I hate white people,” according to one witness.

Another eye-witness told WLNY-TV that Marten said “the next white person who walks by I’m going to f**k.”

Marten’s fists then started to fly, allegedly targeting random white individuals as they walked by.

“His fist went in and the man’s head bobbed and he hit the ground and you could hear his skull hitting the ground,” the unidentified witness added.

That man, Jeffrey Babbitt, 62, has now been declared clinically brain dead. In a video posted to video-sharing website Instagram, Babbitt can be seen on the ground with blood flowing from his head.

and what the hell is this video taping violence crap? People just stand there and record people basically being killed? The future is in big, BIG trouble.

[Lootifer]

how does this relate to political correctness? are you drunk again PS?

[Phatscotty]

how does this relate to political correctness? are you drunk again PS?

Why you all snooty lately?

I only shared with you guys the one time I was drunk so that yall can keep bringing it up for years afterwards.

[Lootifer]

haha nah its a generic comment. I ask my friends all the time if they are drunk when they say something odd.

[Phatscotty]

haha nah its a generic comment. I ask my friends all the time if they are drunk when they say something odd.

ah k. Well, political correctness narratives promote that only whites can be racist. When the victim of racism or hate crimes is white, PC dictates that it's usually justified because white people deserve it because the minority is a victim and the story gets ignored.

The reason is because PC has a mental template, and it looks like this. In the mind of the PCer, imaged flash starting with a slave with whip scars covering his back, then the KKK having a rally, then the civil rights movement, MLK and Rosa Parks, and finally the apotheosis of Obama. If the crime does not fit into the template (the victim is not black and the hatemonger is not white) then it's to be ignored. It's PC because the story is treated differently depending on the color of skin of the victim/attacker.

Example: Do you know the name of the human being that was dragged to death behind a car (James Byrd)? Do you know the name of the human being who was beat to death and left in a river missing part of his head? (Emmit Till). Everyone knows the names and stories of those hate crimes, it's taught in universities and they have their own pages in Wikipedia. Nobody knows the names or stories of the white victims of hate crimes.

[Phatscotty]

Here is an excellent piece that picks up on the same observation.

The Racist Liberal System

George Zimmerman was tried, convicted and sentenced in the media on the charge of Racism in the First Degree without a single piece of supporting evidence other than the bare fact of his altercation with a black man.

Had there been a time when Zimmerman had uttered a racial slur then NBC or the New York Times would have dug it up and presented it to readers and viewers first thing next morning. Instead the volume of opposing evidence, including Zimmerman’s advocacy on behalf of a homeless black man assaulted by police was ignored as a fact inconvenient to the racial narrative.

Paula Deen was tried, convicted and sentenced as the Nation’s Worst Racist (after the passing of George Wallace) for using a racial slur about a man who put a gun to her head back in 1986. Walmart stopped selling a cookbook because its author said something bad back when Sam Walton was still CEO and America and Russia were going head to head over whether Communism or Capitalism would dominate.

The black murderers of Chris Lane, a white Australian baseball player, one of whom tweeted that he hated white people and boasted of assaulting five of them since the Zimmerman verdict and the other who used Black Nationalist signage, are not being accused of racism. That means that if they ever write a prison cookbook, Walmart will probably sell it.

There is roughly 100% more evidence that James Edwards, one of the teenagers charged with Lane’s murder, was racist, than that George Zimmerman was racist. But the odds that Edwards will ever be charged with a hate crime, let alone be treated as a national poster boy for bigoted violence the way that Zimmerman was are laughably infinitesimal.

None of the revenge assaults carried out by black perpetrators against white victims in “retaliation” for Trayvon Martin ever led to one of those obligatory national conversations on race that we have been having ever since Martin was shot during a scuffle with a Latino homeowner because that would require admitting that black racism exists.

A white man shooting a black man is presumed racist. A black man shooting a white man is described an indictment of society as a whole. A white man shooting a black man is put down to individual racism, but a black man shooting a white man is written off as a response to white racism. James Edwards’ sister has already begun advancing that defense.

