Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Culture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

    Taking anyone's life is terrible. The problem today, is if it is a white guy killing anyone but a straight white guy, it's automatically a racist hate crime. It makes for a much better story in the media's minds. We no longer have the patience to learn all of the facts before reacting.
    The media doesn’t care if they are accurate anymore.
    Brotherhood may fade, but it will never run

    Comment


    • Read this article from the great bastion of conservatism, the HuffPost concerning the Mass Murder at the gay nightclub Pulse back in 2016. Obviously different situation, but the jump to conclusions because of how "obvious" the motivation was, is kind of similar. Frankly, I don't think I even knew that the whole homophobic killer storyline was disproven. But of course the whole thing just made too much sense, the story was written. Public perception was carved in stone.



      But this was a tricky thing to get a handle on — 49 dead and another 53 wounded, so many of them members of a historically marginalized and persecuted group. How could they not have been targeted? To say that the attack was not “rooted in homophobia,” one commenter wrote in USA Today, was to “erase the LGBT community … causing only more pain by invalidating their experiences.”

      Over the past two weeks in Orlando, Mateen’s widow, Noor Salman, was tried for having allegedly helped him plan his attack. The popular understanding of the Pulse shooting as a carefully targeted massacre was on trial as well. And in acquitting Salman, 31, on Friday, a jury also delivered a verdict on the story we’d told ourselves about the killings: We’d gotten it wrong.

      In the wake of the shooting, the media and public focused on certain details, many of which were later determined to be unfounded, and discounted others, like Mateen’s own explanation for his actions. If Mateen had indeed been motivated by something other than homophobia, the grief and terror of the gay community were no less real and no less urgent for it. But the narrative that was repeated and turned into fact ― that Mateen had picked Pulse because of who its patrons were and what they represented ― had the effect of obscuring another, smaller injustice: the prosecution of Mateen’s wife.
      Just replace a few words with words relevant to the latest shooting and a new article can be published in short order.



      Comment


      • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

        Taking anyone's life is terrible. The problem today, is if it is a white guy killing anyone but a straight white guy, it's automatically a racist hate crime. It makes for a much better story in the media's minds. We no longer have the patience to learn all of the facts before reacting.
        Exactly.. I got a text of an active shooter in CO just now. I am sure if I get on social media the media and liberal minded are barking the white domestic terrorost narrative.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

          Right, you can see how someone would think it's a hate crime though - 6 Asian women dead, and killer fetishized Asian women. No idea who makes the determination on what the threshold is for a hate crime, but seems like there evidence to suggest it was.
          If the man had a fetish for Asian women, it sounds more like a crime of passion than hate, tbh. Probably no italics.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post

            If the man had a fetish for Asian women, it sounds more like a crime of passion than hate, tbh. Probably no italics.
            Even so the it seems the media and the liberal think tank including Toronto are convincing themselves he had fetish to somehow connect random dots to make it racial since there are zero bread crumbs leading to anything racial. If we can somehow connect race in anyway they will make an argument for a hate crime. But it’s just being reported he visited these places as an outlet because he felt they we’re a safe way to pay for sex.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

              Even so the it seems the media and the liberal think tank including Toronto are convincing themselves he had fetish to somehow connect random dots to make it racial since there are zero bread crumbs leading to anything racial. If we can somehow connect race in anyway they will make an argument for a hate crime. But it’s just being reported he visited these places as an outlet because he felt they we’re a safe way to pay for sex.
              Because it’s always racial.



              Comment


              • Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post

                If the man had a fetish for Asian women, it sounds more like a crime of passion than hate, tbh. Probably no italics.
                • Ga. Code Ann. 17-10-17: enhanced penalties "if the trier of fact determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or group of victims or any property as the object of the offense because of such victim's or group of victims' actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, mental disability, or physical disability”
                Reading the text looks like it would allow any crime done where the victim's were chosen for any of these specific reasons, whether chosen out of hate or sexual fetish or whatever.

