So not a hate crime?

[Ashock]

Personally, I am against the whole designation of "hate crime". When you commit a violent crime, it is in itself a crime involving hate, but as there is currently such a designation..... I guess only whites are capable of hate crimes:

This is the story:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-of-bla...45913.html

This is the White House response:

http://ntknetwork.com/white-house-too-ea...ate-crime/

And of course that pillar of impartial news, CNN, and one of it's well known hosts:
https://www.bustle.com/p/don-lemons-resp...ting-28128


However, yes I forgot... Trump supporters are racist you know.

[FireIceTalon]

In before the troll is fed.

[kandrathe]

Personally, I am against the whole designation of "hate crime". When you commit a violent crime, it is in itself a crime involving hate, but as there is currently such a designation..... I guess only whites are capable of hate crimes:

This is the story:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-of-bla...45913.html

This is the White House response:

http://ntknetwork.com/white-house-too-ea...ate-crime/

And of course that pillar of impartial news, CNN, and one of it's well known hosts:
https://www.bustle.com/p/don-lemons-resp...ting-28128


However, yes I forgot... Trump supporters are racist you know.

Sometimes you just need to wait a bit to see if they do the right thing.

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said there "was never a question" whether the case would be investigated as a hate crime, but police wanted to check all the facts before deciding anything based on emotion. He said the racial comments of the attackers and the disabilities of the victim both played a role in the decision.

Chicago Tribune -- Brutal Facebook Live attack brings hate-crime charges, condemnation from White House

[Ashock]

Personally, I am against the whole designation of "hate crime". When you commit a violent crime, it is in itself a crime involving hate, but as there is currently such a designation..... I guess only whites are capable of hate crimes:

This is the story:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-of-bla...45913.html

This is the White House response:

http://ntknetwork.com/white-house-too-ea...ate-crime/

And of course that pillar of impartial news, CNN, and one of it's well known hosts:
https://www.bustle.com/p/don-lemons-resp...ting-28128


However, yes I forgot... Trump supporters are racist you know.

Sometimes you just need to wait a bit to see if they do the right thing.

Oh, I did not post this thinking that this would not be handled sooner or later. I posted to make people understand how a black on white crime is initially viewed in the media and in the current White house. If the situation was reversed and it were four whites doing this to a black guy, it would be condemned immediately by all possible sources. There would also be violent protests all over the country, demanding, accusing, looting and breaking.

Also, notice how the president and the CNN stooge are both black. Is it a wild coincidence that this is their reaction when a white person is brutalized this way?

This is directly from the Yahoo article:

In an earlier statement to media, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi stopped short of describing the incident as a hate crime, sparking outrage on social media. He said that despite the fact that the suspects made “terrible racist statements,” investigators were still not sure of the motive.

“We do not believe the victim was targeted because of his race or because of a political affiliation,” Gugliemi said then.

The first step to correcting a problem is acknowledging that it exists. Until people admit to themselves that there is a tremendous double standard in this country that has been perpetuated over at least 20 years if not more, it won't be fixed. We took the 1st step in November.
It's just one step though.

[kandrathe]

...
I posted to make people understand how a black on white crime is initially viewed in the media and in the current White house. If the situation was reversed and it were four whites doing this to a black guy, it would be condemned immediately by all possible sources. There would also be violent protests all over the country, demanding, accusing, looting and breaking.

...

Maybe because of the tradition of racism in the US? It is not very usual for either 4 white, or 4 black people to kidnap a person and torture them on live video. But it is too common that people over react, to any horrific crime and rush to judgement. So, the police did what they always should do, charge them with what is obvious, collect the criminal evidence and let the DA make the determination on hate crime based on the evidence.

But, I dont recall any riots due to Dylann Roof's henious crime.

[Ashock]

...
I posted to make people understand how a black on white crime is initially viewed in the media and in the current White house. If the situation was reversed and it were four whites doing this to a black guy, it would be condemned immediately by all possible sources. There would also be violent protests all over the country, demanding, accusing, looting and breaking.

