Shooting at UNC

[z31maniac]

Im not agreeing on the conspiracy party but man, don't you think it's silly to think that every murder of what you're proposing gets covered. So if a murder happens in San Diego, where I live, you want to know about it regardless of race? Or are you so caught up in race that you NEED to know about it. The analogy of that would be one of those people slow down when they pass an accident on the freeway. It doesn't concern you and its dangerous. I mention dangerous because it is to get so caught up in such thinking and makes people go into tribal mode instead using proper rational. The rest of this country, beyond certain cops (thats imo), is as racist as you think based off of one redneck.

Race = religion for the sake of this post.

Want to try again?

[Dozyproductions]

edit: try not to be so frustrating. Want to try again, with a real response?

[z31maniac]

edit: try not to be so frustrating. Want to try again, with a real response?

I would, but I honestly don't get what point you're trying to make.

[jalopi]

Doze was clearly directing that at me... is the reading comprehension amongst the P&R trolls actually that bad or do you guys just literally take everything personally when posts aren't directed at you?

And no man, I honestly don't care about what's happening on the other side of the country unless it's actually something that affects the rest of it, myself included. Maybe my rant didn't come across coherently since I don't deal with trolls/assholes very well, but, translation:

*Scumbags deserve to be crucified publicly, especially ones that commit especially heinous crimes. So why is it that bland (in the grand scheme of things, individually still terrible) crimes seem to get the media limelight while truly depraved, horrible crimes get put on the backburner? Because, as far as I can tell, the media is currently obsessed with "hate crimes".

My issue with this is that it seems that all it takes for a normal (but bad) crime to be a "hate crime" is if the victim was a minority and the assailant was white. It's also frustrating that the media and justice system seem to pretty much treat minority-on-white or minority-on-minority (between two different ethnic groups) hate crimes the same way they do male rape; i.e. not seriously, like it's not even possible or a real thing.

For instance, if a Sunni attacked a Shia in this country (this would be akin to a Protestant attacked a Catholic... and before someone says something stupid like "they don't hate crime each other" yes they fucking do. or used to anyway), would the Shia assailant be charged with a hate crime? My guess is no and that's stupid, because that's much more likely to be a hate crime than the situation in OPs' article (which I'm still sticking to my theory of the dude was goddamn crazy. Probably threatened the local kids for stepping on his manicured lawn/trespassing on private property too)

I guess my point is that hate crime laws, much like communism, are great in theory. However, also like communism, hate crime laws seem to benefit a select group of people instead of the entire population as a whole. Well, that's my opinion based off of what I've seen anyway. And no, I don't have the time to quote every fucking source of information I've read over the past 15 years or the life experiences over the past 27 pertaining to the subject. And if I did I wouldn't, I'm not writing a term paper. *last two sentences not directed at you Doze

There. Was this better? I spent a lot of time thinking about and writing this post, I really hope I at least get some intelligent well thought responses compared to the quick one-liner dickery from last week.

[BraveUlysses]

If you think that hate crimes only benefit certain groups I'm not sure you've really taken the time to examine why the laws exist in the first place.

The purpose of HC laws is to address that when violence is specifically targeted and committed against certain groups of people (religous, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual identity, ect), not just when crimes involve a different race of victim(s) from offender(s).

Here's a decent primer on the subject by the ADL:

http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Introduction-to-Hate-Crime-Laws.pdf

And while it's true that it is very uncommon for non-white people to be charged with hate crime, how have you come to the conclusion that you have on this issue? How do you determine that there's an intentional effort to avoid prosecuting nonwhites for hate crimes? have you considered that they're exceptionally rare in proportion to violence against minorities (especially when you account for the demographics of the united states)?


I grilled you last week to get you to think about the comments you made (in particular, the ones that aren't even remotely grounded in reality), I'm glad you seemed to have thought about it somewhat but I'd suggest learning more about it.

[jalopi]

Dude, I understand why hate crime laws were written, but much like the rest of our justice system they don't really work. Sure, the foundation itself is nice and all, but it's the execution that falls flat.

This might come off as a weird example, but I think it'll serve the purpose just fine: A dude sucker punches and kicks the shit out of another dude, we'll say they're both in their 20s. Upon police investigation into the incident, the assailant identifies himself as being Jewish and his reason for the attack was because the victim was German "and a dirty Nazi". Now, since the victim and the assailant are in their 20s it's safe to say that neither of them were around in the 1930s-1940s and had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.

So what happens to the assailant in this situation? Does his case get processed as a hate crime? If I was a betting man I would say that unless the prosecutor was trying to make an example out of someone, no. The assailant would be hit with a very cut & dry assault and battery charge. (I don't think I'd have to explain how the charges would be if the roles were reversed)

So why is this? I mean, clearly, the victim was attacked because of his ethnicity. Why wasn't the assailant charged with a hate crime? The reason, from what I've seen, is that when it comes to cases involving oppressed persons against oppressors (both types current or past) most people tend to sympathize with the oppressed and victim blame the oppressors.

In the case of the two young men I described, most peoples' thoughts -and don't lie- are something along the lines of "well, he deserved it". But why? Because what the Jews went through was so terrible? Because he was German and 80-90 years ago his great grandfather may have had something to do with the Holocaust? Regardless of his non-existent role in the death of millions of Jews, we still have the same attitude with him. But why is this? Maybe it's because of the near century of anti-German propaganda that we've been receiving in this country. Shit, we even have a near quarter century long genre of videogames and DLCs dedicated to just killing Nazis.

