Originally posted by Robtard
Injustices of the past do not dismiss injustices of today; if those stories are accurate, it's pathetic that they police are not approaching them as hate crimes.
It is pathetic. And the Police Chief, who is black, said that it is not being viewed as a race crime despite witnesses saying that the 20 men were yelling racial slurs as they beat down that dude.
Reverse the race and see some rioting and it would be all over bullshit news sites like MSNBC.
While I think it's crap and deplorable, as it seems straight-white-males are seemingly exempt from being the victims of hate crimes despite events like this that tell us otherwise, I don't really think the "reverse the colors" is a good argument; I'll explain below.
This country has an ugly history of white people grouping together to beat and/or outright murder black people. There is a clear and undeniable precedent already in place.
Originally posted by Robtard
While I think it's crap and deplorable, as it seems straight-white-males are seemingly exempt from being the victims of hate crimes despite events like this that tell us otherwise, I don't really think the "reverse the colors" is a good argument; I'll explain below.This country has an ugly history of white people grouping together to beat and/or outright murder black people. There is a clear and undeniable precedent already in place.
I think your argument for why we can't reverse the colors to test to see if it is a race-based hate crime is the exactly the reason it is a race-based hate crime.
I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
I'm saying it would be a race-based hate crime if 20 white dudes beat down a black dude while yelling "n*gger!"
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think your argument for why we can't reverse the colors to test to see if it is a race-based hate crime is the exactly the reason it is a race-based hate crime.I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
I'm saying it would be a race-based hate-crime if 20 white dudes beat down a black dude while yelling "n*gger!"
I'm not saying "you can't do it", just that it isn't really sensible, considering US history. Though I do personally believe the first story was racially motivated and is a hate crime; if everything mentioned in the story is accurate.
Maybe. IMO, you don't need to use the "reverse the colors" argument to paint the obvious.
Agreed, because there is a clear precedent already set.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/25/beaten-man-restaurant/14598819/
"It's up to the grand jury to make this determination. All we do is process the evidence and turn the case over to the district attorney who in turn presents it to the Grand Jury. It's within their discretion to add the hate crime enhancement," Brinkley said."
Just so we know what the police chief actually said.
Bardock42 made a comment that was directed at me but, for some reason, he didn't actually quote me and reply to it which might be confusing...oh well. 🙂 I'll clear things up. This is what I said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
And the Police Chief, who is black, said that it is not being viewed as a race crime despite witnesses saying that the 20 men were yelling racial slurs as they beat down that dude.
To which Bardock42 replied:
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just so we know what the police chief actually said:"It's up to the grand jury to make this determination. All we do is process the evidence and turn the case over to the district attorney who in turn presents it to the Grand Jury. It's within their discretion to add the hate crime enhancement," Brinkley said."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/25/beaten-man-restaurant/14598819/
And here's what the Police Chief actually said within the context of my post (and not Bardock42's interpretation of what he thought I was referencing):
"Police Chief Tim Brinkley did not immediately return a call Sunday from The AP.
'This does not appear to be a hate crime,' he said in the press release. 'We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt.'"
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/mississippi_man_beaten_after_h.html
Originally posted by Robtard
Haha, just realized the first story I read was from Alex Jones.
No worries. I posted a much more credible source (repost of an AP piece) that actually contains the quote I referred to. No harm done.
I think the confusion on Bardock42's part was he thought I was getting my information from some sort of racist disinformation news source and wanted to set the record straight. He did not know I actually was getting my information from a direct quote of the Police Chief. So he was trying to explain where I might have been confused on something or possibly point out, indirectly, that I was getting bad information from a racist news source. It was more like a, "Wait, guys...hold off on this...dadudemon is probably confused and here's why..." But, again, no harm done. I better explained where I got my idea so there should not be anymore confusion.
Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, you don't need to use the "reverse the colors" argument to paint the obvious.
I believe you (ambiguous "you"😉 should. You may not have to do that but I think it is very helpful to change races in criminal situations to check your own biases. This same thing works when assessing what you're doing is misogynist or misandrist: reverse the genders to see if you've ****ed up somewhere in your judgment due to cultural conditioning.
I'll be honest: I only thought the situation/story was mildly racist at a first reading when I ran across the story, the day before yesterday. It wasn't until I thought, "hmm, perhaps I should change the 'races' involved to see if this is as racist as others are whining about." When I did the swap, I realized my own biases AGAINST white people prevented me from seeing how truly racist the situation was.
Originally posted by Bardock42
At least we now know that the biased, one sided portrayal of the police chief in the Mississippi case is wrong and that we should not continue to falsely perpetuate it.
The opposite of what you say here is true.
If you are leading an investigation under a clear bias and a false-notion of what took place, you will be leading an investigation under a clear bias and a false-notion of what took place.
Perhaps you do not realize how much influence the police have on criminal cases (police reports, evidence, testimony, etc.). Here is how much: a lot.
But, glad I could clear things up for you. You're definitely smarter and more informed now that we've had this discussion.
Originally posted by Robtard
While I think it's crap and deplorable, as it seems straight-white-males are seemingly exempt from being the victims of hate crimes despite events like this that tell us otherwise, I don't really think the "reverse the colors" is a good argument; I'll explain below.This country has an ugly history of white people grouping together to beat and/or outright murder black people. There is a clear and undeniable precedent already in place.
Many whites have been the victims of hate crimes too, although obviously on not such grand a scale. Remember the LA 4?
Personally I think hate crimes are stupid to begin with. I understand why they were originally put in place. But truth be told I don't think a crime should carry more weight just because you hated something about the victim.
Why because if you murder someone you are a murderer and should be treated as such. I don't care if you did it based on race, nationality, or gender preference. The act it self to me doesn't become any more deplorable than it already was.
Originally posted by Newjak
Personally I think hate crimes are stupid to begin with. I understand why they were originally put in place. But truth be told I don't think a crime should carry more weight just because you hated something about the victim.Why because if you murder someone you are a murderer and should be treated as such. I don't care if you did it based on race, nationality, or gender preference. The act it self to me doesn't become any more deplorable than it already was.
I've said similar in here over 7-8 years ago, iirc the argument I used was something like: "If I [gay] man gets attacked and beaten brutally, is it really worse for him if the attackers are calling him names while kicking in his face, as opposed to just kicking in his face?"
Originally posted by RobtardYeah it doesn't make it any worse.
I've said similar in here over 7-8 years ago, iirc the argument I used was something like: "If I [gay] man gets attacked and beaten brutally, is it really worse for him if the attackers are calling him names while kicking in his face, as opposed to just kicking in his face?"
The fact people would do that to a human being for any reason is horrible.
It's not about it being worse for the victim though. It's about the reasons for the behaviour being more deeply ingrained and more troubling, as well as sending a clear signal that these kinds of mindsets are not condoned.
Additionally I would say that it is worse to be beaten up for something you can't really change, since you have to assume "well I am x (gay, black, a woman), I guess I'll just be beat up again whenever".
Originally posted by Bardock42A woman? Protectingwomen is universally instilled in men. It'sin every religion just about.
It's not about it being worse for the victim though. It's about the reasons for the behaviour being more deeply ingrained and more troubling, as well as sending a clear signal that these kinds of mindsets are not condoned.Additionally I would say that it is worse to be beaten up for something you can't really change, since you have to assume "well I am x (gay, black, a woman), I guess I'll just be beat up again whenever".