Yeah, and I bet that, at the time, when you heard the phrase “church burning”, you also thought of a white person, right? So, don’t try to exhonerate the media for being cautious in their lableing of “bias” or “hate” crimes, it ain’t the case. History proves that.
And I also went on to say that if Justice Thomes had been assaulted by several whites, you could safely bet your paycheck that the race of the attackers would be mentioned, even without evidence of bias.
And, right about now, this would be quite apropos:
You sure did. Remember? This is the “totally unsubstantiated supposition” I talked about ONE POST AGO. No matter how often you repeat this, it remains an unsubstantiated supposition.
Precisely. My point was there was as much (READ: NONE) evidence that it was a gay-bashing as there was that it was a racially motivated attack. Furthermore mhendo is correct. The victim need not actually be gay; only that the attacker preceived the victim as gay for an attack to be counted as a gay-bashing. The point was that if Souter is believed to be gay – which is a plausible belief considering that gay rumors have existed since his appointment – and attacked by a homophobe because of that belief, then it’s a gay-bashing whether or not he is actually gay. However, there is no evidence that that was the motivation for the attack. So assuming it was a gay-bashing is as much a leap of logic as it is to assume it was a racially motivated attack. In this case a Gay-bashing or Racial Hate Crim as just as plausible and have just as much evidence: NONE.
Bzzzt. Incorrect. Try again, because now you’re just telling barefaced lies.
Nowhere does the term “interracial crime” appear in your OP. By contrast, the term “hate crime” appears four times, once in the title and three times in three short paragraphs in the post itself.
You most recent statement that you are really interested in “interracial crime” leads me to believe one of two things: either you’re conceding that you OP was a crock of shit, or you draw no distinction between “interracial crime” and “hate crime.” If the former, i salute your humility. If the latter, you demonstrate a resounding level of ignorance.
I notice that you refuse to answer my repeated question about what, exactly, defines a hate crime for you. You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that the attack on Justice Souter was motivated exclusively, or partially, or even to a small extent, by his color. You have also refused my request to provide any evidence that the assault falls within the District of Columbia Criminal Code’s definition of a “bias-related crime.”
Having failed to demonstrate that race was even a small factor in the commission of this assault, you continue to argue that the media’s silence on the race issue is somehow relevant, and that it demonstrates a broad conspiracy against whites. You also have not yet told us what, exactly, you think the media’s responsibilities are in reporting interracial crime: should the color of the offenders and the victims always be reported in such cases, or is it acceptable only to report these things when they have a bearing on the case?
If you could articulate a coherent view of interracial crime, hate crime, and media ethics, then maybe we could actually have an intelligent debate with you, rather than wearily continuing to point out the non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated assertions that form the basis of your “analysis.”
Yes, the media went beyond simply reporting the crime, because of the horrific nature of the crime, and because race was an explicit motivation in the commision of the crime. As you seem to understand, race is a powerful emotional issue in the United States, and when someone is killed for nothing more than being black, it is likely to have national reverberations.
If you can demonstrate that the motivation behind the assault on Justice Souter was motivated by the color of his skin, and then if you can demonstrate that the media knew this and covered it up, you might have a basis for making the type of allegations that you have been advancing in this thread. Until then, however, we have nothing but your rampant speculation.
Still on the Byrd issue: As GLWasteful points out, it was a murder, not a common robbery. Furthermore, the manner of Byrd’s death ensured that it would make national headlines no matter who the victim or the attackers were. When someone is dragged behind a pickup truck until he is nothing but a lump of raw meat, it tends to elicit a visceral response from people, and the media will latch onto a case like this any day of the week.
In contrast, the Souter case appears to have been a common robbery, or at least an attempt at one. Even The Washington Times, which is the only paper that told us the color of the assailants, admitted as much. According to the Washington, D.C., Metro Police website, there were 949 robberies committed in the city in the first three months of this year. I’d be willing to bet that a reasonable number of those were committed by blacks on whites. There were probably also some committed by whites on blacks. Do you want every single one of those to be reported in detail, along with the race of those involved? If you want the media to devote that much space to such an everyday occurence, you’d better be willing to start paying $15 for your daily paper.
