Do I think hate was involved? Obviously. That’s not the same as saying that a crime was racially motivated under hate crime statutes. Just because a crime is committed and that crime is hateful doesn’t make it a hate crime.
Depends. Is there evidence beyond the race of the perpetrators and victims to suggest that the crime was racially motivated?
By the way, you misunderstood Left Hand of Dorkness. He wasn’t mistaken,he was conceding that you were correct on that point.
Well, I say that if the Carr brothers had been white and their victims black, the murders would have received the same notoriety that the James Byrd killing received.
Mine wasn’t. I am assuming ElvisL1ves wasn’t either, although it might as well have been.
It was one of them. ElvisL1ves even quoted it when he responded to me.
Certainly there were other assumptions. One was that the assailants were black, which ElvisL1ves denied. Wrongly.
He posted a bunch of other stuff about how I thought it would not have been reported if they were white, but he was setting up strawmen.
Actually, he said it was plausible, providing Souter was gay. No evidence for this exists (other than the Advocate accusation). On the other hand, we know that Souter is white, and that his assailants were black. And the assumption was that at least one motive for not reporting the race of the muggers, despite its apparent relevance to whether or not it was a hate crime, was to push the perception that it was not.
Which they would not have done if it were whites mugging a black, prominent or otherwise. As demonstrated by the James Byrd case, and the black church burnings.
The rest of **ElvisL1ves’ post was just, as I said, strawmen.
Regards,
Shodan
I am only making your case for you if race was indeed an issue in the commission of the crime. If it wasn’t–and the quote provided by the Washington Times suggests as much–then what’s the point of mentioning it? If the assailants were simply looking for a mark to rob, and they chose the first likely target they saw, then their race is as incidental to the crime as their age, weight, height, religion, and sexual orientation.
Why not apply Occam’s Razor to this, and look for a more simple explanation?
Rather than hundreds of newspapers nationwide engaging in a conspiracy to keep the public in the dark about black-on-white hate crimes, is it not just as likely that a paper known to be extremely conservative (Washington Times) deliberately sought out the color of the assailants and made that knowledge public, even though the police themselves seem to believe that the motivation for the crime was nothing more than simple robbery? I’m not saying that this is necessarily what happened, only that it’s a scenario that’s just as plausible as (perhaps more than) the one that you present.
Again, you fail to appreciate the fact that the media’s failure to mention the color of the assailants might indicate that race was not a motivating factor in the crime. And you have not yet enlightened us with any real insight into what, exactly, a hate crime might be, apart from one in which the assailant and the victim are of different races.
The District of Columbia Criminal Code, Chapter 37, Section 22-3701, describes such crimes not as “hate crimes,” but as “bias crimes,” and gives the following definition:
When you can demonstrate that any aspect of this assault “demonstrates [the] accused’s prejudice based on the actual or perceived race [or] color” of Justice Souter, then you might have a case that this was a racially-motivated hate or bias crime. Until then, you’re just pissing into the wind.
If you truly believe that you have to be gay in order to be gay-bashed, then you’re living in a world of ignorance, my friend. I know more than one straight person who’s been bashed for being gay because he happened to be either exiting or walking near a gay nightclub.
That’s why the DC statute contains the word “perceived.” If the assailants believe that you are gay, and assault you for that reason, then whether or not you actually are gay is immaterial in determining that a bias -related crime has taken place.
Oh, come off it. You said
Elvis said this was an assumption on your part. He is clearly not talking about Souter’s colour, and he is also clearly not talking about that of the assailants. He is talking, as are the rest of us, about the key assertion in this thread, namely that the papers deliberately play down black-on-white hate crimes for some nefarious purpose. This is the assumption he is talking about, and having read posts of yours in other threads I do not believe that you are so stupid as to be unable to see this. You are deliberately ducking the point, preferring instead to engage in semantic nitpicking. What fun.
No, he did not:
Emphasis mine. Again, I know you’re intelligent enough to make perfect sense of these words, which is why I find it all the more mystifying that you persist in misrepresenting them.