...

Maybe because of the tradition of racism in the US? It is not very usual for either 4 white, or 4 black people to kidnap a person and torture them on live video. But it is too common that people over react, to any horrific crime and rush to judgement. So, the police did what they always should do, charge them with what is obvious, collect the criminal evidence and let the DA make the determination on hate crime based on the evidence.

But, I dont recall any riots due to Dylann Roof's henious crime.

The people overreacting are usually black, even though there is statistical evidence that black on white homicides are more than twice the number of white on black homicides, even though blacks constitute only about 15% of the population vs around 70% for whites. Look it up.

One source is this, but I'm sure there are many others:

http://www.ibtimes.com/white-black-crime...en-2424598

as far as the Dylann Roof, are you sure about that?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...oting.html

I will give you this though. This was definitely not one of the worst ones. It was practically tame. Do you really want to go into a contest over how many black protests there have been over the last several years? Protests that were based on nothing more than hate and not concrete evidence? Race over truth?

As far as the police is concerned, even supposing that they reacted properly, which is a big supposition, our president and Don Lemon reacted... how shall I put it.... unsurprisingly. We can't fire a president for this, but you think if Don Lemon was white and reacted like this if the crime were reversed, he would not be fired basically on the spot? This guy is not even breaking a sweat over his comments and why should he? As long as even relatively reasonable people like you don't think that his reaction is a big deal, he's all good. More important than his reaction, it's the lack of the supposedly impartial organization's like CNN reaction.

Again, why should they react differently? No one is calling them out on it.

As far as our racist past:

1. It's that... past. Should we still hate the Germans over what happened
75 years ago? Do not confuse history with reality.

2. No one says this but here's another reality. Whites did not start slavery, nor were they it's only practitioners. However, whites are the first ones to abolish it. Chew on that.

[Taem]

I actually fully agree with you. There is a huge reverse racism thing happening in this country and it's sickening. I'm 50% Hispanic and 50% White, so I feel my point of view is just as valid as any other minority with my hispanic last name of Olivas. I don't understand why this subject is always an elephant in the room, too taboo to address, but blatantly obvious. I feel people are afraid this touches too closely to eugenics and don't want the stigma of being labeled a racist, but reverse racism is happening and is a real thing so why isn't it being properly addressed instead of brushed under the carpet and ignored. Even kandrathes measured comments reflect the fear associated with acknowledging the truth, instead side stepping with innuendo on how the police were merely doing their jobs.

[FireIceTalon]

I was trying REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hard to avoid posting in this shit infested, historiographical disaster of a thread. No seriously, I was. But I don't think I can read one more, fascist white supremist pandering line or false narrative without getting absolutely nauseous and vomiting all over my computer screen.

I'm going to keep it simple.

There is NO such thing as "reverse racism".

The very notion of it would be laughable if it weren't so deplorable that privileged white people mythologically think they are being oppressed and/or "victims" of racism. Anyone claiming otherwise is stupid as fuck, and has a gross lack of understanding on what systemic racism actually IS, how it is manifested in every day life for POC, and not acknowledging its historical roots and how these roots are inextricably linked to its current form - from its roots in slavery and genocide, to Jim Crow and segregation, to today's current poverty and mass incarceration for-profit of POC. Amerikkka is still as racist as it ever was, the only difference now is the form in which said racist institutions/power relations are structured and operated upon.

Some blacks might be predjudice towards white people, but this is a VERY different thing altogether from full-blown institutional, systemic racism. Racism is structural and not personal; and therefore, the idea that blacks/other poc can be racist towards whites is a false narrative. Predjudice, yes. Racist, no, not by a long shot.