                Hate crimes seem a bit odd. I dont see a reason a guy who shoots 5 gay people because he's a homophobe should face more time than a guy who shoots 5 people he hates but each one is a different color/religion/etc.
                Based Mullet Kid owns

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                  [LIST][*]

                  Hate crimes seem a bit odd. I dont see a reason a guy who shoots 5 gay people because he's a homophobe should face more time than a guy who shoots 5 people he hates but each one is a different color/religion/etc.
                  Possibly as an attempt to deter the specific targeting of people based on the extreme hatred of someone’s sexual orientation (as the example you used).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by irishff1014 View Post

                    The media doesn’t care if they are accurate anymore.
                    Which media? If you mean all media, I might agree. If you refer to the media that isn’t your media, well, that’s a different story.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                      Even so the it seems the media and the liberal think tank including Toronto are convincing themselves he had fetish to somehow connect random dots to make it racial since there are zero bread crumbs leading to anything racial. If we can somehow connect race in anyway they will make an argument for a hate crime. But it’s just being reported he visited these places as an outlet because he felt they we’re a safe way to pay for sex.
                      I literally just said it's leaning for me towards it being a hate crime, I'm not going to pick up a (tiki) torch on this. 6 asian women dead is not "nothing" but I'm sure once an investigation in his computer and stuff comes back we'll know his motives more clearly. One of us is rushing to judgement here, and it isn't me.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                        I literally just said it's leaning for me towards it being a hate crime, I'm not going to pick up a (tiki) torch on this. 6 asian women dead is not "nothing" but I'm sure once an investigation in his computer and stuff comes back we'll know his motives more clearly. One of us is rushing to judgement here, and it isn't me.
                        Leaning that way Because of your made up fact that he had a fetish for Asian women?

                        What judgements have I made except there is no actual facts his motive was race related but the media and liberals have already “rushed to judgement”... my only judgement is on the rush to judgement.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                          I literally just said it's leaning for me towards it being a hate crime, I'm not going to pick up a (tiki) torch on this. 6 asian women dead is not "nothing" but I'm sure once an investigation in his computer and stuff comes back we'll know his motives more clearly. One of us is rushing to judgement here, and it isn't me.
                          Except, if it does come out this wasn't race related, the SJW's will protest loudly that the police are wrong.

                          I tend to wonder why we have hate crime laws. Someone hell bent on killing someone else is going to do it regardless. "Do I shoot the Pakistani at the convenience mart because he made me wear a mask in his store or that white mechanic who overcharged me for a brake job?" I highly doubt they would change their mind because there is a law against hate crimes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                            Exactly.. I got a text of an active shooter in CO just now. I am sure if I get on social media the media and liberal minded are barking the white domestic terrorost narrative.
                            Bet they voted for Trump. Do you think they were for general welfare?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                              Exactly.. I got a text of an active shooter in CO just now. I am sure if I get on social media the media and liberal minded are barking the white domestic terrorost narrative.
                              No details on the shooter or motivation has been released yet. 10 died including a police officer who was the father of 7.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

                                Except, if it does come out this wasn't race related, the SJW's will protest loudly that the police are wrong.

                                I tend to wonder why we have hate crime laws. Someone hell bent on killing someone else is going to do it regardless. "Do I shoot the Pakistani at the convenience mart because he made me wear a mask in his store or that white mechanic who overcharged me for a brake job?" I highly doubt they would change their mind because there is a law against hate crimes.
                                From my understanding, we have hate crime laws becasue of the need to deter what was once a very big problem. White people performing extrajudicial executions or committing violence against black people denying them their civil and constitutional rights. These are also called bias crimes becasue they are specifically carried out due to bias of race, nationality, and religion. While I admit this would be more difficult to prove today, it was very much easy to see back then ( from my grandparents and family who told me such stories when they were growing up in the south circa 1930s-1970s). They told me stories that downright hurt my soul and they told them as if it was matter of fact that that was the way it was.

                                Black people being pulled out of their house or cars and lynched for virtually no reason that could stand up in court. Stabbing/attacking them and their families them when they left the voting centers to deter them or their family from voting. Genuinely hate filled violence against their homes and churches or at their places of employment... these arent secrets and they occurred so much that Lyndon Johnson included in Title 1 of Civil Rights Act. These types of crimes are typically pre-meditated with malicious thought and are carried out to cause terror or deny due process. They are not simply a robbery gone wrong or an accidental crime of passion. From my understanding they were developed to deter these types of crimes by inflicting sever punishment's (this is a common way to deter unwarranted behavior is to make the punishment's so bad you choose not to do it, especially with premeditated crimes). I grew up around many family members that were racist as fuck and their thoughts on black people specifically are very hateful.

                                These laws were able to bust up the KKK to where they were almost non existent becasue being associated with them was very detrimental. In SC the KKK had a very large bank roll and property list which after multiple prosecutions, the government was able to seize and destroy their fundraising and properties becasue they were centers of planning and operations of hate crimes. I received a few KKK flyers in my mail a few years back as they seem to be recruiting again.
                                Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 03-23-2021, 07:56 AM.
                                "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

                                  Except, if it does come out this wasn't race related, the SJW's will protest loudly that the police are wrong.

