# Maybe it was a Hate-Crime **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2004, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141 "2004-05-02T12:57:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/61 "2004-05-03T15:14:59Z")
While composing my previous post, i missed the exchange over **Shodan** ’s rather predictable non-sequitur. I’ve stated in just about every post that i’ve made in this thread that i will not be at all surprised if the assailants were black. But, as others have pointed out, even if they were, this does not constitute some sort of retroactive justification for the OP, who simply stated that we could “safely bet” that this was the case, without providing any evidence at all. Furthermore, you seem to be falling into **Razorsharp** ’s hole of ignorance regarding what actually constitutes a hate crime. The simple fact that the assailant and the victim are of different races is not sufficient for such a designation. Finally, it takes a lot more than mere speculation to demonstrate that the treatment of a few specially selected cases constitutes a national media conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/62 "2004-05-03T15:36:28Z")
For what it’s worth, gobear, I knew my theory was probably full of crap when I posted it. I was simply pointing out an equally improbable theory that Razorsharp has still yet to disprove. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/63 "2004-05-03T16:00:48Z")
I probably shouldn’t jump into the fray either, but I have noticed that the term “young men” seems to have become newsspeak for black assailants. I knew the race of the assailants as soon as I read it. In an effort to obviate the race of the attackers the media only makes it more obvious. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/64 "2004-05-03T16:09:16Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I probably shouldn’t jump into the fray either, but I have noticed that the term “young men” seems to have become newsspeak for black assailants. I knew the race of the assailants as soon as I read it. In an effort to obviate the race of the attackers the media only makes it more obvious. You might well be right about that, and if so it would be interesting to examine the reason that this might be the case. Race is a fraught issue in America, and it’s good to understand what the media means if and when it uses code words like this. But none of this would solve the underlying problem of **Razorsharp** ’s OP, to wit, the fact that he seems to have no concept of what a hate crime actually is, and that he seems unable to apply reasoned analysis to the cases that he offers as “proof” of his assertions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/65 "2004-05-03T18:18:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, you’re still not getting it. It is now up to Razorsharp, or to you seeing as how you’ve picked up the imaginary cudgel too, to show how it matters one damn bit. What the hell makes this automatically, or even probably, a hate crime instead of a simple mugging attempt? Not automatically, but more likely to be regarded as a hate crime, because the muggers and Souter are different races. Which is what **Razorsharp** has been saying all along. And, possibly, the reason for several Dopers saying, “We don’t even know that the muggers were black”, and then immediately, “We knew that all along.” It is also possibly one motive behind the other examples he cited - the black church burnings alleged to have occurred in the South, and which were also assumed to be an epidemic of hate crimes. They weren’t. So **Razorsharp** has already cited an example in which races matters “one damn bit”. When it is assumed to be white-on-black crime, it is reported much differently when it is black-on-white. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Would it be less newsworthy if the kids had been white? No. But less likely to be assumed a hate crime. Because Souter is white. IOW, it is newsworthy for two reasons - Souter is famous, and the victim and attackers were different races. But only one of those factors features in most of the news stories. Why is one admitted and the other downplayed to the point that only one newspaper will even mention it? Look, I’ll put this simply for you. It is presumed to be _more likely_ that a given crime is a “hate crime” when the perpetrators and victim are not members of the same subgroup. It is also presumed that almost all hate crime is committed by members of the majority against members of the minority. Hate crime, and especially the perception of hate crime, is a politically charged subject. Lots and lots of people have something at stake, and a high interest in managing the perception of hate crime. Therefore, it is possible that one of the motives in not mentioning the race of the perpetrators of what might possibly be a hate crime, is to manage the perception that most or all hate crime perpetrators are straight white males. Those who are interested in perpetuating that idea have a reason to deny, in turn, the factors that might make this a hate crime. Interestingly, **Razorsharp** ’s OP has one of the hallmarks of a true, scientific theory. He was able to make accurate predictions about reality based on a hypothesis. He observed that the race of the attackers was not reported. His hypothesis was that this was because they were black. Sure enough. Which adds weight to his hypothesis, and detracts from others. