From USA Today:
Black students connected in SU racist drawing
By Emily Chappell, DelmarvaNow 10:00 am EDT April 27, 2016
The students identified as the people behind a recent racist drawing found at Salisbury University’s library are black, school officials confirmed Tuesday.
The image, found April 10 on a whiteboard in Blackwell Library, showed a stick figure being hung and labeled with a racial slur. Underneath was the hashtag “#whitepower.”
The university confirmed Tuesday, April 26, the students involved in the incident were black, spokesman Richard Culver wrote in an email. The university would not provide names of the students, citing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
This information was first reported in the university’s student newspaper, The Flyer.
Since the incident, Salisbury University Police Department has completed its investigation, Culver said. In consultation with the Wicomico County State’s Attorney’s Office, the department has decided to not file criminal charges at this time.
Why aren’t hate hoaxes prosecutable as hate crimes? They use fraud to stir up racial hatred.
Granted, these frauds are designed to engender hatred of white people, so I guess that’s okay.
Anyway, the real problem with hate hoaxes is that they temporarily hurt the feelings of the Official Victim Groups:
… Matthew Jackson, a senior at the university, said whoever drew that image didn’t understand the severity of it, and the fact that people were actually lynched throughout history. And that’s an issue, he said.
“The main problem … was that someone thought it was a joke,” he added. “(It was) an act of immaturity.”
For that sort of image to pop up in this day and age, Jackson said, shows the disjoint of education. People don’t know what happened, or don’t know how severe it was. They don’t seem to understand slavery and racism are not something to make light of.
Jackson said he’s had contact with the administration and that there’s a hope to have a meeting in coming weeks about what happened, and the goals students have been working toward in education and diversity.
The incident reignited the conversation around race on the Eastern Shore campus — a conversation that’s been at the forefront both locally and nationally for a while now.
Following the incident, University President Janet Dudley-Eshbach released a letter to students and faculty.
“Diversity is a core value of SU, and reports of such acts are taken seriously. The university will not tolerate this kind of language or behavior,” Eshbach wrote.
As of fall 2014, 2,156 students at the school out of 8,770 were minority students, according to the most recent Cultural Diversity Progress Report. Minority students now make up 25 percent of the student population, based on that report.
But despite Eshbach’s goals of diversity, and increases in minority students on campus, racial tensions have still run high during the last year.
Is “despite” the mot juste in that sentence? Why not “because of” instead?
Just before Thanksgiving, the president called a meeting with minority student leaders to discuss race relations on campus. It’s a meeting that ended abruptly, with students reading a letter asking for more time, and walking out.
“As students of color, WE DO NOT point fingers nor cast blame for the lack of awareness and understanding in regards to the black experience here at Salisbury University, keeping in mind that racism and cultural segregation existed long before any of us stepped foot on campus,” the letter read.
“However, we refuse to deny that the current environment on campus takes a huge toll on the psyche of students of color affected by the subconscious oppression.”
Jackson was one of those students at the meeting. He and other student leaders have been working to move forward with diversity initiatives holding forums and talking to students all year long.
When the racist graffiti showed up, it was a hurtful gesture, especially after all the work they’d tried to do, he had said.
“After we’ve already been making these strides … to see something like this. … It goes to show that there’s still work to be done,” Jackson said earlier this month.
The more evidence piles up that we’re phonies, the more money you’d better pay us.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
First off, we could stop calling them “hoaxes” and refer to them as “reverse hate crimes”.
After what happened to Missouri’s enrollment and donations, I wonder if some unscrupulous college sports fan out there might get the idea to plant a hate hoax at his school’s archrival. An overly exuberant Iowa State or South Carolina fan might wonder how much havoc he could wreak at Iowa or Clemson, respectively, with nothing more than a poop swastika or a strategically placed noose.
These things are weapons of mass destruction.
The media covering up actual anti-white race crimes while promoting all these hoaxes creates a revenge narrative that incites more anti-white violence.
C’est le mot Renard Champ-de-Beurre.
It’s creeping into my consciousness that our entire emphasis on fairness and race for the past half-century has been one big stick figure on a white board. One big rat fuck aimed at us. A big dirty trick.
There is no racial unfairness in any significant quantity on the part of whites, and there hasn’t been in at least fifty years.
Maybe there never was, anywhere — ever.
