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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll try not to let you down. Perhaps you could start things off by showing where I accused the media of being racist.
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?
What’s the plural of “anecdote” in your dictionary, Shodan?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 doesn’t mention the assailants’ race either - are we to assume that they are both in and out of the conspiracy?
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?
Which, again, has nothing to do with the incident under discussion. The assumption of racial content comes from you two, entirely.
The only assumptions here, once again, are your own. Why?
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.
That’s very true. And it’s a good reason not to toss the charge around so frivolously as you have here.
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?
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.
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.
Having a little trouble with the reading comprehension thing, are we?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 :).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
Thanks for recognizing what others just absolutly refuse to see.
Oh, as for “shodan”, I also. Quite awhile ago, 1974, Udorn RTAFB, Southeast Asia.
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?