                                  I tend to wonder why we have hate crime laws. Someone hell bent on killing someone else is going to do it regardless. "Do I shoot the Pakistani at the convenience mart because he made me wear a mask in his store or that white mechanic who overcharged me for a brake job?" I highly doubt they would change their mind because there is a law against hate crimes.
                                  Really??
                                  Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
                                  I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
                                  . It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
                                  It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by arahop View Post

                                    Really??
                                    Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
                                    I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
                                    . It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
                                    It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.
                                    Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. The guys who physically abuse their wives stopped altogether when Congress passed the "Violence Against Women Act." Prior to that, they thought it was OK and it was open season on roughing up the wives.

                                    We have equal protection under the law as US citizens because if person A commits a crime against person B, it is illegal regardless of race.
                                    The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by arahop View Post

                                      Really??
                                      Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
                                      I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
                                      . It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
                                      It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.
                                      This is completely nonsensical. These laws are unevenly and arbitrarily applied. "You're either with me, or you're my enemy...." It's like Anakin Skywalker is defending this garbage and acting like he has the high ground. People are either equal under the law...or not.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                        Leaning that way Because of your made up fact that he had a fetish for Asian women?

                                        What judgements have I made except there is no actual facts his motive was race related but the media and liberals have already “rushed to judgement”... my only judgement is on the rush to judgement.
                                        It's not hard to connect the dots Asian women have been pretty sexualized (ex. think Full Metal Jacket) and the guy claims he had a sex addiction. Oh, and six people of the same race are dead. Anyways, I'll wait until there is actually a ruling on this before screaming and @'ing people.

                                        You were the first person to post on the board, and highlighted my comment about feeling defensive. Talk about telling on yourself.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post

                                          Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. The guys who physically abuse their wives stopped altogether when Congress passed the "Violence Against Women Act." Prior to that, they thought it was OK and it was open season on roughing up the wives.

                                          We have equal protection under the law as US citizens because if person A commits a crime against person B, it is illegal regardless of race.
                                          Except, you had people literally walk home with no charges after lynchings. You had people openly defending teenage boys for the murder of classmates that were gay in "fag drags" and such...

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by arahop View Post

                                            Really??
                                            Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
                                            I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
                                            . It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
                                            It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.
                                            Lol Jesus.

                                            For certain things, I'm perfectly fine throwing the book at someone harder. An example being a burning cross in a yard or spray painting a Swastika on a synagogue. Those go beyond regular vandalism or whatever.

                                            But who should get in more trouble, the guy who murders 10 people indiscriminately or 10 people discriminately? I dont see much utility or logic behind the hitting the latter harder than the former.

                                            And "if you aren't against hate crimes you support them"....what the hell does that even mean?
                                            Last edited by NorthDakota; 03-23-2021, 09:50 AM.
                                            Based Mullet Kid owns

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post

                                              Except, you had people literally walk home with no charges after lynchings. You had people openly defending teenage boys for the murder of classmates that were gay in "fag drags" and such...
                                              Under a hate crime situation, if you walked home with no charges sans hate crime statutes, you'd still walk home with no charges with hate crime statutes as well it looks like.
                                              Based Mullet Kid owns

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

                                                Under a hate crime situation, if you walked home with no charges sans hate crime statutes, you'd still walk home with no charges with hate crime statutes as well it looks like.
                                                It's about getting charges to stick. I agree that things can get fuzzy quick, but the intent is to make it harder to walk because of others within the community also being racist, homophobic, anti semitic, etc.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by arahop View Post

                                                  Really??
                                                  Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
                                                  I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
                                                  . It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
                                                  It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.
                                                  I think people forget white people are the overwhelming majority. White people commit most crimes, its a statistically anomaly if they didn't in certain categories (like homocide rates). Males in general commit more crimes than women so statistically most crimes should be committed by white males... statistically speaking. That and good luck trying to get a judge or prosecuters to charge a minority with, for example, a racist hate crime.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                                                    It's not hard to connect the dots Asian women have been pretty sexualized (ex. think Full Metal Jacket) and the guy claims he had a sex addiction. Oh, and six people of the same race are dead. Anyways, I'll wait until there is actually a ruling on this before screaming and @'ing people.