Maybe “history happens,” and those people (and others!) got what they earned for themselves. They’re making me think this way now. And my experience tells me that when I start experiencing things, lots of other people do too. That’s how I’ve experienced trends all my life.
Whatever sympathy I had for so-called victims throughout history is rapidly being replaced by nature’s own indifference.
It’s been three decades or so since I started college and judging by the quotes of the students, it looks like nothing has changed. The same group of minority students is making the same complaints about the same alleged problems.
Meanwhile, in that time, other groups of minority students — such as Asians — have come to dominate college campuses with a fraction of the problems and infinite amounts of success. If whites have such a problem with minorities and if they benefit from “privilege,” then why the success of Asians, not to mention other groups like Indians and students from the Middle East?
The idealistic, 20-year-old me would have blanched at these statements. But these non-specific quotes about “lack of awareness and understanding in regards to the black experience” are what I heard during the Reagan era almost verbatim. Even back then I wouldn’t have said colleges weren’t accommodating to African-Americans.
How much is an institution, or a society, expected to bend for one group, especially when their complaints are about events that happened hundreds of years ago. Back when segregation was still a memory this sort of made sense. But it makes less sense with each passing year.
If you have one group that has the same issues decade after decade while no other group does, maybe it’s time to start thinking maybe it’s not the society that’s the problem. Maybe it’s the group.
Really it's just another form of "won't somebody pay attention to meeeeee!?!"
college is rough when everyone else has a date but you.
By nature I’ve always generally been in favor of the “fair” thing but yeah the last 50 years have been a giant con-trick designed to **** us.
Sixty-some years after MLK and Black kids still come out of high school unprepared to perpetrate college-level racial hoaxes.
Fire chiefs and insurance investigators know that threatening graffiti at a site is a reliable indicator of fraud.
OT – More popcorn, please! Ex-BBC boss gets his legs caught in the man-trap the BBC, among many others, helped to create:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/new-york-times-boss-and-former-bbc-chief-mark-thompson-accused-of-racial-sex-and-age-discrimination-a7006156.html
“Doin’ right ain’t got no end.”
Bill McKinney as Captain Terrill in “The Outlaw Josey Wales” … :
OT:
I found Bobby Knight out-alpha’ing Trump in the body language department to be kind of funny. The never ending arm over the shoulder coupled with Trump’s smiling made The Donald come off like a diminutive Dennis the Menace. Taken together with his nuke comments– I wonder if it’s partially an age thing on the part of Knight?
Scroll down a bit to see embedded video (the one that shows Knight):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-elites-are-now-resigned-to-donald-trump-as-their-nominee/2016/04/28/7ee8cf72-0cbc-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html
“…despite Eshbach’s goals of diversity, and increases in minority students on campus, racial tensions have still run high…”
Yesterday I put “it’s not despite, it’s because of” on Yahoo comments. It was deleted by the moderator. Looks like you’ve crossed the line into hate speech, Steve.
Outsider here. When your founding fathers were feeling oppressed they jumped on a boat and started a new country up. When my ancestors were feeling oppressed they jumped on a boat and started a new country up. African-Americans could do this. It’s not like there are no options for them. Africa is a massive place with good natural resources. Liberia redux? A promised land to self-actualise. No need for all these hoaxes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots
Privatize the profit, socialize the cost. Thus has it always been.
People who commit hate hoaxes are mentally ill and belong in a straight jacket. These people are a danger to society.
“…farmers would pay their workers as little as possible, knowing that the parish fund would top up wages to a basic subsistence level.”
Privatize the profit, socialize the cost. Thus has it always been.
If a white student did this the decision would have been the same (they are college students), the only difference is you wouldn’t be reading about it on Twitter on on an internet site…because white teenagers and young adults commit the same crimes as Black teens and young adults, but the only difference is that there is a record of the Black teens as juveniles or young adults because they are “policed” more closely than their white counterparts (white priviledge)
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .
Racist!!!
BTW folks, I was surprised when I first learned how many people like Hurt uh ought Kuhn believe that Whites have the same crime rate as Blacks. In extreme cases I have read commentary from Blacks who sincerely believe that the apparent 6:1 difference in murder rates between the races is a fabrication by the Authorities who falsify the death certificates of Whites murdered by other Whites and list the cause of death as suicide or traffic accident.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
So, no different.
http://unz.org/Pub/AmSpectator-1993sep-00030
If People of Color shall outnumber People Not of Color, isn't the solution the diversity, multiculturalism, We Are the World nonsense they've been indoctrinating white people in for generations? Why wouldn't browns, blacks, and so forth abide by it as we did, mostly, instead of turning on us and extracting revenge? Or was that just for us, and meanwhile every other group was free to indulge in old time racism? We fell for it. Our anti-racism shield is a cannon pointed at our heads.