Aaargh! This is precisely the supposition we’re on about! The James Byrd case was investigated as a hate crime precisely because the police had probable cause to believe that the crime was racially motivated, based on considerably more than the fact that the crime was interracial. The papers reported hate crime as the line of enquiry because that was the line the police were taking, as it was in the church burning case. This is emphatically not the case with the Souter mugging, as has repeatedly been pointed out. The only people inferring hate crime as a motive based on the simple fact of the assailants’ race are you and Razorsharp. Two pages in, neither of you has provided even the slightest bit of evidence that you’re actually right.
Your good faith in this matter has already been questioned, and now you’re providing proof. What I denied was (1) that Razorsharp knew that at the time he posted it, and that (2) it is relevant to the Souter mugging whether true or not. If you’re going to discuss reading comprehension, you might try it yourself sometime, m’kay? This is just sad.
If you think so, explain your view, don’t just toss a word of dismissal at it and hope it will go away. Care to explain how church burnings have anything to do with urban muggings, speaking of strawmen? Good faith, remember? A word of advice, in case you ever decide you want anyone to take you seriously: If you’ve got an actual argument, then deliver it, or shut your yap until you’ve thought it out some more.
Razorsharp, you didn’t really expect your weaseling to be hidden by claiming a dictionary meaning of “maybe” when you were plainly being sarcastic in the OP, did you? You ranted on and on about it in a way indifferentiatable from one in which you gave anyone the benefit of the doubt. You had and still have no factual basis for alleging a media conspiracy or even attitude to hide hate crimes when that’s what they are. Surely those things happen, but there is no basis to believe that this incident was one. If you’d like to decry media unfairness, you do have to provide a real and relevant example or three. So far you’re up to zero and holding.
How did I miss this pearl?
Please tell me you just screwed up your quotes there. I’m pretty sure you’re not that thick. I haven’t said a word about gayness in this thread, nor would that be relevant to the mugging either.
Regards? Where have you shown any lately?
Homebrew said it. Which is why the post read;
Cripes, you are having comprehension problems.
Regards,
Shodan
This keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
Now you are claiming that you can read peope’s minds, and determine what they “really” mean when they use words that are directly opposite. Razorsharp says “maybe”. But your secret mind rays tells you that he really means definitely. And any resistance to your tinfoil hat notions is “weaselling”.
It was an assumption - an accurate one, and which you have already been shown up as wrong in denying. As we have been discussing for the last page and a half. Do you ever read anything before you respond?
Shut your yap yourself, unless you have anything better to offer than deluded weaseling.
Emphasis mine, right back at you. Homebrew states rather clearly that it can only be assumed that this might be a hate crime if Souter is gay. Read it for yourself.
Yes it is! Which is why it is relevant, despite the usual denials from those who have been caught out in their assumptions!
No, he did not.
He said:
See the plural? Which is why I dealt with all the accusations of “assumption” in his silly collection of strawmen and tinfoil hat thinking.
Don’t pick out one of the ways I refuted his stupidity and pretend that this was all I posted. That would make you as dishonest as he is being.
Regards,
Shodan
Sod it. I’m not interested in your pathetic nitpicking, nor am I going to chase around for you reciting endless quotes of who said what and why and where. Should you feel at any point like backing up your assertion that there is some media conspiracy or groupthink that dictates the playing down of black-on-white hate crime, then there’ll be something to talk about.
Haven’t had much experience with Shodan, have you?
If you were addressing homebrew, then why then go back to claiming I was raising strawmen? Try to learn to organize your paragraphs cogently, pal.
If you had an argument, you’d have made it by now. Pity you didn’t pick the yap-shutting option.
That’s peachy keen, for people who have never taken a statistics 101 course.
First of all, correlation does not equal causation.
Second of all, given that blacks make up, what, 14%? 17%? of the population, there are, by ratio, FAR more black-on-black crimes than black-on-white crimes per person. The correlation in the above statistics actually points to a black person more likely to be preyed upon by another black person than a white person is to be preyed upon by a black person.
Third of all, y’all need to take some media ethics courses. The media has a responsibility to discuss abuse of minorities. It does not have as much an onus to look for the abuse of the vast majority.