                                                    You were the first person to post on the board, and highlighted my comment about feeling defensive. Talk about telling on yourself.
                                                    So posting first means what? Is this like "whoever smelt it, dealt it"? I brought it up to highlight your comment as it relates to people getting defensive. As you may have saw all the people running to be on the offensive and run with their anti white narratives. Laws and culture are changing as a whole based on false narratives. Black people commit more hate crimes on Asians than white people but now we have this faux united front against mean whitey and white supremacy. We literally have black men killing Asians simply because they are Asian and NO OTHER REASON. Barely any coverage. We get a white man who claims he shot 8 people because of a sex addiction. His story is backed up by friends, acquaintances, and other people and its another white national emergency since whiteness is a pandemic apparently in this country. How do you not get defensive with critical race theory and headlines and articles saying your whiteness is a pandemic? Be less white... yup nothing to see here.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post

                                                      It's about getting charges to stick. I agree that things can get fuzzy quick, but the intent is to make it harder to walk because of others within the community also being racist, homophobic, anti semitic, etc.
                                                      I think it is actually the opposite, or I'm misunderstanding your post. Because with no conviction, there is no hate crime, at least thats how the Georgia one read to me.

                                                      1. Charge
                                                      2. Convict?
                                                      3. If yes, was it a hate crime?
                                                      4. If yes, harsher sentencing.

                                                      just glancing at other states, it looks like it varies quite a bit from state to state,, and more than one have been found unconstitutional in the past.
                                                      Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                        So posting first means what? Is this like "whoever smelt it, dealt it"? I brought it up to highlight your comment as it relates to people getting defensive. As you may have saw all the people running to be on the offensive and run with their anti white narratives. Laws and culture are changing as a whole based on false narratives. Black people commit more hate crimes on Asians than white people but now we have this faux united front against mean whitey and white supremacy. We literally have black men killing Asians simply because they are Asian and NO OTHER REASON. Barely any coverage. We get a white man who claims he shot 8 people because of a sex addiction. His story is backed up by friends, acquaintances, and other people and its another white national emergency since whiteness is a pandemic apparently in this country. How do you not get defensive with critical race theory and headlines and articles saying your whiteness is a pandemic? Be less white... yup nothing to see here.
                                                        In your opinion which laws/culture are changing for the worse in your opinion?

                                                        Personally, I don't get upset because I know there's white trash out there that makes me look bad and anything that highlights them as garbage is good. I mean, we have people in rural Ontario flying confederate flags that piss their pants when people call them out for it. I can guarantee you some Letterkenny ass is not just a "southern pride" loving good ol'boy.

                                                        Nobody is saying be less white, it's likely they're asking you to re-examine your views to see if there is some possible subconscious bias towards a certain race based on old tropes.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                                                          In your opinion which laws/culture are changing for the worse in your opinion?

                                                          Personally, I don't get upset because I know there's white trash out there that makes me look bad and anything that highlights them as garbage is good. I mean, we have people in rural Ontario flying confederate flags that piss their pants when people call them out for it. I can guarantee you some Letterkenny ass is not just a "southern pride" loving good ol'boy.

                                                          Nobody is saying be less white, it's likely they're asking you to re-examine your views to see if there is some possible subconscious bias towards a certain race based on old tropes.
                                                          You may benefit from examining your views to see if there is some subconscious bias towards white people who are less fortunate than you.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post

                                                            You may benefit from examining your views to see if there is some subconscious bias towards white people who are less fortunate than you.
                                                            That is a fair point. Most of my policy positions have been based in the aim of helping poor people, which would include less fortunate white people.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                                                              In your opinion which laws/culture are changing for the worse in your opinion?

                                                              Personally, I don't get upset because I know there's white trash out there that makes me look bad and anything that highlights them as garbage is good. I mean, we have people in rural Ontario flying confederate flags that piss their pants when people call them out for it. I can guarantee you some Letterkenny ass is not just a "southern pride" loving good ol'boy.

                                                              Nobody is saying be less white, it's likely they're asking you to re-examine your views to see if there is some possible subconscious bias towards a certain race based on old tropes.
                                                              At least you agree it makes YOU look bad. So when false narratives and faux racism stories get circulated you would probably agree that also makes YOU look bad. The problem in this statement is people don't necessarily care about making THEM look bad. They have an agenda to make everyone like him look bad... which would include you.

                                                              Laws/culture - Here is just a recent example. When we signed up for grants and state funding they all do things differently. In our city have had a few rounds of grant money for small business. The first time we got rejected. The second time we only recieved like $1500, the third time we recieved $10,000. At the guidance of a neighbor/friend that works with city/state government he suggested I check yes on the box that says I am a part of a historically oppressed demographic. I only checked this box on the third instance. I asked why checking that box made such a huge difference and he just said "haha, I think its obvious but my official answer is no comment". When I ask around some business owners received zero and some received up to $20,000 or more. There is a lady that makes burritos out of her house and drives from business to business offering burritos and a 12oz coke for $5 that recieved $20,000. I highly doubt she has a better accountant than I do, but I bet she checked the right box.