These assumptions fall into place long before the trial is over or any of the facts are in. They are part of the unwritten stylebook of modern media coverage.

Black racism is the Bigfoot of the mainstream media. Reports of it happening in flash mobs in Chicago or Philadelphia are dismissed in the same way that Sasquatch sightings are in the Pine Barrens. It’s not that its existence can’t be documented, but that the evidence will never even receive a hearing.

Unlike the Zimmerman case, that is racist. A racism double standard is the very embodiment of racism.

There are few more damning indictments of the media’s racism than the fact that the man behind one of the worst race riots in the last generation has his own show on MSNBC.

If we lived in the racist America that MSNBC liberals claim we do, David Duke would have appeared with members of the Bush administration and had his own show on FOX. Instead Al Sharpton hosts Attorney General Eric Holder and has his own show on MSNBC. That simple contrast tells the whole dirty truth about the unequal treatment of black racism.

It’s not that liberals don’t know that black racism exists. They know it exists and they embrace it as a rallying call for social justice by warning white Americans that their “oppression” has consequences.

Obama’s initial response to the release of the Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright video was to deliver a cynical speech on race invoking the ghosts of slavery and segregation, talking up Wright’s “memories of humiliation” and suggesting that the hateful preacher wasn’t wrong in his sentiments, only in failing to notice the progress that had been made since then.

Instead of truly disavowing Wright’s hate, Obama’s famous speech on race treated black racism as a response to white racism. That speech set the pattern for every Obama racial speech since, including his most recent remarks on Trayvon Martin.

Obama’s insistence on framing black racism as black anger, as a response to white bigotry rather than bigotry itself, is why the national conversation on race that he insists on having every time he takes a tumble in the polls never goes anywhere.

Racism, like any form of xenophobia, is unfortunately indigenous to the human character. To privilege one form of racism over another is to justify it and to dehumanize its victims as deserving of abuse.

If black racism is described as anger and white racism as bigotry, then white people are held responsible both for their own bigotry and for the bigotry directed at them. To liberals, this is simple social justice, but to anyone who has made a study of bigotry this is characteristic of the way that bigots fault their victims for the hate and violence that they direct at them.

The liberal position on black racism is racist. It is a “moderate” racism in that it deplores violent expressions of “anger,” but argues furiously and insistently for the rightness of the anger itself.

If bigotry is wrong, then it is wrong not only as an action, but as an idea. Every liberal, from Obama to the media apparatus surrounding him, makes an attempt at distinguishing between the legitimacy of black anger and the illegitimacy of its expression. And that dishonest distinction makes them complicit in the racist violence directed at white people and the murder of people like Chris Lane.

Black racism is no different than white racism. Its façade of legitimacy rooted in memories of oppression is only an excuse for a hatred that arises not from historical memories of the past, but from a common human xenophobia toward anyone different in the present.

If black racism really were only a historical memory or a cry against modern oppression, it would be limited in its scope to white people. It isn’t. Black racism targets Asians and Latinos as well. The black anger that Obama defends is really common bigotry dressed up in grainy civil rights photographs.

We don’t need to have a national conversation that justifies black racism and saddles its victims with more affirmative penalties. What we must do is send a message that it is intolerable and unacceptable.

The racial double standard does black men no favors. The murder of Chris Lane is not the fault of history, but of two black men and their white getaway driver, their families, and above all else, the education and entertainment figures that taught them that hating white people was their birthright.

To treat people of any race that way is to diminish them as human beings and to call on their worst selves.

When people are not held responsible for their actions, not just criminally, but socially, then the actions are perpetuated. If white murderers were not held responsible for killing black men, as liberals have insisted is the case, then the numbers for white-on-black crimes would start catching up with those for black-on-white crimes.