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Here’s a thought for you to consider: If the victim hadn’t been famous, it wouldn’t have made the news _either way_. Do you really think that the media will ignore a genuine, inter-racial hate crime if neither of the involved parties are famous? I doubt that - James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd were not exactly household names before they were killed. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Don’t let us down again, **Shodan**. Let’s have a good argument from you. If you want to bleat about the racist media, you’ll need an example. This isn’t one. I’ll try not to let you down. Perhaps you could start things off by showing where I accused the media of being racist. Or perhaps you can’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/66 "2004-05-03T18:31:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So **Razorsharp** has already cited an example in which races matters “one damn bit”. When it is assumed to be white-on-black crime, it is reported much differently when it is black-on-white. What was reported by the media is what was communicated to them by the police; that the church burnings were possibly racially motivated and were being investigated as such, and Souter’s assault was believed to be a simple robbery. What should they have said? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/67 "2004-05-03T18:31:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So **Razorsharp** has already cited an example in which races matters “one damn bit”. When it is assumed to be white-on-black crime, it is reported much differently when it is black-on-white. What’s the plural of “anecdote” in your dictionary, **Shodan**? > [@](#): > > IOW, it is newsworthy for two reasons - Souter is famous, and the victim and attackers were different races. But only one of those factors features in most of the news stories. Why is one admitted and the other downplayed to the point that only one newspaper will even mention it? Simple. It’s getting reported at all because Souter is famous. That’s why it’s newsworthy. It’s not newsworthy because the victim and attackers were different races. Every day, hundreds of mixed-race attacks occur; national celebrities get attacked less often than once a day. The race was not what made it newsworthy or relevant, so it wasn’t mentioned. > [@](#): > > Look, I’ll put this simply for you…It is also presumed that almost all hate crime is committed by members of the majority against members of the minority. Put it as simply as you like; that doesn’t make it true. This flaming liberal knows well that the majority of prosecuted hate crimes are attacks by a member of a minority group against members of the majority. Your use of the passive voice in the above sentences, similar to **Razorsharp’s** usage, is classic passive-voice-to-avoid-responsibility. By WHOM is it presumed, and where’s your evidence? Because I can tell you something without using passive voice: **Razorsharp** presumes that crime committed by a member of a minority group against a member of the majority is a hate crime. > [@](#): > > Therefore, it is possible that one of the motives in not mentioning the race of the perpetrators of what might possibly be a hate crime, is to manage the perception that most or all hate crime perpetrators are straight white males. Well, yes, of course that’s possible. It’s also possible that Souter was out looking for a black man to live in a twisted master-slave relationship with him, and that that’s why they didn’t mention the race of the attacker. One theory has as much evidence to support it as the other theory. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, **Razorsharp** ’s OP has one of the hallmarks of a true, scientific theory. He was able to make accurate predictions about reality based on a hypothesis. He observed that the race of the attackers was not reported. His hypothesis was that this was because they were black. Sure enough. Which adds weight to his hypothesis, and detracts from others. Barely. I hypothesize that these guys who attacked Souter were younger than thirty, and that the media didn’t report this because they are suppressing the wave of attacks by youths against the elderly, because the media hate old people. How you like them scientific apples? > [@](#): > > Do you really think that the media will ignore a genuine, inter-racial hate crime if neither of the involved parties are famous? I doubt that - James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd were not exactly household names before they were killed. Now you’re getting silly. Hate-crime-fueled murders ARE newsworthy. A cookie apiece for the distinctions you can find between the attack on Souter and hate-crime-fueled murders; by my count, you can earn two cookies. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/68 "2004-05-03T18:35:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IOW, it is newsworthy for two reasons - Souter is famous, and the victim and attackers were different races. But only one of those factors features in most of the news stories. Why is one admitted and the other downplayed to the point that only one newspaper will even mention it? Er, because there are only 9 supreme court judges in the country, but the attack occurred in a mainly black and mainly rough area, meaning that the fact that the attack was interracial is not even slightly surprising? IOW, to most people the second of your “newsworthy” features is not newsworthy in the slightest. “Newsflash! Black guys mug white guy. Film at 11.” Come _on_. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, Razorsharp’s OP has one of the hallmarks of a true, scientific theory. He was able to make accurate predictions about reality based on a hypothesis. He observed that the race of the attackers was not reported. His hypothesis was that this was because they were black. Sure enough. Well, I take it you’re not a scientist. Could you explain to me how you consider it “proven” that the reports did not mention the race _because_ the perpetrators were black? Correlation is not causality, and _one example_ is not correlation. Incidentally, the Washington Times’s most recent [report](http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040502-073309-5634r.htm) doesn’t mention the assailants’ race either - are we to assume that they are both in and out of the conspiracy? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/69 "2004-05-03T18:54:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not automatically, but more likely to be regarded as a hate crime, because the muggers and Souter are different races. > > Which is what **Razorsharp** has been saying all along. Come on now. He assumed that it definitely was a “hate crime”, not that it was “more likely”, and then went into his rant about the media. But, now that the degree of your willingness to discuss this in good faith has been established, let’s proceed, shall we? > [@](#): > > It is also possibly one motive behind the other examples he cited - the black church burnings alleged to have occurred in the South, and which were also assumed to be an epidemic of hate crimes. They weren’t. Which, again, has nothing to do with the incident under discussion. The assumption of racial content comes from you two, entirely. > [@](#): > > When it is assumed to be white-on-black crime, it is reported much differently when it is black-on-white. > [@](#): > > No. But less likely to be assumed a hate crime. Because Souter is white. The only assumptions here, once again, are your own. Why? > [@](#): > > IOW, it is newsworthy for two reasons - Souter is famous, and the victim and attackers were different races. But only one of those factors features in most of the news stories. Why is one admitted and the other downplayed to the point that only one newspaper will even mention it? Bullshit once again. You think that if a Supreme Court Justice were assaulted by a group of white kids, that it wouldn’t be in the news? Fantasy once again. > [@](#): > > Hate crime, and especially the perception of hate crime, is a politically charged subject. Lots and lots of people have something at stake, and a high interest in managing the perception of hate crime. That’s very true. And it’s a good reason not to toss the charge around so frivolously as you have here. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, **Razorsharp** ’s OP has one of the hallmarks of a true, scientific theory. He was able to make accurate predictions about reality based on a hypothesis. He observed that the race of the attackers was not reported. His hypothesis was that this was because they were black. Sure enough. Which adds weight to his hypothesis, and detracts from others. Therefore you think this wouldn’t be reported if the attackers were white. Perhaps you can conceive that the race wasn’t reported _because it wasn’t relevant to the story?_ Was the attackers’ dress, or eye color, or handedness relevant either? No, so it wasn’t reported either. But you’re determined to find a racial aspect where there is no basis to believe there is one, _other than in your own assumptions_. Don’t you think those assumptions need to be reconsidered before they discredit you any further? > [@](#): > > I’ll try not to let you down. Perhaps you could start things off by showing where I accused the media of being racist. Oh, only in every place where you claim, or imply, that there’s probably a hate-crime aspect to this mugging attempt, and therefore they’re covering it up. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/70 "2004-05-03T19:41:47Z")
There isn’t any conspiracy on the part of the news media here. It’s simply standard journalistic practice not to mention race in a news story _unless it was directly relevant to the story_. I learned that in my Community College Journalism class. :rolleyes: Neither do you mention hair color, or eye color, or their height, or their ugliness, or their good looks unless it has something to do with the story. Novelists may embelish their writing with vivid physical descriptions of their characters, but journalists generally do not. Stories about Hate Crimes mention race because they are directly relevant to the story (race being a motivating factor). There’s zero evidence here that race was the motivating factor behind the crime. The motive here appears to be simple robbery. The fact that the victim of any crime is white or the assailant is black does not automatically make it a hate crime. If the attackers were saying racial epithets like “Go back to Europe, Honkey!” or “Stupid cracker” than _that_ would be a Hate Crime. “Give us your money, old man” is not a Hate Crime. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/71 "2004-05-03T20:08:45Z")