Who are you trying to kid? "People of Color" won't be running things in 20 years. Running things into the ground, maybe, but not running things. They won't because they can't. They can't even run Detroit.
It would be more precise to say their purpose is to reinforce/maintain black privilege, i.e. to make sure liberal white administrators don’t wander off the reservation. If it’s hatred they’re meant to stir, it’s as much class as race.
I get a feeling that all colleges and universities should endow a Sharpton Chair in Social Justice Pandering, and offer majors in Grievance Mongering. I imagine it would be a co-op degree of the Poli Sci and Drama departments, but it would still have to be a B.S. degree.
Then they could offer lucrative work study, grants, scholarships, and various awards for excellence in the field. In that way, students who were having trouble adapting in school, either because of racial issues, or lack of satisfaction in their romantic relationships, or inability to actually thrive in an academic environment, would have a way to canalize their hoaxing propensities in a safe way, with everyone knowing it was a form of performance politics, and that way the students would get academic credit, and the other students would be left alone.
Then, the next time someone had a noose, swastika, or racial slur spray painted on their car, or saw someone carrying a noose, a sheet, or a mattress around campus, everyone would know that it was just a hard working student doing course work.
I’m not exactly sure how it would work on your resume, however.
By the way, by normalizing these kinds of stunts it would also dissuade any actual hater from using them. No one is going to be intimidated by doing something that looks like someone else’s homework.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
I fart in your general direction.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
Whites are just better at hiding their murder victims?
Racist!!!
“Why aren’t hate hoaxes prosecutable as hate crimes? They use fraud to stir up racial hatred. Granted, these frauds are designed to engender hatred of white people, so I guess that’s okay.”
Of the 5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013, 52.4 percent were white, and 24.3 percent were black or African American. The race was unknown for 14.8 percent. Other races accounted for the remaining known offenders: 0.8 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native; 0.7 percent were Asian; 0.1 percent were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; and 7.0 percent were of a group of multiple races.
To answer your inquiry, I would imagine that the county district attorney had used their discretion to enable the university to mete out punishment, that charging the culprits with a hate crime failed to meet the legal standard from their point of view and/or that in past similar cases such a charge had been unwarranted. Perhaps you could contact the DA and/or the school and express your outrage over this matter, as you have a personal stake in the outcome. #weneedracialjusticenow
Thank you.
They could be prosecuted as hate crimes. The hoaxes immediate intention is to stir up racial fear and anxiety among black people (Newspeak: “raise awareness”). Their long term goal is to convert that black fear and anxiety into rage and to focus that rage against white people. The reality is a bit more complex.
To use an archetypal example, when a cross is burned on a hilltop it (supposedly) sends waves of fear and panic through the hearts of black folks for miles around. That is why public cross burnings are not protected by the first amendment (Virginia v. Black, 01-1107). They (supposedly) have a supremely magical power to terrorize the American Negro.
The fact is that they don’t have this power. Black folks aren’t terrified by cross burnings, the letters “KKK”, loops of string hanging from door knobs, or a white boy rapping “nigga” while listening to NWA. The ease with which these incidents are forgotten when exposed as “hoaxes” should make that obvious.
They are better understood as breaches of racial etiquette, like belching at the dinner table.
If I KNOW that you “know better” than to belch, I will “take offense” at your belching–you are deliberately insulting me at my table.
On the other hand, if you are Japanese (where belching is a proper thing) I will ignore your belching, or even take pleasure in it because you are complimenting my cooking in the approved Japanese fashion. The offense depends on the knowledge and intention.
But there are other black-on-black hoaxes that black folks will NOT forget. Consider this. I, a black man, rob a bank, wave a [squirt] gun in the black teller’s face and saying “gimme your money!” Terrified, the teller hands over the money.
When I am arrested and charged with armed robbery, I attempt to get off by arguing that it was NOT armed robbery because the gun was a squirt gun. I did not intend to hurt her, nor did I have the ability to do so. Regardless, charges will not be dropped. I will go to prison for armed robbery. Nor will the teller ever “readjust” her perception of the incident and forget my “hoax”.