                                                              Coca-Cola is saying be less white. Yahoo published an article stating whiteness is pandemic. Its all over man.

                                                              Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united.

                                                              Whiteness is a pandemic
                                                              https://sports.yahoo.com/whiteness-pandemic-170000715.html

                                                              COCA-COLA DIVERSITY TRAINING PROGRAM TELLS EMPLOYEES TO ‘BE LESS WHITE’
                                                              https://www.blackenterprise.com/coca-cola-diversity-training-program-tells-employees-to-be-less-white/

                                                              PowerPoint slides from the Coca-Cola training seminar featured tips on how to tone down whiteness. The tips included “be less arrogant, be less certain, be less defensive, be more humble, listen, believe, break with apathy,” and “break with white solidarity.”


                                                              Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united. It doesn't say some white people, it doesnt specifically say white trash... be less white.

                                                              What color are you Toronto? If you are white, can you kindly be less of it?







                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post


                                                                Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united. It doesn't say some white people, it doesnt specifically say white trash... be less white.

                                                                What color are you Toronto? If you are white, can you kindly be less of it?
                                                                Use this slide from Cigna's anti-white training to quantify your privilege to the group.

                                                                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                                  At least you agree it makes YOU look bad. So when false narratives and faux racism stories get circulated you would probably agree that also makes YOU look bad. The problem in this statement is people don't necessarily care about making THEM look bad. They have an agenda to make everyone like him look bad... which would include you.

                                                                  Laws/culture - Here is just a recent example. When we signed up for grants and state funding they all do things differently. In our city have had a few rounds of grant money for small business. The first time we got rejected. The second time we only recieved like $1500, the third time we recieved $10,000. At the guidance of a neighbor/friend that works with city/state government he suggested I check yes on the box that says I am a part of a historically oppressed demographic. I only checked this box on the third instance. I asked why checking that box made such a huge difference and he just said "haha, I think its obvious but my official answer is no comment". When I ask around some business owners received zero and some received up to $20,000 or more. There is a lady that makes burritos out of her house and drives from business to business offering burritos and a 12oz coke for $5 that recieved $20,000. I highly doubt she has a better accountant than I do, but I bet she checked the right box.

                                                                  Coca-Cola is saying be less white. Yahoo published an article stating whiteness is pandemic. Its all over man.

                                                                  Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united.

                                                                  Whiteness is a pandemic
                                                                  https://sports.yahoo.com/whiteness-pandemic-170000715.html

                                                                  COCA-COLA DIVERSITY TRAINING PROGRAM TELLS EMPLOYEES TO ‘BE LESS WHITE’
                                                                  https://www.blackenterprise.com/coca-cola-diversity-training-program-tells-employees-to-be-less-white/



                                                                  Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united. It doesn't say some white people, it doesnt specifically say white trash... be less white.

                                                                  What color are you Toronto? If you are white, can you kindly be less of it?
                                                                  My first instinct when a tragic shooting happens isn't to think about how the "media" and "think tanks" are making ME look bad. I'm comfortable that people who know me and meet me understand I don't share similarities with any of the shooters.

                                                                  Right, that's an inefficient process caused at the government level that is trying to means test people based on ethnicity. I've always been against means testing at the grant level, as you can always claw back any overpayment at tax time. Of course that is under the assumption that a tax agency runs perfectly. I find it strange to pin that on minorities as them abusing the system when it was likely done by some idiots who were trying to appease progressives but fucked it all up. I fully support you taking every penny from the government, make them come and get it back from you.

                                                                  The Coca-Cola thing is partially false, the actual slide deck is real but there is no proof it was part of the curriculum for Coca-Cola. They bought access to the Linkedin training feature but it was not part of the required programs for their employees. Seems like someone was able to bypass LinkedIn's review of the slides and get them up there briefly before having them taken down.

                                                                  I won't tell you what to be outraged over, but something that Nigel Farage clings to as fact is not something I'd recommend getting upset about.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                                                                    My first instinct when a tragic shooting happens isn't to think about how the "media" and "think tanks" are making ME look bad. I'm comfortable that people who know me and meet me understand I don't share similarities with any of the shooters.

                                                                    Right, that's an inefficient process caused at the government level that is trying to means test people based on ethnicity. I've always been against means testing at the grant level, as you can always claw back any overpayment at tax time. Of course that is under the assumption that a tax agency runs perfectly. I find it strange to pin that on minorities as them abusing the system when it was likely done by some idiots who were trying to appease progressives but fucked it all up. I fully support you taking every penny from the government, make them come and get it back from you.