Having a little trouble with the reading comprehension thing, are we? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Come on now. He assumed that it definitely was a “hate crime”, not that it was “more likely”, and then went into his rant about the media. No he didn’t - don’t be moronic. Read the title of the OP. See the word **Maybe**? Do I really need to explain the difference between **maybe** and **definitely**? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But, now that the degree of your willingness to discuss this in good faith has been established, let’s proceed, shall we? I don’t know - if you apparently don’t read English fluently, it might present a problem for the discussion. Let us know if you have trouble with any of the other big words, 'mkay? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It is also possibly one motive behind the other examples he cited - the black church burnings alleged to have occurred in the South, and which were also assumed to be an epidemic of hate crimes. They weren’t. > > Which, again, has nothing to do with the incident under discussion. The assumption of racial content comes from you two, entirely. So you think that the presentation of the **black** church burnings had nothing to do with the fact that they were **black** churches, is that it? You don’t think that has any “racial content”? Is that another of the big words you have trouble with? > [@Elvisl1ves](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No. But less likely to be assumed a hate crime. Because Souter is white. > > The only assumptions here, once again, are your own. Why? Well, I wouldn’t exactly classify the idea that Souter is white as an “assumption”. And **Homebrew** and some others also assumed that it was a hate crime, based on the idea that Souter might be gay, or his political beliefs. And, of course, the assumption that the muggers were black turned out to be right on the money, despite your charactization of it as unfounded. So again, possibly your comprehension of the term might be faulty. So why did I assume what I did? Because I have seen pictures of Souter, and he sure looked white to me. And I assume that most street crime in Washington DC is likely to be committed by blacks. It is, after all, a majority black city, as **LHoD** kindly points out. > [@Elvisl1ves](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > IOW, **it is newsworthy for two reasons - Souter is famous, and the victim and attackers were different races**. But only one of those factors features in most of the news stories. Why is one admitted and the other downplayed to the point that only one newspaper will even mention it? > > Bullshit once again. You think that if a Supreme Court Justice were assaulted by a group of white kids, that it wouldn’t be in the news? Fantasy once again. Bullshit indeed, but not from me. Did you notice the first part of the quote to which you responded? I bolded it. Notice how it says there were **two** reasons why the incident is newsworth? And how the first reason was that Souter was famous? So I asserted that the incident would, indeed, be newsworthy, even if your little fantasy was true and the muggers were whiter than snow. Unless you not only have trouble reading, but counting as well. > [@Elvisl1ves](#): > > Therefore you think this wouldn’t be reported if the attackers were white. Darn, there’s that comprehension problem again. Go back and read the bolded part again - we can wait. Try not to move your lips this time. > [@Elvisl1ves](#): > > Perhaps you can conceive that the race wasn’t reported _because it wasn’t relevant to the story?_ Was the attackers’ dress, or eye color, or handedness relevant either? No, so it wasn’t reported either. Well, no, not unless you wanted to publish an accurate description of the muggers so that they could catch them or something. Although God knows we don’t want to offend some of our more touchy liberal friends. So it is a balancing act - either doing a little to get criminals off the streets, or not hurting the feelings of those with a racial chip on their shoulders. We have seen where most of the newspapers reporting the crime have come down on the question. > [@Elvisl1ves](#): > > But you’re determined to find a racial aspect where there is no basis to believe there is one, _other than in your own assumptions_. Don’t you think those assumptions need to be reconsidered before they discredit you any further? And were you equally excited when **Homebrew** showed his determination to make this a gay-related crime, based on accusations made in The Advocate? _That_ assumption doesn’t seem to have been substantiated, although the ones made by me and **Razorsharp** have panned out much better. (Here I am relying on **gobear** as my expert in who is likely to be cruising and who is not. I have no expertise in the area, and am willing to take his word for it.) > [@Elvisl1ves](#): > > Oh, only in every place where you claim, or imply, that there’s probably a hate-crime aspect to this mugging attempt, and therefore they’re covering it up. Oddly enough, it is more difficult for me to believe that I am implying something when I am accused of it by people who apparently lack basic skills like reading comprehension or logic. Feel free to try again if you like, but don’t get your hopes up. My opinion of your rhetorical skills is not high. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/72 "2004-05-03T20:29:50Z")