Fourth of all, I guess we’re just more enlightened out here in California. Our media doesn’t seem to be afraid to say that criminals are black or hispanic. Maybe you should move out here?
Fifth of all, you’re right, us minorities have a conspiracy to rob and murder you. We secretly control the media, too, so no one except for you super-duper smart ones can see through the ruse.
*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?*
Argument from ignorance. You have no evidence that racial hatred was a motive in the Carr case. None. You are arguing that the severity of a crime has a bearing on its motive. There is no such connection.
When (white) Jeremy Strohmeyer dragged a seven year old black girl into hotel bathroom, raped her and then strangled her, this was not proof that Strohmeyer hated blacks or females or children. It was proof that Strohmeyer was a pedophile, rapist, and murderer.
A pedophile, rapist, and murderer who managed to avoid the death penalty in a state - Nevada - that favors that punishment. Anything to do with the race of the victim? There’s quite a bit of evidence to show that sentencing for murder varies in severity with the race of the victim. A murderer has a much greater chance of getting the death penalty if the victim is white.
Your twisted worldview duly noted, white Americans still enjoy considerable advantages over nonwhites, in the job market, the legal system, and American society in general. This is why your claim to victimhood is silly.
Without getting into accusations or analytical exegeses, let me ask some very simple questions of the OP:
What, in your mind, constitutes a hate crime?
What aspects of the assault on Justice Souter lead you to conclude that this was, or may have been, a hate crime?
Do you believe that there are, in fact, cases of inter-racial crime where it is acceptable for the media to ignore the race/ethnicity of the parties, or do you think that these issues should always be highlighted, no matter what the actual circumstances of the individual case?
If you can provide clear and cogent answers to these questions, those of us arguing against you might at least have a foundation from which to understand your position.
Homer: [gasp] Oh, not Souter! Oh, no!
Good Grief, still constructing those strawmen, I see. I have reiterated, time and again, that the premise of the OP is an indictment of the media’s portrayal of interracial crime. What does it take to sink in?
Take the James Byrd murder for instance. Yes, it was both horrendous and despicable, but the media went way beyond just reporting the crime. It was the exploitation of a cause celebre, for the purpose of instilling a sense of collective guilt among whites.
Same thing with the church burning myth. The media went way beyond just reporting, to exploitation. So, to cling to the notion that the media doesn’t insinuate hate and racism without “proof” or “evidence”, is to either display a degree of naivety or the tactic of deny, deny, deny, while swinging like a girl at a strawman.
I can’t stress this point too often:
Razorsharp:
It was also, as you may recall, a freaking murder. Not simple assault. And as you point out, it was pretty goddamned horrendous and despicable. If there were ever an event that should make white people feel a twinge of guilt, I think that it happened to James Byrd. And I’ll even go further and say that all people should reflect on what happened.
Yep, they did. And? Have you noticed an onslaught of media reports that blame white people for things that they didn’t do? Because I certainly haven’t.
And the Carr situation, as has been pointed out previously, was pretty fucking psychopathic, but was not a hate crime.
And I think of a white person dragging a black person to their death behind a pickup every time I hear the phrase, “hate crime”. Of course, it might have something to do with the fact that a white person did that very thing, nu?
Waste
Let’s just make sure we don’t lose track of the silliness of the OP.
Again, no. Being that he was attacked in an area 60% black, you can safely bet that the assailants were of a majority, i.e., were black (ignore this nitpick if you like; I well understand that “minority” is often used in a nonmathematical sense). The media reporting has nothing to do with the safe bet.
No, as you go on to say, of course not. Because there’s no evidence whatsoever it was a hate crime. Not because anti-white hate crimes aren’t reported.
This is where we get into the totally unsubstantiated suppositions. Very stupid hypotheticals.
And here’s where we get to the idiotic question, the classic, “why are you still beating your wife?” question.
Razorsharp, if you’ll renounce the vapidity of your OP, maybe we can see more clearly where you’re going with your later posts. However, it’s currently looking like you’re still defending this nonsense, and this nonsense is indefensible.
Daniel