                                                                    The Coca-Cola thing is partially false, the actual slide deck is real but there is no proof it was part of the curriculum for Coca-Cola. They bought access to the Linkedin training feature but it was not part of the required programs for their employees. Seems like someone was able to bypass LinkedIn's review of the slides and get them up there briefly before having them taken down.

                                                                    I won't tell you what to be outraged over, but something that Nigel Farage clings to as fact is not something I'd recommend getting upset about.
                                                                    I am talking about you as it relates to your whiteness. I have best friends that know me well and still think all white people are the problem. They

                                                                    I am not pinning this on minorities... like I stated... policy/culture/rules are made based on certain narratives. I am blaming this on governent for caving to this narrative and feeling they have to.

                                                                    Coca-Cola or not Coca-Cola... I think we can both agree its been said.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post

                                                                      From my understanding, we have hate crime laws becasue of the need to deter what was once a very big problem. White people performing extrajudicial executions or committing violence against black people denying them their civil and constitutional rights. These are also called bias crimes becasue they are specifically carried out due to bias of race, nationality, and religion. While I admit this would be more difficult to prove today, it was very much easy to see back then ( from my grandparents and family who told me such stories when they were growing up in the south circa 1930s-1970s). They told me stories that downright hurt my soul and they told them as if it was matter of fact that that was the way it was.

                                                                      Black people being pulled out of their house or cars and lynched for virtually no reason that could stand up in court. Stabbing/attacking them and their families them when they left the voting centers to deter them or their family from voting. Genuinely hate filled violence against their homes and churches or at their places of employment... these arent secrets and they occurred so much that Lyndon Johnson included in Title 1 of Civil Rights Act. These types of crimes are typically pre-meditated with malicious thought and are carried out to cause terror or deny due process. They are not simply a robbery gone wrong or an accidental crime of passion. From my understanding they were developed to deter these types of crimes by inflicting sever punishment's (this is a common way to deter unwarranted behavior is to make the punishment's so bad you choose not to do it, especially with premeditated crimes). I grew up around many family members that were racist as fuck and their thoughts on black people specifically are very hateful.

                                                                      These laws were able to bust up the KKK to where they were almost non existent becasue being associated with them was very detrimental. In SC the KKK had a very large bank roll and property list which after multiple prosecutions, the government was able to seize and destroy their fundraising and properties becasue they were centers of planning and operations of hate crimes. I received a few KKK flyers in my mail a few years back as they seem to be recruiting again.
                                                                      I totally get what happened back in the last century. The hate crime laws are fairly new. Don't get me wrong. I know why the laws were written, but you would have a hard time convincing me that someone who was hell bent on killing someone is going to have second thoughts simply because there's not only a law against killing, but also a law against killing due to hate (race, religion or LGBT).

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by arahop View Post

                                                                        Really??
                                                                        Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
                                                                        I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
                                                                        . It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
                                                                        It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.
                                                                        I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.
                                                                        Last edited by Irish#1; 03-23-2021, 09:51 PM.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

                                                                          I totally get what happened back in the last century. The hate crime laws are fairly new. Don't get me wrong. I know why the laws were written, but you would have a hard time convincing me that someone who was hell bent on killing someone is going to have second thoughts simply because there's not only a law against killing, but also a law against killing due to hate (race, religion or LGBT).
                                                                          When it comes to murder and killing people I think attaching a “hate crime” statute is just (to use a familiar phrase) theatre. Like this Spa/Parlor guy. He’s either going to get the death penalty or like 100 years per person killed. Attach the hate crimes and he’s got maybe another 50 years. So he serves 800 years or 850 years... 400 with good behavior ‍♂️??

                                                                          where hate crime laws might effective is for lesser crimes like assault or even vandalism.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by ND88 View Post

                                                                            Which media? If you mean all media, I might agree. If you refer to the media that isn’t your media, well, that’s a different story.
                                                                            Any news outlet. They just care about being first. They don’t care if the whole thing could be false.
                                                                            Brotherhood may fade, but it will never run

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                                              When it comes to murder and killing people I think attaching a “hate crime” statute is just (to use a familiar phrase) theatre. Like this Spa/Parlor guy. He’s either going to get the death penalty or like 100 years per person killed. Attach the hate crimes and he’s got maybe another 50 years. So he serves 800 years or 850 years... 400 with good behavior ‍♂️??