The cops are doing their job alright, and that's precisely the problem: harassing, oppressing, humiliating, profiling, terrorizing, beating, and murdering POC and their families on a daily basis, is the job of pigs. Being a cop is about the most despicable profession one can have, as far as I'm concerned. All of them are scum, a legitimized terrorist organization - and they will be among the first to go when the revolution pops off. And you know what? Good fucking riddance.

As for the original topic, this could be considered a hate crime, but not on the basis of race - rather for the fact he was intellectually disabled, and severely so.

Still, this thread is absolutely pointless and nothing more than an opportunity for Ashock to spew his vile (and incorrect!), white nationalistic crud narrative. There was recently a case where a white football player sodomized a black, mentally disabled teenager with a coat hanger, and only got 300 hours of fucking community service for it. Had the situation been reversed, the black kid would have almost certainly done jail time and this kind of thing happens far, far more often. Anyways...



^^This thread in a nutshell (minus my post and to some extent, Kandrathe's).

[LennyLen]

Without trying to get bogged down into your country's politics and history (which I have almost less than zero interest in), I have a question. Do you really believe that the only difference between racism and discrimination is that one is systematic and the other isn't? I can see how such a definition works well with your narrative, but it seems extremely narrow minded. Even the Wikipedia article you linked to states that systematic racism is just one form of racism. If you follow the internal link to what racism is, they define it as discrimination. In other words, your own definitions do not align with the sources you're using to back yourself up.

[FireIceTalon]

Without trying to get bogged down into your country's politics and history (which I have almost less than zero interest in), I have a question. Do you really believe that the only difference between racism and discrimination is that one is systematic and the other isn't? I can see how such a definition works well with your narrative, but it seems extremely narrow minded. Even the Wikipedia article you linked to states that systematic racism is just one form of racism. If you follow the internal link to what racism is, they define it as discrimination. In other words, your own definitions do not align with the sources you're using to back yourself up.

Mostly, I am concerned with the first 2 paragraphs of the Wiki link for my purposes, and not so much with the links within them which may or may not align with my main argument. Also, the first link I provided with the 7 myths of "reverse racism", are pretty concrete in backing up my main argument that reverse racism is essentially, a myth.

Racism and discrimination indeed are two similar and related concepts, but they have some very important differences. Racism is always systemic and institutional, whereas discrimination need not be. Further, discrimination is a far broader term that can have implications other than race, such as gender, class, disability, etc. Generally, it is more action based than racism. Racist institutions are generally what give discriminatory acts their traction by creating power relations between different races in society - in America's case, the superiority of whites over non-whites.

For instance, and this is completely hypothetical: if I worked at a store that refused service to black people, and told every black customer that I couldn't help them, that would be an act of discrimination on my part, but not racism. However, the companies policy of not serving black people IS indeed racist because it is centered around an ideal that blacks are inferior to whites, in one or multiple ways. The companies policy is institutionalized, and therefore racist. I may choose to abide by that policy, for whatever reason, without actually agreeing with it, which is discriminatory on my part but not racist.

On the other hand, one may hold prejudice views towards those not of their race, but never actually act upon them. Or, they may hold such views AND act upon them, but not achieve any benefit from it if they are not the privileged and empowered race in that society.

[EspyLacopa]

Mostly, I am concerned with the first 2 paragraphs of the Wiki link for my purposes, and not so much with the links within them which may or may not align with my main argument.

So. . .you're willing to ignore any evidence and logic that doesn't align with your own argument? That seems rather short-sighted to me; How can you truly learn and grow and then create better arguments if you aren't willing to examine how they may be in error?

[kandrathe]

Mostly, I am concerned with the first 2 paragraphs of the Wiki link for my purposes, and not so much with the links within them which may or may not align with my main argument. Also, the first link I provided with the 7 myths of "reverse racism", are pretty concrete in backing up my main argument that reverse racism is essentially, a myth.