Let’s face it, the only reason this case even made the news at all is that Souter is a Supreme Court Justice. DC averages ten robberies a day in 2004, and most of them barely rate a line in the newspaper. But when one of the nine members of the highest court in the land is attacked, for whatever reason, it’s news. I’m sure this might provide us with fodder for analyzing the media’s depiction of crime in general, and how this depiction relates to the importance of the victim, but it doesn’t tell us very much at all about an alleged conspiracy to whitewash black-on-white crime.
I never said that the media doesn’t ever insinuate without proof or evidence. What i’m saying is that they shouldn’t. Do you think that the media should insinuate without proof in Souter’s case, just to balance up their past misrepresentations? If so, you must be one of those “two wrongs make a right” kind of guys.
And “swinging like a girl”? Perhaps when we’ve finished with the issue of race, we can address your gender insecurities.
Nice way to simplify some complex statistics.
Note: the following data come from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hate Crime Statistics report for 2002, the most recent available. (Warning: very large pdf file).
It is true that black offenders are disproportionately represented in the list of those committing hate crimes. According to the report, the racial makeup of offenders was as follows:
Given that blacks make up about 12 percent of the American population, they are over-represented by a factor of about 1.8, not “several times,” as you assert without evidence.
The FBI, on page 14 of its report, gives the statistics for incidents in which a single type of bias (race, or religion, or whatever) was the motivating factor in the crime.
Of 8,825 single bias incidents, 4,393 (or just under 50%) were incidents motivated by race. Of these 4,393 incidents, the race of the offender was known in 2,873 cases. Of these 2,873 offenders, the breakdown by race is as follows:
So, again blacks are over-represented by a factor of about 1.8, as they make up just about 22% of known race-motivated offenders. Of the 639 racially-motivated offences committed by blacks, 497 were against whites.
If you are going to condemn blacks for making up a disproportionate number of hate crimes offenders, however, why don’t you also ask yourself some questions about blacks’ role as victims of hate crimes?
As i said before, blacks make up about 12% of the US population. Yet, on pages 6 and 9 of the FBI report we find out that, of the 4,580 individuals who were victims of race-based crimes, 3,076 (or 67.2%) were black.
Page 14 tells us that these 3,076 black victims were distributed across 2,967 different incidents (i.e., some incidents had more than one victim). Of these 2,967 incidents, the race of the offender was known in 1,885 cases. Of these 1,885 offenders where race was known, the offender was white in 1,689 cases, or 89% of cases.
I agree that it’s troubling that blacks commit hate crimes at a level disproportionate to their numbers in the United States. But i think that it’s just as troubling that they are so predominantly the victims of hate crimes. On the issue of hate crimes, there’s plenty of blame to go around, but the people i blame are the individuals who commit these crimes, not the “race” from which they come. Your stupid accusations of media conspiracies, unsupported by anything by anecdote and wild speculation, do nothing to help our understanding of this troubling problem.
**Note: The FBI report does not include Hispanics in its statistics on race-based hate crimes. They are in a separate category called “Ethnicity/National Origin.” I’m not sure how or where the FBI disaggregates these numbers, and whether some of the “whites” described in the race section are also of Hispanic ethnicity.
Personally, i think that the troublesome nature of “race,” and its meaninglessness as a biological category, suggests that we should place white, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, etc., etc., together in a single category. But i admit that this would cause new statistical problems which might be even harder to fix.
How does one substantiate a supposition, anyway? How do you prove what you think will happen in a given situation if the given situation never occurs? Isn’t this why it’s a supposition…because it’s unsubstantiated?
He was stating what his expectations would be, given what he’s observed in the media so far, should such an event happen. It’s specious to infer that his point isn’t valid unless he can prove it.
Well, actually, I thought, “Huzzah! Finally people agree with me!” And it was only when the media played up the racial angle that I thought about who it might be that was setting those fires. And as I pointed out, whatever the sins of the media at that time, I’ve not seen too many instances of poor, maligned white people being set upon for things that they didn’t do since. Might you have some? Or are you just going to keep beating the living hell outta this one instance?
Now is the time when you are given an opportunity to point out to me when I did this. One of the things that history proves absolutely is that there will be people who will wallow in their own ignorance. The other, better, thing that history teaches is that there will also be people who recognize ignorance and will attempt to point it out so that others will not step in it.