We legally and culturally pretend that scrawling “KKK” has some uncontrollable visceral effect on the American Negro and therefore should be universally punished, just like the “hoax” armed robbery.
Yet when the KKK incident is determined to be a “hoax”, we treat it like a mistaken breach of racial etiquette: we immediately forget it. To use my example above, “I guess I should not take offense: he was Japanese.”
The ease with which blacks forget “hoax” KKKs and do not forget “hoax” armed robberies should indicate that they really are not bothered by the “hoax” KKK itself. As long as they think a white person did it, they cry that they were terrified. But once discovered that a black person did it they immediately “readjust” their perception of the incident.
It’s ok. Non-elite whites deserve to die anyway for the sins of the ancestors of people who look vaguely like them.
Yeah every day it gets harder to believe that segregation was primarily the result of gratuitous white bigotry and not a rational to the way blacks tend to act. And the more blacks get, the more they demand. I cannot see this ending well.
This is an excellent idea. I’ve been thinking along the same lines lately. We need a formalized way for whites to expiate their White Privilege.
Perhaps universities could take the lead on this. They could buy large tracts of land, cultivate it, set up small dirt-floored cabins as living quarters, and college-age whites could spend a year there living and working as slaves.
To make the experience as authentic as possible, work would be overseen by black ex-cons who have demonstrated a hostility to whites, providing employment opportunities for these otherwise disenfranchised and marginalized persons. Overseers would administer authentic corporal punishment but would refrain from killing, raping, or permanently disabling students, though those services might be offered in a post-graduate program. Few students would want to leave the program without a few scars from the overseer’s whip, which could be displayed with pride.
At the end of the year, students would get a diploma stating that they understood the Black Experience and were determined to be Privilege Free.
Nothing worthwhile comes cheap, of course. The program’s cost would be comparable to typical tuition and room and board fees, approximately $50,000 – $60,000 per annum. The plantation should be largely self-sustaining, so a significant portion of fees could be dispersed among organizations such as ACORN and the SPLC.
Diplomas declaring the graduate Privilege Free could be signed by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ta-Nehisi Coates, or other figures in the black community qualified to dispense absolution. Naturally, they would be paid an honorarium for lending their moral authority to this enterprise. In fact, for a sufficient honorarium, perhaps they could be persuaded to indulge those too old or too busy to take part in the program, but whose hearts are in the right place. These indulgences would start at $250,000 for basic membership. Those at the Benefactor level of $1,000,000 would enjoy special benefits, such as freedom to use the n-word in private or commit occasional microaggressions without repercussions. As Donald Sterling would agree, this could be a bargain.
Spoke to Tarantino this morning. He said his generous donation is contingent on there being an interracial homosexual rape center. You may wish to reconsider your overly restrictive guidelines.
Yes, the automatic assumption is that black behavior is getting worse over time. Then the nagging afterthought comes – maybe they were always like this, and we’re now just seeing things that used to be concealed from us.
Semi-OT:
In math, 47% of Asian students performed at or above proficiency. So did 32% of white students, 12% of Hispanic students and
7% of black students.
Using this Gaussian distribution calculator to get those percentages, 32% of white students are IQ > 107, so, changing the mean to get those percentages gives:
Asian : avg IQ=106
white : IQ 100,
Hispan[s]ic: IQ 89.5
Black: IQ 85.
Do those number look familiar?
It was unintentional, but something similar happened on the campus of Texas A&M several weeks back.
A black high school student — on a tour of campus with his classmates — was wearing a University of Texas backpack. An A&M student pointed out the Longhorn gear and shouted, “Go back to where you came from.”
It immediately became a “racial” incident. The only reason it didn’t get much traction is that A&M is a very conservative campus, so there aren’t a lot of agitators, and campus administration worked overtime to apologize to the student and the school.
I read the full police report. Given the way the “crime” was investigated, you would have thought a mass murder had taken place.
