david b.
Ah, gee, there goes the opportunity for all those great debates. 
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
I’m sorry. You can’t come in here with a name like Klanman. The moderators were absolutely right to boot him. If someone wants to discuss racial issues, great, that’s a problem that needs to be talked about. I certainly agree that perspectives unfriendly to those of many black leaders are legitimate (those of David Horowitz, Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, etc.) and deserve a fair hearing. But you can’t discuss any of these issues from a racist point of view and be reasonable.
Of course, I do not consider Horowitz, Sowell, or Murray to be racists. Hell, Sowell’s black. But they disagree on many issues with a lof of people who are considered to be leaders of the black community. That’s legitimate debate. Ku Klux Klan shit is not.
Lawrence, I disagree.
Klansman certainly telegraphed where he was coming from, and the name alone would’ve kept me from opening this topic and reading it if I were easily offended by such things.
There’s one mistake here that most of you are making (IMHO, of course):
You link hatred and racism to ignorance and stupidity.
In all of your reason, you feel that a person cannot be a hate-filled pus-bag and at the same time be an intelligent individual.
I disagree. A person can be as mean, nasty, wicked and cruel as can be and still be intelligent and coherent. These people can be most dangerous.
From what I’m hearing from the rest of you, Klansman isn’t the nicest person, or very intelligent or well-spoken (written?); it may very well be a good thing that he’s being censored for being a jerk.
But I don’t think, on general principle, that a topic or person should be banned from this board just because it and they are socially vile, as long as they can be (in the moderator’s opinion) intelligent and coherent.
Some of Hitler’s cronies were the most vile people, and received their just ending, yet they were also intelligent and educated.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=“BLUE”>“As long as the government isn’t doing anything, I see it as a benefit to myself.”</FONT> --Surgoshan
I think by banning Klanman we miss an opportunity to see what made him tick. I don’t think he would have gained any converts here, so what would be the damage, as long as he toned down the racial language?
Just think, maybe you would have won him over and he would have seen that he was wrong?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Lawrence wrote:
Is that the same David Horowitz who used to do those “Fight Back!” consumer advocacy shows on TV?
Just mirroring some of the comments that have already been made. I appreciate the fact that this is a “privately owned” forum, or however it should be phrased, but I don’t think klanman should have been banned either; certainly not for his racist beliefs or expressions, anyway.
One of the great things of allowing free speech is that it keeps issues such as racism from being swept under the carpet. Simply ignoring, or censoring, racist ideas will not bring about any solution. This, of course, is the major problem with political correctness–The idea that, if I close my eyes and ignore it (or simply change the language), the problem will then go away. I don’t think so.
Topics similar to this thread are worthwhile. Tangentially–there is a disproportianate amount of blacks in prison compared to whites. Some claim it’s because blacks simply commit disproportinately more crime than whites, while others claim a racist police force targets blacks. It’s easy to get labeled “RACIST” by ignorant people if you support either claim–it’s not clear to me what the source of the problem is.
On another note, affirmative action is also a very heated topic. Blacks are underrepresented/lower paid in the work force. Is it due to racist hiring strategies, or a society that, one way or another, leaves blacks disadvantaged from the beginning? In other words, should affirmative action really be considered as valid solution to this problem, or should we focus more on education and reforming our schools? Is it really right to place the responsibilty on employers (by quotas) to solve the problem, when in fact the problem may have much deeper roots (poor education for predominantly black neighborhoods, for example)?
Anyway, I just wanted to say some rambling thoughts about it. I’m not trying to imply I have any clue about these issues, I don’t; I’m not sure if anyone does. But these are such heated issues that it’s sometimes difficult to debate them without someone shouting “RACIST!” along the way. By the way, I’m not saying that’s what happened here–klanman certainly did present himself as racist, and not a very tactful one, at that.
When contemplating,
“does poverty cause crime?”
Why does no one consider the inverse?
“does crime cause poverty?”
Say it with me, correlation is not causation.
Sorry for the last post, it was a response to other posters self admitted ramblings. I realize it has no place here.
I have started a new thread to deal with the question.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000668.html
tracer,
That is a different David Horowitz. The DH relevant to this debate was a sixties radical; raised by leftist parents who were actual members/leaders in the American Communist Party. He took a lot of the leftist political thought to heart and was co-founder of the newspaper Ramparts and was a member (or close associate with the leaders) of the Black Panthers.
However, in the 80s, he “came to his senses” as he would put it, and decided that Liberalism was pretty much washed up. No so much liberalism (small “l”), but the Libreral Progressive movement and ideology. He has sense become a conservative, and is very outspoken on such topics as racial policy (incl. quotas) and the movement of the political Left.
If you are interested, his autobiography Radical Son is by far one of the best, most interesting books I have ever read. If you are interested in the inner workings of the American Communist Party of the '30s-'60s, and of the Black Panthers, I would highly recommend this book.
Divemaster
Dive, a lot of Liberals underwent similar “conversions” in the eighties, due in large part to mortgage and BMW payments.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
John-John,
I can tell by your response that you have not read Horowitz’s autobiography. I recall distinctly that the reasons for his ideological change of heart came from such occurrences as black friends of his murdered by Black Panthers for daring to speak out, and other life-changing events. These are matters of fact, not opinion.