And since you have once again dropped all mention of the Carr case, am I safe in assuming that you have accepted the futility of trying to use it to demonstrate whatever in the hell it is that you think you are able to demonstrate?
I’m tempted to assume you’re smarter than that. Let it never be said that I gave into temptation. Let’s look again at what I called “unsubstantiated supposition,” this time with bolding:
Got it yet? If he’s going to guarantee something, he ought to offer a smidgen of proof.
Let’s try another supposition, shall we?
If you want to see someone besides John Kerry win the Democratic nomination this year, you’d need to see Kerry either die or do something bizarre, unexpected, and unforgiveable.
This is a supposition. To substantiate it, I’ll put forward the following facts:
No presidential candidate in one of the two major parties in the last fifty years has won enough primaries to secure the nomination and not actually secured the n omination.
Kerry has won enough primaries to secure the nomination.
Many people are loath to vote for a dead person, and therefore Kerry might lose the nomination if he dies before the convention.
Many people are loath to vote for a (for example) convicted pedophile, and so if Kerry is convicted of molesting a kid before the convention, he might well lose the nomination.
That’s my substantiation. You can argue with any of those statements, but at least there’s something there to argue with.
Razorsharp’s not come close to substantiating his supposition–all he’s done is point out some irrelevant issue with church burnings. He has, wisely, come close to abandoning the idiotic OP, but he hasn’t completely refuted it yet; until he does, I’ll assume the worst about him, his motives, and his capacity for intellectual rigor.
Your snarky condescention aside, allow me to refer you to the post in which you made your “unsubstantiated supposition” remark. This would be post #102, in which you quoted **Razorsharp ** as having said “And I also went on to say that if Justice Thomes had been assaulted by several whites, you could safely bet your paycheck that the race of the attackers would be mentioned, even without evidence of bias.”
It was in this post, and the one which you refer to one post before, that you used your “unsubstantiated supposition” remark.
In neither of these two posts did I see **Razorsharp ** personally guaranteeing anything, and in the quote you posted above, it was clearly his opinion that such coverage was guaranteed, and that was the supposition. Now listen (or read) closely: he said such coverage was guaranteed…he did not say he, personally, guaranteed it.
Thank you for your smug, superior and condescending attempt to teach me how to arrive at a different meaning than that which was actually posted by your adversary, but clearly I would do well to ignore it.
Please, what is the point of this distinction? I don’t know which board you’ve been reading, but on this one if you start a thread with a premise, it’s traditional - almost de riguer, in fact - to actually back it up with something resembling evidence. Otherwise the thread exists solely to advertise the fact that the OP holds an opinion. What, exactly, do you expect people to do? Give the man a biscuit?
Razorsharp makes clear assumptions in his OP. To whit:
[ul][li]The race of the assailants was not specified because they were black[/li][li]Had the assailants’ race been white, this would have been widely reported as a hate crime (one of those oh-so-common white-on-white ones, presumably)[/ul][/li]For two and a bit pages now, people have been practically begging Razorsharp or indeed anyone to provide evidence to substantiate these claims, seeing as they are central to the OP. Instead, we’ve been presented with a string of semantic nitpicks, diversionary smoke and veritable clouds of waffle. The OP asks the question
Before we answer why, we would like him to prove that they are at all. Is it really too much to ask?
One is his opinion, the other is his guarantee. I was responding to **LHoD’s ** claim that **Razorsharp ** had guaranteed the media reaction, and therefore wanted proof.
No, but on the other hand, are people only to express facts on this board? If so, how does discourse take place? All there would be is an endless expression of facts. Opinions and differences of opinion are what these discussions and this board are all about.
I agree that if someone makes a claim that can have a basis in fact it is reasonable to ask for a cite. But asking for proofs when someone has expressed an opinion or hazarded a guess or made a prediction based on past experience is, like I said before, specious. How does one prove what will happen in the future? It can’t be done. And I happen to think that asking for proofs of such is just a cheap tactic to divert attention from the real issue and to try to detract from the other poster’s credibility by asking for proofs that he/she knows perfectly well can’t be given.
As for the way things are done on this board, I see instances all the time where opinions, predictions and second guessing are posted as a matter of course: "If Bush had only done so-and-so, this would have happened; if the USA had only done so-and-so, France and Germany would have done this or that, etc. If opinions, predictions, second-guessings and should-haves were eliminated from SDMB, there would be very little talk going on here, believe me.