Were some of the Nazis bad? Sure, but most of them were just regular people conscripted into an army. Regardless of this fact, it's hard (for most westerners) to picture a Nazi in their head and not immediately picturing said Nazi kicking a puppy and shooting a Jew. And then jumping on Call of Duty "With New Graphics!" edition and killing some zombie Nazis.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? How logic can be overwritten by brainwashing and stereotypes? Basically, my last two paragraphs can be applied to the kind of stereotypes and brainwashing white people have been subjected to about themselves. Now, obviously, the media campaign hasn't worked too well with the "we don't take a likin' to your kind 'round here" types, though that really shouldn't come as a surprise. We'll get back to them later.

Now, it's common knowledge that white Americans oppressed the shit out of many different groups of people in the past, some still so. But does that mean that all white Americans are racist/homophobes/short-hate-on-religion-word-that-i-don't-know? No, of course it doesn't, but 50 years of subtle media propaganda is hard as hell to psychologically fight. Backing up to the Nazi example from above, most people (white Americans included) find it difficult to picture white Americans as not being discriminatory. What this leads to is a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude towards white Americans who are assailants in what become automatic "hate crimes" and victim blaming / assailant sympathizing when they're victims of what would be called a "hate crime" if the roles were reversed. The mentality is that all white people are capable of hate, so what other motivation would they have for the crime if not for hate? And if they're the victims, well they had it coming, per stereotypes/brainwashing.

So basically, while there isn't an intentional effort to avoid publicizing and making a big deal of non whites' hate crimes, there is a massive subconscious barrier that says that it doesn't make sense to do so.

Also, according to the FBI, white hate crime victims aren't anywhere near as rare as you think (an estimated 22%. yes, it's 1/3 of what black people deal with, but it's not the rare unicorn crime that so many people think it is).

Fuck this shit it's 7PM and I'm still at work, we'll finish this up another day

[Dozyproductions]

Doze was clearly directing that at me... is the reading comprehension amongst the P&R trolls actually that bad or do you guys just literally take everything personally when posts aren't directed at you?

.

lol kinda at both of y'all but with really bad sentence structure. So...Hate crime = bad. Hate crime spun by the media = bad on a national scale. They take one murder by a LOON and turn it into a discussion as if everyone wants to murder muslims and that NO ONE is safe. It's upping paranoia and it gets great ratings. That was my point. This is a giant hullabaloo and it isn't doing any good for the memory of the 3 victims.

Remember ferguson? Turns out there was actually more to that story and cops are paranoid towards anything that looks towards them funny! And here we have it. We get all caught up in the moment, post about this stuff in this forum, get fiercely agitated with each other and without realizing it, we demonstrate on the micro scale what happens on the macro.

[jalopi]

Hate crime = bad. Hate crime spun by the media = bad on a national scale.

We get all caught up in the moment, post about this stuff in this forum, get fiercely agitated with each other and without realizing it, we demonstrate on the micro scale what happens on the macro.

/thread. don't think there's much else to talk about

[z31maniac]

Doze was clearly directing that at me... is the reading comprehension amongst the P&R trolls actually that bad or do you guys just literally take everything personally when posts aren't directed at you?

Self-centered much?

[jalopi]

Goddamnit

[smooth]

Dude, I understand why hate crime laws were written, but much like the rest of our justice system they don't really work. Sure, the foundation itself is nice and all, but it's the execution that falls flat.

Your entire example demonstrates that you don't actually have a firm grasp of why hate crime laws were written. They are not about one individual to another, oppressor to oppressed, one person hates another, etc.

Hate crime legislation is intended to curtail hate-based crimes that impact the *community* collaterally. When someone kills a homosexual or an african-american the rest of the members of those minority communities are threatened, endangered, and damaged; hence the extra punishments.

When a minority harms a non-minority, the same history of damage does not exist and the same collateral damage is not felt throughout the community.

To use your specific example, Jews harming Nazis is not a historical fact and pattern. When a one-off situation like that occurs, the entire population of Nazis do not shudder behind their doors worried about who might be next.

[mrsleeve]

So your saying, minorities by definition are incapable of committing a hate crime no matter their stance or stated reasoning for the crime (even if they targeted a whitey because they are a whitey) and only white people are capable of committing a hate crime.......

Do you not see contradiction and out right lunacy of your position, but this is on par for what I expect form you

[BraveUlysses]

So your saying, minorities by definition are incapable of committing a hate crime no matter their stance or stated reasoning for the crime (even if they targeted a whitey because they are a whitey) and only white people are capable of committing a hate crime.......

Do you not see contradiction and out right lunacy of your position, but this is on par for what I expect form you

No, he's not saying that. Your inability to read, comprehend and then post rears its head again.

[Dozyproductions]

Your entire example demonstrates that you don't actually have a firm grasp of why hate crime laws were written. They are not about one individual to another, oppressor to oppressed, one person hates another, etc.

Hate crime legislation is intended to curtail hate-based crimes that impact the *community* collaterally. When someone kills a homosexual or an african-american the rest of the members of those minority communities are threatened, endangered, and damaged; hence the extra punishments.

When a minority harms a non-minority, the same history of damage does not exist and the same collateral damage is not felt throughout the community.

To use your specific example, Jews harming Nazis is not a historical fact and pattern. When a one-off situation like that occurs, the entire population of Nazis do not shudder behind their doors worried about who might be next.

I'd agree with Jalopi on a certain point. I'd understand such laws, lets say, to combat government sponsored hate crimes, but beyond that it's all a mater of the execution of the law. What's the difference between a pre meditated murder vs a pre meditated hate crime murder? Crime = crime and justice is blind right?

[smooth]

What's the difference between a pre meditated murder vs a pre meditated hate crime murder? Crime = crime and justice is blind right?

a pre-meditated murder intends to target the victim whereas a pre-meditated hate crime intends to target the community the victim comes from

some people argue against hate crime because we shouldn't legislate "intent"
however, the difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter is the "intent" where "intent" enhances the penalty