A system that can see white racism in a Rorschach inkblot, but can’t see black racism when it’s pulling the trigger is the very definition of a racist system.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfiel ... -156550397

[Agent 86]

I agree with all of the above..does this make me racist, absolutely not.. I have friends of all varieties from around the world. Political correctness has got out of hand.

[2dimes]

I'm not trying to defend it but... Is there a small need for the PC movement to go too far, because behind closed doors it may not go as far?

Nobody knows the names or stories of the white victims of hate crimes.

Jeffery Babbitt?

[Phatscotty]

I'm not trying to defend it but... Is there a small need for the PC movement to go too far, because behind closed doors it may not go as far?

legislatively, perhaps. But for all intends and purposes this is about the culture and what children are being taught and the peer pressure PC has specifically on young people. I think the PC empowers the chip on the shoulder and has no concern for whether the chip is even justified ala victimhood mentalities.

Just yesterday, I lost another cherished social working graduate level liberal friend on facebook (like the 25th "tolerant" Liberal to do so). All her social worker friends (masters n graduates as well, fresh out of their liberal seminary college) started getting on my case on a discussion about Walmart employees concerning not making enough money and getting gov't assistance. I was in the process of getting the information (family of 4 19,000/year, 8.50hr etc) so we could deal with the issue, and one of them said "Yeah, you are probably a white person who doesn't even know how privileged you are" and I asked nicely to please leave the color of my skin out of it and focus on Walmart revenues and wages et al but then it turned into an all out emotional barbarianism, and they all started making judgement and assumptions about me because of the color of my skin, and dismissing my information based on the color of my skin, and they felt like they could do that because they are white, but the point is the conversation which was a hundred responses long at that point degenerated into namecalling and ferocious racism and profanity and pure hatred for white people (even though they are white). The impact of PC is far greater on individuals, especially those false guilters and neo-cheaters and bleeding heart types. They use PC as a club to initiate force on others, manipulate others (the info her post contained proved, by me, to be BS), and shakedown businesses and bully their way into power.

Maybe you want to give an example how you mean tho

[BigBallinStalin]

haha nah its a generic comment. I ask my friends all the time if they are drunk when they say something odd.

ah k. Well, political correctness narratives promote that only whites can be racist. When the victim of racism or hate crimes is white, PC dictates that it's usually justified because white people deserve it because the minority is a victim and the story gets ignored. [citation needed]

[Agent 86]

It's similar to the women's lib movement, give them an inch and they take a mile..socially it fucks up everything. C'mon it's 2013 and all should be equal but now the minorities run the show. PC gone wild

[2dimes]

Well thx for ignoring the fact I don't want to defend it.

With regards to language. Some people try to use gender neutral terms. If there is gender biased term used in public, some people will go far beyond reasonable attempts to correct it.

My question being is there a purpose in that since it is likely difficult for most regular folks to stop saying "milkman" in casual conversation?

[Phatscotty]

It's similar to the women's lib movement, give them an inch and they take a mile..socially it fucks up everything. C'mon it's 2013 and all should be equal but now the minorities run the show. PC gone wild

I think there is a lot of manipulation and exploitation and class warfare and hate crime against anything that is white, male, or Christian. PC helps make many people afraid to even say they are being attacked, and by the time they finally do speak up, it's too late, and then the purpose of PC will be revealed.

A Muslim taxi cab driver can refuse to pick up a blind man with a seeing eye dog based on religious and cultural beliefs, but a Christian photographer can be forced to photograph a gay wedding against their religious beliefs. (Remember all those people who argued..."but but, we have freedom of religion! That won't happen! You are just a bigot! That's just slippery slope BS!" Yeah.....they were wrong and they are naive and now maybe they can see how they played their part in helping destroy the 1st amendment.)

[Phatscotty]

Well thx for ignoring the fact I don't want to defend it.

With regards to language. Some people try to use gender neutral terms. If there is gender biased term used in public, some people will go far beyond reasonable attempts to correct it.

My question being is there a purpose in that since it is likely difficult for most regular folks to stop saying "milkman" in casual conversation?