                                                                              where hate crime laws might effective is for lesser crimes like assault or even vandalism.
                                                                              And instead of writing a new law, they could have just as easily amended the current law(s) to allow stiffer sentences.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • The entire point of hate crime laws is to pander to the demographic being supposedly protected by them. NOBODY was ever about to murder someone and then stopped and thought, "WHOA! I'm killing this dude because he's gay, Jewish, black, trans, or an immigrant. That hate crime law will add another 10 years to my sentence if I do this. I better not." It's completely useless as a deterrent to such things. Where it MIGHT have some effect is, as Blazer suggested, deterring some lesser assaults or vandalism. Doubling the sentence for spray-painting a mosque or church, torching a gay nightclub, assaulting someone for their ethnicity, etc. might have some effect, but even that is questionable.

                                                                                What hate crime bills are actually for is to pander to a particular group: "We care sooooo much about YOU! We want to protect you. Look at this (totally ineffective and useless) law we're passing just for YOU!" It's like a lawmaker funding some useless project back in his home district. It has virtually NOTHING to do with fixing some real problem there. It's about being able to say, "Look what I did for you" during the next election.
                                                                                Winners see success and want to climb up to its level. Losers see success and want to drag it down to their own.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
                                                                                  The entire point of hate crime laws is to pander to the demographic being supposedly protected by them. NOBODY was ever about to murder someone and then stopped and thought, "WHOA! I'm killing this dude because he's gay, Jewish, black, trans, or an immigrant. That hate crime law will add another 10 years to my sentence if I do this. I better not." It's completely useless as a deterrent to such things. Where it MIGHT have some effect is, as Blazer suggested, deterring some lesser assaults or vandalism. Doubling the sentence for spray-painting a mosque or church, torching a gay nightclub, assaulting someone for their ethnicity, etc. might have some effect, but even that is questionable.

                                                                                  What hate crime bills are actually for is to pander to a particular group: "We care sooooo much about YOU! We want to protect you. Look at this (totally ineffective and useless) law we're passing just for YOU!" It's like a lawmaker funding some useless project back in his home district. It has virtually NOTHING to do with fixing some real problem there. It's about being able to say, "Look what I did for you" during the next election.
                                                                                  I tend to agree with you on this. I'm not a minority, but I can't help think if I was I would care more about action towards helping my community then whether some label on the killer is appropriate or not. It's like giving someone a key to the city. I can see the merits for lesser charges, but for murder?

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post

                                                                                    I tend to agree with you on this. I'm not a minority, but I can't help think if I was I would care more about action towards helping my community then whether some label on the killer is appropriate or not. It's like giving someone a key to the city. I can see the merits for lesser charges, but for murder?
                                                                                    I think a lot of people fall into this thinking.

                                                                                    Some burnout spray-painting the local high school and some local KKK guy spraypainting slurs/symbols on a local black church should be treated differenty.

                                                                                    An indiscriminate murder like the Night Stalker or the Zodiac* vs. Ted Bundy (very discriminate)...should Ted be treated differently?

                                                                                    I wonder if theoretically almost every rape could be a hate crime. After all, the victim was chosen because of an applicable classification.

                                                                                    *absolutely terrifying that Ted Cruz has still not been prosecuted.
                                                                                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • I thought I read something in reference to the Atlanta shooting that some hate laws can even be applied to gender. That if the people who were shot were targeted because they are women, it could still be applied. Seems a bit of a stretch.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

                                                                                        I think a lot of people fall into this thinking.

                                                                                        Some burnout spray-painting the local high school and some local KKK guy spraypainting slurs/symbols on a local black church should be treated differenty.

                                                                                        An indiscriminate murder like the Night Stalker or the Zodiac* vs. Ted Bundy (very discriminate)...should Ted be treated differently?

                                                                                        I wonder if theoretically almost every rape could be a hate crime. After all, the victim was chosen because of an applicable classification.

                                                                                        *absolutely terrifying that Ted Cruz has still not been prosecuted.
                                                                                        IF the Atlanta shooting gets deemed a hate crime than I think it would create a slippery slope to set a precedent for this, tbh.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
                                                                                          The entire point of hate crime laws is to pander to the demographic being supposedly protected by them. NOBODY was ever about to murder someone and then stopped and thought, "WHOA! I'm killing this dude because he's gay, Jewish, black, trans, or an immigrant. That hate crime law will add another 10 years to my sentence if I do this. I better not." It's completely useless as a deterrent to such things. Where it MIGHT have some effect is, as Blazer suggested, deterring some lesser assaults or vandalism. Doubling the sentence for spray-painting a mosque or church, torching a gay nightclub, assaulting someone for their ethnicity, etc. might have some effect, but even that is questionable.