In addition, he got tired of what he saw to be the intellectual dishonesty of many of his friends and co-radicals of the '60s. This is a matter of opinion, not fact; but it in no way appears to be driven by the desire to purchase more expensive automobiles.
I am sure that there are those who let their pocketbook drive their ideology, especially for those who undergo a sudden change of heart; however, I would submit that Horowitz certainly does not fall into that category. If you read Radical Son, you will see that he struggled with very complicated, conflicting, and overwhelming emotions and thoughts for over 20 years. For you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Do you not think the evolution of a person’s political and moral leanings and can be absolutely sincere, resulting from introspection and challenging of self? If not, where did you get your ideology?
I may have differences with your politics (and have discussed some of them elsewhere), but I have not and would not imply that your opinions were driven by the desire for material acquisitions. Try to give others the same credit.
First off, I apologize for my earlier postings in other threads. Using the n-word was perhaps not appropriate (even though they call each other a misspelled version of that). I also realize being politically-incorrect is not good for this board, so I will try my best not to upset anyone.
I applaud those who felt I shouldn’t be banned because my opinions don’t fit in a nicely packaged PC-box. I realize I am different and it may be hard to accept, so I will try to appease everyone while still trying to discuss some issues.
Nonetheless, I will not be so careless in the future, so please do not ban me based on this posting here.
However, no one has really answered the question in my OP about the unequal treatment “hate crimes” get. How come when blacks commit crimes against white (which happens with far more frequency) is it not called a “hate crime”? True, poverty may play it’s part, but no one blames poverty when some poor white trash offs a black. And let’s face it, the people who dragged the guy were not rich or even middle-class, nor are many percieved KKK members.
Thoughts?
KM2, some black on white crimes may be motivated by hate (call it reverse racism if you want, it’s still hate). However, due to a lot of things like poverty, and the lower number of blacks in the nation, and an overwhelming amount of liberal sentiment, they are fewer, less sensational (I don’t recall any black men dragging a white man to death), and less likely to be noticed.
I haven’t heard of any political or social groupd among blacks that are devoted specifically to racist ideology, at least not since the Black Panthers faded away. However, there ARE white supremacist groups and they do favor sensational acts of violence, acts that are barbaric and cruel.
So I will not deny that there are blacks out there that hate whites, just as there are racist whites, and asians, and any other color or creed.
So, if there are black-on-white hate crimes, why are they not noticed? Most likely becase for years blacks were incapable of defending themselves, were an overwhelmed minority, and are typically poor.
Does poverty have anything to do with it? Yes it does. Poverty will change a person’s outlook (having a welfare Christmas makes you inclined to bitterness, I would suppose. And having them year after year…), it also makes black-on-white crimes more likely to be driven by money than race.
So, yes there are black-on-white hate crimes, but they won’t be charged for it. Why not? Mostly because they’ve got enough shit going against them (poverty, and racists in power[yes, the police will more likely arrest a black man, and his sentencing will be tougher]). The hate crime laws were basically aimed at white-on-black hate crime, because blacks don’t need the tougher sentencing. Also, white-on-black hate crime is more sensational and that’s what the news is going to cover.
Remember, all of this is my opinion.
They’re my thoughts, and you really shouldn’t care about them. I post here for my own benefit. You’d be surprised how writing out your thoughts helps clarify them. So, pay attention to whatever it pleases you to pay attention to. I really don’t care.
Divemaster
I was attempting to be funny. I confess to know nothing of Horowitz, or his motivations. My “humor” might have been subconsciously tinged by my own observations, and bitterness, of 60’s radicals turning out to be full of shit.
Would Hillary and Jane fit this description?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
km2
Do not try to appease EVERYONE because you never will and it will only make you crazy trying.
When you appear on a message board with a name like Klanman and call blacks niggers, you leave very litttle room for discussion. But, OK, that is past so let’s deal with today.
I think there is no need for hate crimes, since all crimes of aggression are based in hate. The fact that someone hated me while he is trying to kill me, as a practical matter, is irrelevent. You are correct about one thing, as a percentage of total population, blacks have a disproportionate rate of crime. I also think that the PC movement is a fraud and only hides peoples true feelings.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
That should read, no need for hate crime laws. We don’t need extra laws, just aherence to existing ones. Getting rid of plea bargaining might help too.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Actually, plea-bargaining is the cornerstone of today’s American legal system. If everyone charged with a crime exercised their right to a trial, the American legal system would shut down because it couldn’t handle them all.
This quite simply is not true.
“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”
Plea bargaining is very important and doesn’t inferfere with justice, it actually helps it right along. I had the option to plea bargain out of assault & battery charges and was told that it was offered to “avoid a lengthy and costly court case which would cost the Court a good deal of time and money.” I declined, but most people do accept and it’s good to know that plea bargaining saves us all a whole bunch of money. I wanted to get me tax dollar’s worth, though.
I’ll second John John’s motion for eliminating hate crime laws - they are extraneous and one-sided. If you tie a man to the back of your F150 and drag him down main street, it should have no bearing on the case if you called him “nigger” or “my little sweetcheeks” as you did it.
Hell is Other People.
quote:
---------------------------------------------me:-----------------------------------
I think there is no need for hate crimes, since all crimes of aggression are based in hate. ]
pldennison
I love you, let me beat you up?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]