There was an extraordinary case in Sweden just recently. An Uppsala politician who looks 100% African and is gay named Alexander Bengtsson was recently prominently featured in a series of articles in the local paper with big photos of him looking sad, defiant, wise etc etc. The story was that he was constantly being harassed and attacked by evil Nazis! I was very skeptical. But then he actually got a knife wound in an attack and had to be treated, so I actually started wondering. Then one day my wife came home furious – this guy had been killed and burned alive in his car by evil Nazis! Then it turned out that the day before he was found dead the police had informed him that he was being charged with making false reports, and that everything pointed to suicide.
http://www.thelocal.se/20160331/swedish-politician-found-dead-in-burnt-out-car
Unsurprisingly, yesterday hundreds of grieving Swedes marched through Uppsala in opposition to hate and racism, and in honor and remembrance of Alexander Bengtsson.
Agreed! Unlike his namesake, I do not believe that even Martin Luther King, Jr would have had a problem with the payment of Black Indulgences: that is because, like the Treasury of Merit, but unlike the US Treasury, the Treasury of Privilege is truly inexhaustible.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
Apparently those white kids are a lot better at hiding the bodies.
This article to very confusing.
1. Black students commit a racist incident.
2. Black students who committed the racist incident will not face civil (and likely academic) penalties because they are black.
3. This problem is actually about racism. That is why we must have a conversation about race and about ending the legacy of slavery.
Graffiti is useful as a risk indicator to real estate lenders, although they won’t likely see pictures in the appraisals, due to anti-redlining concerns. Resourceful lenders check out other sources like environmental report pictures, Google street views and such. The presence of graffiti didn’t necessarily rule out lending, but did present a hurdle for many.
So they’re “love crimes”…
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
First there is no “d” in privilege . Second, Whites won’t be a minority for another 50 years and, despite all the attempts to change reality, it is not White Privilege at work, it is White Ability. So even with demographic changes, in twenty years what is left of the US will be run by a combination of Whites and POC who will consist of Asians plus Spanish looking Latin Americans who find it useful to designate themselves as POC. These folks won’t be burdened with White guilt and will be looking to re-quarantine Blacks into a virtual reservation system to keep them out of their hair.
BTW folks, I was surprised when I first learned how many people like Hurt uh ought Kuhn believe that Whites have the same crime rate as Blacks. In extreme cases I have read commentary from Blacks who sincerely believe that the apparent 6:1 difference in murder rates between the races is a fabrication by the Authorities who falsify the death certificates of Whites murdered by other Whites and list the cause of death as suicide or traffic accident.
A "d" was good enough for William Penn.
http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/william-penns-the-excellent-priviledge-of-liberty-and-property
"The Excellent Priviledge, traditionally ascribed to William Penn, is notable for containing the first American printing of Magna Carta, followed by a commentary on the text. In addition to incorporating elements of Magna Carta into The Frame of the Government of Pennsylvania (1682), Penn was determined that the people who settled in the colony would recognise the significance of Magna Carta. The Excellent Priviledge of Liberty and Property, produced in Philadelphia in 1687, was a reprinting, without attribution, of Henry Care’s English Liberties. Care’s text had given Magna Carta ‘the first place in our Statute Books’, with its commentary asserting that clause 39 (29 in the 1225 version) ‘Deserves to be written in Letters of Gold’. Only two copies of The Excellent Priviledge are known to exist, one in Haverford, Pennsylvania, and the other at the Library of the Society of Friends in London."
I await the introduction of Black Studies 101, where the plight of black students on the Salisbury campus is studied in a laboratory setting. Mandatory, of course, for all white students. And black students will necessarily serve as the experimental specimens.
Because that’s a classic example of the Fox Butterfield Fallacy, i.e., the mislabeling and mistaking of causation as mere coincidence:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323482504578227664228137272
My husband, class of ’71, says it sounds the same from when HE was in college.
Really it’s just another form of “won’t somebody pay attention to meeeeee!?!”
college is rough when everyone else has a date but you.
I found Bobby Knight out-alpha'ing Trump in the body language department to be kind of funny. The never ending arm over the shoulder coupled with Trump's smiling made The Donald come off like a diminutive Dennis the Menace. Taken together with his nuke comments-- I wonder if it's partially an age thing on the part of Knight?
Scroll down a bit to see embedded video (the one that shows Knight):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-elites-are-now-resigned-to-donald-trump-as-their-nominee/2016/04/28/7ee8cf72-0cbc-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.htmlReplies: @anon
Even ultra dominant men have sports heros they get soft headed over.
Campus hate hoaxes can trigger black mobs causing millions in property damage and injuries or death to cops and civilians. Regardless of what disciplinary measures the university takes, white students should file class action law suits against hoaxers for threatening their safety and interfering with their education.