I agree with most of what you are saying, however the fact is I look bad in a cowboy hat. That’s a fact. Thing is, I look pretty darn good in a fedora or porkpie hat. If we were to meet I am sure you would agree.
As to the Souter thing…I’m just glad the guy is ok. Can’t be an easy thing taking a little bit of a beating at his age. Hell, at any age.
Sure, but the whole point is that one tries to justify ones own opinion - he tried to start a debate based on a question - “why does the media try to brainwash the public about hate crime?” Given that I fundamentally dispute that they do this at all, how am I supposed to answer, if not by questioning the premise? It is, as LHoD points out, exactly like the question “why are you still beating your wife?”
Please, then - tell me what the real issue is. Really. If it’s not about the media covering up for black-on-white hate crime, I don’t know what it is. And if it is about that, then I don’t believe they do, and Razorsharp obviously does. And if that’s the case, then the only way this conversation can progress is for me to ask him why he thinks that, that I might dispute his reasoning. Otherwise I’m limited to saying “well I don’t think they do”, and I’m sure you’ll agree that if that was all this board consisted of, it would be dull in the extreme. I also don’t know what you’re talking about regarding predicting the future - he’s talking about an alleged current behaviour of the press. All we’re asking for is a little evidence, or even just a reason why they might want to behave in the way he describes, and yet we’ve been told for 2 pages now that it’s his opinion, and how dare we question it. Well fine, but this is Great Debates, not IMHO. Opinions aren’t sacrosanct, nor are they exempt from requiring some sort of basis in truth.
They say there’s many a man hath more hair than whit. Haircut time, I guess.
Noted, vetbridge; sometimes the hat just doesn’t work.
Starving Artist, the French have an expressing: you’re buggering a fly, they’d say. The distinction you’re making is too silly to engage with, and I won’t.
Bzzzt, yourself if you feel that you must resort to slander by calling me a liar, where no definable lie exists. Quite a revelation into your character, or lack thereof. The whole context of the OP is the media’s inconsistant presentation of crime depending on whether whites are the perpetrators or the victims. You making a big deal out of the interchanging of “interracial” and “hate” exposes your desperation to protect the status quo from legitimate critique.
And, according to your above definition of a lie, what does it make you by saying that I am "really interested in “interracial crime”? Just what statement is it that you are referring to? Yep, it is you, by using your own criteria, that has revealed yourself to be a liar. Moving on… Now, how in the world could you even think that I was conceding that the OP was, as you so eloquently put it, “a crock of shit”? (Another revelation of character.) Hey, I was the one that turned out to be correct, unlike the media when it was propogating the myth of white racists running rampant burning down black churches, right? I bet you were not nearly as upset with the media’s misrepresentation as you have been with my accurate assessment. Of course, I’m the one goring your sacred cow. I get a sense that you were one of those I referred to as being dissappointed when it came to light that the burnings were not the work of white racists.
No, what I refuse to do is jump through your irrelevant hoops. Now, I’m going to cut through the rest of your irrelevant B.S. and address this:
And yet they are under represented as offenders by the media. And that is the whole point.
Hmmm… something is missing here.
There it is!! What other motivation would there be other than to mitigate the disproportinate numbers. Did you also notice that the FBI crime statistics no longer list interracial rape? Can you guess why? Dinesh D’Souza, in his book, The End of Racism, noted on page 408, the then available statistics.
Think that race may have something to contribute to the disproportionate numbers? Looks to me like whites are being preyed upon. And if you look at the prison rape statistics, you will find that blacks are preying on whites, just as the Carr borthers did to their victims. But these, also, are omitted from hate crime statistics. [sarcasm]It’s not really hate, blacks just prefer to rape whites. [/sarcasm]
If you go back and look, you will find that I said that blacks are several times more likely to commit what could be called a hate-crime. That statement bears out with the rape statistics.
Yes, and the Carr brother murders were not just common murders. The manner in which their victims were abused, tortured and murdered should have ensured an equal amount of coverage. And still speaking on the Byrd murder, there was an issue that mitigates the racist element of the killing that the media chose not to report.
Another lie. I have only condemned the media for overrepresenting whites as perpetrators of hate crimes, while underrepresenting minorities as perpetrators.