to add a bit more fuel to the [fire](http://www.naawp.com/crime_stats.htm) supposedly from FBI statistics: _Yes, blacks commit more crime against whites (1.58 million crimes per year) than they do against other blacks (1.34 million crimes per year)! It’s a virtual war of black criminals and white victims_ To Razor’s point, I agree that if it was white muggers against black judge, somewhere in the media coverage, racism would have been suggested as a motive. Its almost a given that any white person attack against a black person(if the crime is national news)racism will be brought into it IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/73 "2004-05-03T20:31:14Z")
What motive does the news media have to be so soft on minorities and hard on whites? ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/74 "2004-05-03T20:32:42Z")
pit me for not being more observant. ignore the link I used above. I didnt read the home page for that site… the rest of my comment still stand however. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/75 "2004-05-03T20:46:11Z")
**Dob** , dude, when I saw that you were quoting the NAAWP, I was all ready to rip you a new one. Glad to see you retracted it :). > [@](#): > > To Razor’s point, I agree that if it was white muggers against black judge, somewhere in the media coverage, racism would have been suggested as a motive. Its almost a given that any white person attack against a black person(if the crime is national news)racism will be brought into it IMHO. See, the word you’re looking for isn’t “IMHO,” it’s “evidence.” As in, show me some data demonstrating the bias you’re talking about. You have opinions about things like whether soy-dogs are tasty, or whether you look good in a cowboy hat, or whether _Chicago_ is a pretentious piece of crap. “Opinions” are for things where there’s no right or wrong answer. Whether racism will be brought into any news story in which a white person attacks a black person is BELIEF, not OPINION. And that belief is either correct or incorrect; since you’re the one making the assertion, the burden of evidence is on you. And **Razorsharp** , and presumably **Shodan** , assuming he’s arguing the same point. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/76 "2004-05-03T20:47:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No he didn’t - don’t be moronic. Read the title of the OP. See the word **Maybe**? Do I really need to explain the difference between **maybe** and **definitely**? > > \ > > We have seen where most of the newspapers reporting the crime have come down on the question. You’re illustrtaing the crux of the problem yourself, the differences between the “maybes” and the “definitelys”…or for that matter, even the “probablys.” Hell, _I_ assumed that the assailants were very likely young black men. It was an urban area of a predominantly black city with a high poverty rate. You don’t need a PhD in sociology to figure that one out. However, that’s a far cry from a newspaper saying “Justice Souter Assaulted; Assailants Very Likely Young Black Males” if there is no evidence beyond conjecture to support that or reason for including it. That’s what you’re suggesting that the newspapers do by reporting the possibility of a hate crime motive when none has been ascribed by the victim or the police: “Justice Souter Assaulted By Young Black Males in Possible Hate Crime.” The only circumstance in which the race of the assailants could be relevant is if it were being investigated as a hate crime, _which it isn’t_. Both would be examples of extremely irresponsible journalism. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/77 "2004-05-03T20:50:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, I wouldn’t exactly classify the idea that Souter is white as an “assumption”. And **Homebrew** and some others also assumed that it was a hate crime, based on the idea that Souter might be gay, or his political beliefs. This is a joke, right? 1. Souter’s skin colour was not the assumption you were being called on, as well you know. 2. Homebrew and others said it was equally _plausible_ that this was an anti-gay attack, not that it _was_ one. There is a difference. Now, by all means return to your deliberate miscomprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/78 "2004-05-03T21:12:56Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But this will still do nothing to prove your primary assertion, which is that the media systematically and deliberately covers up crimes committed by minorities against whites, while giving extended coverage of crimes committed by whites against minorities. Well, i guess if this is the sort of “proof” that you believe is sufficient to demonstrate a nationwide media conspiracy, there’s really not much hope of shaking you out of your delusions. > > Firstly, literally hundreds of different news outlets tell us that: > “Neither Arberg nor police would detail the justice’s injuries except to say they were minor. Nor would they give other details about the assault, except Arberg said Souter was not robbed.” > The only newspaper in the whole country that refers to the assailants as black is the _Washington Times_. Now, it is entirely possible that the _Washington Times_ reporter managed to get someone from the police or Souter’s office to tell him about the assailants, and it is entirely possible that the assailants were indeed black. > > But this possibility in no way constitutes proof of your underlying argument. Most American news outlets relied on the Associated Press wire service for their stories about the Souter assault. Thus, they were able to give their readers no more or no less than what the AP story reported. And, apparently, when the AP reporter went to find out about the case, there were no details given about the color of the assailants. Actually, you are making my case for me. Hundreds of different news outlets accross the country don’t mention the racial component of the story, but the information was available, evidence of the Washington Times. Yes, newspapers accross the country rely on the Associated Press, but the AP does have a D.C. bureau. Surely the Associated Press has at least as much credibility as a “Moonie paper”. Right? Well, maybe not. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This flaming liberal knows well that the majority of prosecuted hate crimes are attacks by a member of a minority group against members of the majority. I know that this is going to come as a shock to you, but you are mistaken. It is only when taking into consideration proportional representation of the population as a whole, that reveals minorities have a greater proclivity for commiting what could resonably be considered a hate crime. > [@pravnik](#): > > What was reported by the media is what was communicated to them by the police; that the church burnings were possibly racially motivated and were being investigated as such, and Souter’s assault was believed to be a simple robbery. What should they have said? Oh no, it went just a little further than reporting that the church burnings were “possibly racially motivated”. It was the lead story in both the print and broadcast media for a couple of weeks and the media intentionally portrayed the burnings as the work of racists. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Come on now. He assumed that it definitely was a “hate crime”, not that it was “more likely”, and then went into his rant about the media. Bullshit!! The title of the OP is “Maybe it was a Hate-Crime”. Did ya get that? “Maybe”? And besides that, the title was used as a “hook” to grab attention. Then, in the OP, I alluded to this: > [@](#): > > "You don’t suppose that this would be a hate-crime, do you? > > No, of course not. For a crime of this nature to qualify as a hate-crime, Justice Thomas would had to have been assaulted by a several white men. And, under that scenerio, it’s guaranteed that the media would be trumpeting the race of the assailants. > > Why is it that the media is intent on brainwashing the populace regarding hate-crimes? The premise of the OP is clearly an indictment of the media in their double-standard of reporting interracial crime. For you to claim that I assumed that it definitely was a “hate crime”, is nothing more than a shallow transparent construction of a strawman that you can then knock down. Well, you knocked down a strawman, feel better? > [@Shodan](#): > > Interestingly, **Razorsharp** ’s OP has one of the hallmarks of a true, scientific theory. He was able to make accurate predictions about reality based on a hypothesis. He observed that the race of the attackers was not reported. His hypothesis was that this was because they were black. Sure enough. Which adds weight to his hypothesis, and detracts from others. Thanks for recognizing what others just absolutly refuse to see. Oh, as for “shodan”, I also. Quite awhile ago, 1974, Udorn RTAFB, Southeast Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/79 "2004-05-03T21:31:52Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > The fact that the victim of any crime is white or the assailant is black does not automatically make it a hate crime. How about if the perpetrator forces a victim to watch and endure his fiance being sexually abused and raped in the last moments of his life, before having a bullet put into his brain. Think that hate could be a motivating factor? That is precisely what the Carr brothers did, but there are some on this board that refuse to even assign the label of “hate” to those actions. It’s another sure bet that if the racial roles were reversed in that killing spree, that racism would have been mentioned as a contributing factor. What say you? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141/80 "2004-05-03T21:42:10Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **Dob** , dude, when I saw that you were quoting the NAAWP, I was all ready to rip you a new one. Glad to see you retracted it :). Now hold on a minute. Were the stats on the NAAWP website false or inaccurate? Or are you just opportunistically shooting the messenger? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-it-was-a-hate-crime/243141.md?page=5)