In 21st century America, lynching is entirely a black thing.
Whatever their purpose the end result is a revenge narrative that leads to more anti-white violence.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
How true. If a white student did it, it would be described, not as a hoax, but as a racist, bigoted hate crime deserving of expulsion, with the names of the perpetrators blasted on the front page of the NYTimes, WaPo, and lead the network news broadcasts.
So, no different.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
Hurt, let me help you out here, since you came unprepared. Here’s a historical document that proves white people set up black people to commit crimes just for their own entertainment/career advancement. It’s about two freelance reporters, one of them Rosalind Russell’s son, who learn through a friend that two pimps are planning a motel robbery in San Francisco, and set out to film it for the 11-o’clock news. Trigger warning: hurtful stereotypes if you’re an SJW.
http://unz.org/Pub/AmSpectator-1993sep-00030
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
It’s our good buddy tiny sick duck again. Stick with one moniker. Your style is too distinct to switch around.
The black perps only get a tut-tut because of their black skin privilege. But of course ‘racial tensions’ still ‘run high’ because of the fact that blacks are the ultimate narcissists who feel they’re the most important group around. They can never go beyond being infatuated with being black and this becomes fatiguing for other people. In 100 years they’ll still be chanting ‘I’m black I’m black’.
“Overseers would administer authentic corporal punishment but would refrain from killing, raping, or permanently disabling students,”
Spoke to Tarantino this morning. He said his generous donation is contingent on there being an interracial homosexual rape center. You may wish to reconsider your overly restrictive guidelines.
Cute title for this article. “Connected” as in connected to a horizontal beam via a rope around one’s neck?
I’m triggered.
What’s really amazing is that it NEVER seems to occur to those involved that it is even possible that the drawings are a hoax. EVERY TIME they denounce the horrible, terrible racists who drew these unspeakable drawings and EVERY TIME they personally look stupid a week later when it turns out that blacks drew them. Are they really that stupid or blind?
The only thing I can think of is that Orwell is again the prophet for our time:
The administrators making the ritual denunciations of the horrible white racists who infest their campus must have more than a slight suspicion that they are buying into a hate hoax just like the last 99 noose drawings were also hate hoaxes, but if they dare to voice them too soon (before the security tapes are played back) then they are badthinkers. Being right is not good enough – you can’t be right too soon because assuming without undeniable proof that any black person ever committed any crime is racist profiling. So they go with five fingers. Maybe they have drunk the koolaid so much they actually SEE five fingers.
BTW folks, I was surprised when I first learned how many people like Hurt uh ought Kuhn believe that Whites have the same crime rate as Blacks. In extreme cases I have read commentary from Blacks who sincerely believe that the apparent 6:1 difference in murder rates between the races is a fabrication by the Authorities who falsify the death certificates of Whites murdered by other Whites and list the cause of death as suicide or traffic accident.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
“First there is no “d” in privilege .”
A “d” was good enough for William Penn.
http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/william-penns-the-excellent-priviledge-of-liberty-and-property
“The Excellent Priviledge, traditionally ascribed to William Penn, is notable for containing the first American printing of Magna Carta, followed by a commentary on the text. In addition to incorporating elements of Magna Carta into The Frame of the Government of Pennsylvania (1682), Penn was determined that the people who settled in the colony would recognise the significance of Magna Carta. The Excellent Priviledge of Liberty and Property, produced in Philadelphia in 1687, was a reprinting, without attribution, of Henry Care’s English Liberties. Care’s text had given Magna Carta ‘the first place in our Statute Books’, with its commentary asserting that clause 39 (29 in the 1225 version) ‘Deserves to be written in Letters of Gold’. Only two copies of The Excellent Priviledge are known to exist, one in Haverford, Pennsylvania, and the other at the Library of the Society of Friends in London.”
Groundhog Day over and over.
Media narrative groundhogs reality back to To Kill a Mocking Bird over and over and over
I think you are going too far here. At one time, racism in America was a very real and tangible thing, nor did it disappear overnight in 1964. Perhaps this is the price of having it beat into you – a certain % of whites will not accept the racial guilt that is heaped upon them and will deny the whole of history. Even if this is an understandable backlash, it’s not right either. Racism is not BE ALL of American history but that doesn’t mean that it never existed. You have to be honest about these things, to yourself most of all. Jim Crow was all too real. I know it’s hard to get past these things when there are obvious race hustlers peddling lies on the other side, but this doesn’t entitle you to tell yourself lies too to even the score.