Racism and discrimination indeed are two similar and related concepts, but they have some very important differences. Racism is always systemic and institutional, whereas discrimination need not be. Further, discrimination is a far broader term that can have implications other than race, such as gender, class, disability, etc. Generally, it is more action based than racism. Racist institutions are generally what give discriminatory acts their traction by creating power relations between different races in society - in America's case, the superiority of whites over non-whites.

In majority versus minority situations, the ruling majorities use of powers defined by race against those racial minorities is simply racist. In the case of Robert Mugabe, and Zimbabwe, the states policies are by definition of them being based upon race, racist against white farmers.

It is still racist even if they believe it to be justified, in this case, where the majority is angry about colonialism, and white racism from a century ago. It also smacks of scapegoating befitting a fascist dictatorship.

There is no "reverse" racism, since racism is simply when race used to discriminate against those of another race by those in a position of power. In the Chicago case, the four black people were in a position of power over their captive. They abused him because he was white, and they had grievances against white people, in particular grievances against Mr. Trump.

[FireIceTalon]

Mostly, I am concerned with the first 2 paragraphs of the Wiki link for my purposes, and not so much with the links within them which may or may not align with my main argument.

So. . .you're willing to ignore any evidence and logic that doesn't align with your own argument? That seems rather short-sighted to me; How can you truly learn and grow and then create better arguments if you aren't willing to examine how they may be in error?

If the so-called evidence is incorrect or structured upon a fallacy and/or misconception, and thus not congruent to material reality, then yes, it will be disregarded - as it should be.

from the first link I posted:

In order to be racist, you need to possess two traits. The first is privilege: A structural, institutional, and social advantage. White people occupy positions of racial privilege, even when they are disadvantaged in other ways. White women, for example, consistently make more than black women, because they benefit from racial attitudes. Furthermore, you also have to have power: the ability, backed up by society, to be a strong social influencer, with greater leeway when it comes to what you do, where, and how.

For instance, white people benefit from privilege and power when they aren’t arrested for drug crimes at disproportionate rates, while black people experience racism when they’re arrested, and sentenced, for the same crimes. This reflects a racialized power imbalance in the justice system. It’s about the privilege and power of white offenders (less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have strong legal representation, more likely to be able to talk police officers out of an arrest) and the lack of social status for black offenders.

People of color talking about white people don’t occupy positions of privilege or power. Therefore, they cannot be racist. Racism is structural, not personal.

and

Some people of color may view whites prejudicially; no wonder, given the interactions of racism in society. Anyone can believe in stereotypes or hold ideas about members of other groups that are not entirely accurate.

However, being, and behaving, prejudicially isn’t the same thing as racism, especially when such prejudice punches up, not down. As Justin Simien of Dear White People puts it, “Prejudice and racism are different. A joke about white people dancing has no impact on the lives of average white people, whereas jokes about black people and reinforcing stereotypes about black people do have an impact on the lives of everyday black people.”

So once again, discrimination and racism, while closely related, are not the same thing. Reverse racism is a myth. You cannot have such a thing as "reverse racism" when it is whites who occupy positions of both privilege and power.

Also, I can easily provide other links that are more "consistent" than the Wiki article (but essentially say the same thing) if you guys truly want to go there. I know exactly what you guys are trying to do, but I see through it.

[kandrathe]

So once again, discrimination and racism, while closely related, are not the same thing. Reverse racism is a myth. You cannot have such a thing as "reverse racism" when it is whites who occupy positions of both privilege and power.

Here is a classic case of "Just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true." You choose to believe individuals cannot be racists.

I know that racism exists outside institutions, and that people CAN indeed be racists.

rac·ism (noun)

• the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
  
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

rac·ist(noun)

• a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
  synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist
  
• having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
  "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

The FBI defines a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

[FireIceTalon]

No, WHITE people can indeed be racist - because they occupy empowered and privileged positions in society.

Black people by and large do NOT occupy a empowered or privileged position in society - and therefore they cannot be racist. Prejudice, yea. Racist? Nope.