                                                                                          What hate crime bills are actually for is to pander to a particular group: "We care sooooo much about YOU! We want to protect you. Look at this (totally ineffective and useless) law we're passing just for YOU!" It's like a lawmaker funding some useless project back in his home district. It has virtually NOTHING to do with fixing some real problem there. It's about being able to say, "Look what I did for you" during the next election.
                                                                                          Except that when hate crime laws were being developed thy had a whole slew of incidents where the person doing the crime could explicitly be understood to have done precisely because of race, or sexuality or religion.

                                                                                          Dylan Roof explicitly said he killed those nine black people in a church because they were black.


                                                                                          It wasn’t pandering. It was because a the time black guy could be dragged out of his house and lynched and local law enforcement would do anything about it. That’s ridiculous and had to be stopped. If the local LeO want going to do anything to protect a specific groups of people then someone had to. Not saying Harsher laws are the correct answer but something had to be done to protect black people from being specifically targeted and terrorized by white people
                                                                                          "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Matthew Shepherd was another one. He and many others were specifically targeted and attacked because he was gay. It isn’t pandering to gays. It’s a genuine attempt to reduce these types of crimes. My sister is gay and so can assure you I have seen the hatred shown to her by many people and so can easily see someone acting on that out of some sort of justified thoughts
                                                                                            "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Excellent article here. Definitely worth the read.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                                                                                Matthew Shepherd was another one. He and many others were specifically targeted and attacked because he was gay. It isn’t pandering to gays. It’s a genuine attempt to reduce these types of crimes. My sister is gay and so can assure you I have seen the hatred shown to her by many people and so can easily see someone acting on that out of some sort of justified thoughts
                                                                                                I think it depends on how you look at it. Harsher punishments have proven to not deter crime. This has been a widely known fact in the Criminal Justice world for decades. Punishment deters crimes but adding something like a hate statute to give harsher sentences doesn't. Whoever made the harsher penalites for hate crime either knew this and knew it would would not deter hate drimes or they are just oblivious or ignorant of the criminal justice system.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                                                                  I think it depends on how you look at it. Harsher punishments have proven to not deter crime. This has been a widely known fact in the Criminal Justice world for decades. Punishment deters crimes but adding something like a hate statute to give harsher sentences doesn't. Whoever made the harsher penalites for hate crime either knew this and knew it would would not deter hate drimes or they are just oblivious or ignorant of the criminal justice system.
                                                                                                  Id say it was effective in busting up the KKK and other hate groups in the past or sure. There is real tangible evidence that this was the case. Is it going to stop a random unknown person ?? Doesnt seem so.
                                                                                                  "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post

                                                                                                    Id say it was effective in busting up the KKK and other hate groups in the past or sure. There is real tangible evidence that this was the case. Is it going to stop a random unknown person ?? Doesnt seem so.
                                                                                                    I think that is totally different. In the late 1800s they made a serious of laws that gave black their rights to vote, hold office, and have equal protection under the law and there was something that essentially told people to stop killing black people. I kind of saw that as something like what our RICO laws might look like trying to dismantlle organized crime more than I would see those as hate crime laws.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post

                                                                                                      Except that when hate crime laws were being developed thy had a whole slew of incidents where the person doing the crime could explicitly be understood to have done precisely because of race, or sexuality or religion.

                                                                                                      Dylan Roof explicitly said he killed those nine black people in a church because they were black.


                                                                                                      It wasn't pandering. It was because a the time black guy could be dragged out of his house and lynched and local law enforcement would do anything about it. That's ridiculous and had to be stopped. If the local LeO want going to do anything to protect a specific groups of people then someone had to. Not saying Harsher laws are the correct answer but something had to be done to protect black people from being specifically targeted and terrorized by white people

                                                                                                      Matthew Shepherd was another one. He and many others were specifically targeted and attacked because he was gay. It isn’t pandering to gays. It’s a genuine attempt to reduce these types of crimes. My sister is gay and so can assure you I have seen the hatred shown to her by many people and so can easily see someone acting on that out of some sort of justified thoughts
                                                                                                      Pretty sure that was the intention. Dragging a guy from his house was 20's - 60's violence. Hate crimes are a relatively new thing in relation to what you're talking about. I don't disagree that the treatment and actions that you mentioned had to be stopped. The point is there are laws already in place that address these illegal actions. Up the sentence if need be, but no need for duplicate laws.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X