Sorry if it sounded that way it was not my intent. I was just relating a recent experience of my own.
I don't think so, rather I don't think there should be. That would ask people to unlearn their own experiences as "wrong" when it wasn't wrong at all. It's not about right or wrong, it's about that's the way it was then, and this is the way it is now. People do not have the right to not be offended, if they did, there would be no such thing as freedom of speech.

The legend of Saxi made a thread about penmanship a while back, I didn't participate but I'm sure the gang delved deeply into the issue there.

[2dimes]

I agree there is a problem with too much restriction. If there is man collecting garbage you can't call him a dustman in public. It at least seems, you are not free to use that type of speech.

[Agent 86]

Well thx for ignoring the fact I don't want to defend it.

With regards to language. Some people try to use gender neutral terms. If there is gender biased term used in public, some people will go far beyond reasonable attempts to correct it.

My question being is there a purpose in that since it is likely difficult for most regular folks to stop saying "milkman" in casual conversation?

I don't want you to feel this way, I certainly didn't mean this against you in any way. It's just that PC has gotten out of hand and we need to find some equilibrium some how?

Can't we all see the differences and get along..guess not? This would require all people have an IQ greater than 100!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/smartest- ... 30945.html

Check the comments on this and you can see why the US is regarded this way. Comments are from US citizens?

[Phatscotty]

Well thx for ignoring the fact I don't want to defend it.

With regards to language. Some people try to use gender neutral terms. If there is gender biased term used in public, some people will go far beyond reasonable attempts to correct it.

My question being is there a purpose in that since it is likely difficult for most regular folks to stop saying "milkman" in casual conversation?

I don't want you to feel this way, I certainly didn't mean this against you in any way. It's just that PC has gotten out of hand and we need to find some equilibrium some how?

Can't we all see the differences and get along..guess not? This would require all people have an IQ greater than 100!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/smartest- ... 30945.html

Check the comments on this and you can see why the US is regarded this way. Comments are from US citizens?

I don't think it's that so much. I think that any other country with relative diversity as we have, even if they aren't that diverse, still have plenty of racist and dumbasses. And secondly, more Americans have internet total than most others, so you just see Americans the most. Thirdly, anonymity makes people loosen up, sometimes even more than they mean to. Fourthly, a lot of them are kids who don't know any better and are still discovering things for the first time. Filthy, I don't think you can even tell who is or isn't an American on there.

[2dimes]

I don't feel oppressed.

I like trying to make up new terms for things. I consider it a game sometimes. Like those job titles. "Petroleum transfer engineer." for a guy that works at a gas station.

I enjoy gender bias, it's wonderful to me when women are exaggeratedly feminine. Evening gowns, long hair etc. but don't want to force that on anyone either.

My daughter has a friend who's Mom is not only a lesbian that dresses up like a male but a really great person. I genuinely like her and have absolutely no problem with her.

To me one of the great things about diversity is when everyone is comfortable to be the individual they wish to be.

Sometimes that is impossible. Most men cannot be a mom, most women cannot be a firefighter. It bothers me just a tiny bit that there is a movement to silence that fact making it into a opinion that is not allowed to be held..

[Phatscotty]

I don't feel oppressed.

I like trying to make up new terms for things. I consider it a game sometimes. Like those job titles. "Petroleum transfer engineer." for a guy that works at a gas station.

I enjoy gender bias, it's wonderful to me when women are exaggeratedly feminine. Evening gowns, long hair etc. but don't want to force that on anyone either.

My daughter has a friend who's Mom is not only a lesbian that dresses up like a male but a really great person. I genuinely like her and have absolutely no problem with her.

To me one of the great things about diversity is when everyone is comfortable to be the individual they wish to be.

Sometimes that is impossible. Most men cannot be a mom, most women cannot be a firefighter. It bothers me just a tiny bit that there is a movement to silence that fact making it into a opinion that is not allowed to be held..

2dimes wins