The problem with sticking strictly to a dictionary definition of racism is that it doesn't consider historical or social context, which is absolutely necessary in determining what racism is and how it operates.

So I reiterate once again, reverse racism is a myth - a myth created by WHITE people in order to defend or justify their privileged position in society and use it as a weapon whenever their power and privilege is questioned or challenged. To deny that is, in ITSELF, inherently racist.

In the Chicago case, the four black people were in a position of power over their captive. They abused him because he was white, and they had grievances against white people, in particular grievances against Mr. Trump.

They were in a position of physical power, in that they outnumbered him, he was disabled, etc. It still has nothing to do with racism. Their power over him doesn't change the fact that whites enjoy systemic advantages over blacks. They were prejudice towards him, and whites in general. But again, it is different from racism.

[kandrathe]

No, WHITE people can indeed be racist - because they occupy and empowered and privileged position in society.

Black people do NOT occupy a empowered or privileged position in society - and therefore they cannot be racist. Predjudice, yea. Racist? Nope.

The problem with sticking strictly to a dictionary definition is that it doesn't consider historical or social context, which is absolutely necessary in determining what racism is and how it operates.

So I reiterate once again, reverse racism is a myth - a myth created by WHITE people to defend or justify their privileged position in society and us it as a weapon whenever that power is challenged.

You should get out of Wyoming and go live in a place like the South Side of Chicago, or Barrio Logan in south San Diego. There are places in many cities in this world where you will be victimized by the locals in "power" and it may or may not be the government. Police in many places have a tenuous hold on order. And, I personally know many people who've been victimized by racists of all colors.

White people can and have been the victims of hate crimes and racism.

Racial bias Among single-bias hate crime incidents in 2014, there were 3,227 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

• 62.7 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias.
  
• 22.7 percent were victims of anti-White bias.
  
• 6.2 percent were victims of anti-Asian bias.
  
• 4.6 percent were victims of anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
  
• 3.7 percent were victims of bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
  
• 0.1 percent (4 individuals) were victims of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander bias. (Based on Table 1.)

FBI -- Hate Crime • 2014 • Topic Pages • Victims

Considering the % of population, Black people suffer the most as a portion of their population.

[FireIceTalon]

I don't live in Wyoming, I actually currently reside in Boise, ID. But I was born, raised, and lived in Los Angeles for the first 34 years of my life. I witnessed the 1992 Los Angeles riots almost firsthand, and I went to school and grew up around many different races and cultures, so I have a very good idea about what racism is and the racial tensions and interactions that come along with them, that are so prominent in American society. Back then, I was much younger obviously and therefore not nearly as socially aware as I am now. But even then, I could see and observe power relations between whites and non-whites and the blatant difference in how they were viewed and treated respectively in common, everyday interactions. And even then, I knew that these interactions were not merely the will of the individuals involved, but that larger systemic forces were behind it - even if I was too young conceptualize how these things came to be in the way that I can now.

The statistics you provided btw, just affirm that racism is indeed fundamentally structural and not personal. If it were personal, the statistics would be much more balanced and proportionate between and across each race - but they are anything but balanced and proportionate. Prejudice thought can be personal, and people of all races are capable of being prejudice. But again, that isn't the same thing as racism. In nearly all spheres of American society, whites have power and privilege over non-whites.

I am white, and I am privileged for the simple fact I can walk down the street without having to worry about being racially profiled or suspected of wrong doing because I have the right skin color. That is THE essence of how systemic racism works. Being black in America can mean harassment, incarceration, or even death for doing something so simple as walking down to the store. This is not something white people, in general, have to worry about. If I was indicted for some reason, I am FAR more likely to be acquitted or recieve a less harsh sentence than my black comrades would be for the same crime.

But perhaps most importantly: "hate crimes" are far from being the only way that systemic racism manifests itself, so using such statistics to try and prove that whites are victims of racism also; isn't really enough to demonstrate that racism isn't structural. White people having more access to education and healthcare, higher employment rates (blacks with an BS/BA degree have roughly equal or just slightly higher chances of landing a job compared to a white high school DROPOUT - if they have same educational status, whites have a higher chance by far across the board), higher wages and salaries to do the same jobs, better legal representation, and the fact they are not disproportionately incarcerated compared to blacks and other minorities....these are just but merely a few of the ways that institutional racism is embedded in American society.

[kandrathe]

Here is the problem with your logic... You are conflating an individual with an institution. People are not institutions. Can institutional racism and individual racism exist ? Yes, of course. Black people in the US are not responsible for institutional racism, but they can be responsible for their own individual racism.

It reminds me of the old logic fallacy...

God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God.

[FireIceTalon]

Here is the problem with your logic... You are conflating an individual with an institution. People are not institutions. Can institutional racism and individual racism exist ? Yes, of course. Black people in the US are not responsible for institutional racism, but they can be responsible for their own individual racism.

It reminds me of the old logic fallacy...

God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God.

LOL, Kandrathe. I am actually distinguishing between institutions and individuals, not conflating them

Saying blacks are responsible for their own "individual racism" doesn't make any more sense than saying women are responsible for not getting raped/sexually harassed by men. You could make the argument for individual prejudice maybe, but even that would be difficult since....

Personal prejudice by some blacks against white people probably wouldn't exist if we didn't have systemic racism IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Look, I'm not saying that individual prejudice is a good thing, but again, we have to look at it in historical context. Blacks often negative views of white people, is by and large, not surprising given the historical relations between the two and the systematic power that whites have had over blacks since the beginning of colonialism to this very moment. Most of the prejudice by blacks towards whites, as the article I linked earlier explains, punches upward against white supremacy. When you systematically oppress people, they are inevitably, at some point, going to fight back.

If a black person makes fun of or discriminates against a white person, it does nothing to change the economic and social power and status that whites enjoy over blacks/poc. If a white person does it to a black person however, this reinforces stereotypes and misconceptions about black people in general and therefore reinforces the oppressive conditions which they live under. Consequently, this also reinforces white power and privilege. That is the key difference to understanding why whites can be racist toward blacks, but also why the reverse is not possible - blacks do not and cannot occupy any system of power or privilege over whites; regardless of how much individual prejudice they may have or express toward whites. Racism is functionally institutional, prejudice is individual - they are two different things.

Reverse racism is not only a myth, but accusing minorities of it is in itself very arguably racist; since the goal of doing so is to protect white power and privilege, or is at least, the resulting unintended consequence. Bottomline: whites are not racially oppressed (despite how much they like to think they are), black people and other PoC, are. White people, in general, need to wake the fuck up from their bullshit self-pity and start looking at reality - and this is coming from a white person!

[kandrathe]

Saying blacks are responsible for their own "individual racism" doesn't make any more sense than saying women are responsible for not getting raped/sexually harassed by men.

No. It would be like saying it is impossible for women to be the perpetrators of sexual harassment. Your argument regarding racism, if applied to women would be "women are incapable of sexual harassment, since men traditionally wield all the power."

Race scholars Howard Winant and Michael Omi define racism as a way of representing or describing race that “creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race.” This is in the context of questioning if there is even any such thing as "race". In biological terms, we all are a mixture of different DNA's and have accumulated different population traits by surviving in different places.

So, if "Race" exists, it does so only as a sociological construct. In the sociological definition, racism is about much more than race-based prejudice. In a sociological context then, an imbalance in power and social status is generated by how we understand and act upon race. In other words, it could be argued that the belief that there actually different "races" would be racist.

When any person "acts" against another based upon their perception of this belief in "race", the they are perpetuating racism.

From Avenue Q: “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.”

Part of it goes like this:

Look around and you will find
No one’s really color blind.
Maybe it’s a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.