I am entitled not to give a flying you know what. If they can't compete, then others win and they lose. That's how it is for me in this life and for them too. No more breaks.
Most of Steve's readers would favor bringing back Jim Crow, but how would that even be implemented in 2016 if they had it their way? Especially since Jim Crow was tied to the one drop rule and most Latinos in The U.S are Triracial.
Unless they go by phenotype instead of the one drop rule. Geraldo Rivera can eat at an all White restaurant but his African featured Puerto Rican grandmother could not if she was still alive.
And where would people who are visibly Amerindian or Asian in appearance legally stand under a sequel to Jim Crow?Replies: @Ozymandias
If “racism” was the only thing that prevented 20,000 white women getting raped by black men every year then it wasn’t racism.
(at least in the negative sense)
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
This sounds like Negro thinking.
Hint: the non-White racial category includes the Hispanic, Asian, other and Negro racial categories. Right now Persons categorized as Negro constitute about 12% of the total population and this percentage is declining. White will be the modal racial category going as far forward as can be projected. Like the modal party in a parliamentary system, Whites would pick the race(s) with which they choose to partner in the coming, racially-based polity you seem to envision.
Second hint: Currently the general attitude of populations in all other racial groups towards Negroes is not particularly favorable. Among Hispanics, the fastest growing racial group in this country, the general attitude might be characterized as one of distaste coupled with NIMBY. To see how this plays out do a Google search on “Compton” and “race war”.
Final hint: I have not even considered the group superiority of Whites and Asians in traits like intelligence and impulse control. This gives these racial groups a massive and insurmountable advantage in the struggle to control America’s political, economic and social resources which would ensue in the race-based struggle you seem to imagine.
Bottom line: You people are f****d
It is 13 percent, not 12 percent. Also where is your evidence that the Black population in The U.S is declining?
The percentage of Black women over the age of 40 who are childless is not that high. But the percentage of White women over the age of 40 who are not mothers is quite high.
These things are weapons of mass destruction.Replies: @artichoke, @ben tillman
If this were to happen a few times, it would not be a bad thing overall. Like the former UM (it will never be the same; it’s ruined) I feel sorry for the extensive scale of the collateral damage needed to change the direction of this “conversation about race” back on itself and give the rest of us relief from the nonsense.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
If blacks are policed more closely it’s because they commit more crimes, not because they’re black. As for “white priviledge,” there are other non-white groups that don’t have the blacks’ cop troubles. I wonder why.
If People of Color shall outnumber People Not of Color, isn’t the solution the diversity, multiculturalism, We Are the World nonsense they’ve been indoctrinating white people in for generations? Why wouldn’t browns, blacks, and so forth abide by it as we did, mostly, instead of turning on us and extracting revenge? Or was that just for us, and meanwhile every other group was free to indulge in old time racism? We fell for it. Our anti-racism shield is a cannon pointed at our heads.
I’m descended from other groups that have faced oppression. I absolutely refuse to care any more about the history of racism, to give any credence to my imagined “white privilege”, etc. I never got a single year of affirmative action; they’ve had over 50, which is about 35 more than was ever envisioned when the policy was made official in 1964. For every argument those hustlers make there’s an equally good or better counterargument, and if you’ve been paying attention, you know enough of them already.
I am entitled not to give a flying you know what. If they can’t compete, then others win and they lose. That’s how it is for me in this life and for them too. No more breaks.
“Jim Crow was all too real.”
Most of Steve’s readers would favor bringing back Jim Crow, but how would that even be implemented in 2016 if they had it their way? Especially since Jim Crow was tied to the one drop rule and most Latinos in The U.S are Triracial.
Unless they go by phenotype instead of the one drop rule. Geraldo Rivera can eat at an all White restaurant but his African featured Puerto Rican grandmother could not if she was still alive.
And where would people who are visibly Amerindian or Asian in appearance legally stand under a sequel to Jim Crow?
We knows 'em when we sees 'em, boy.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
Great! Then we can bring back those sorely missed traditions that prissy white bluenoses forced us to give up: unsorted trash, indoor smoking, cock- and dogfighting, beating up queers in the street…
“Right now Persons categorized as Negro constitute about 12% of the total population and this percentage is declining ”
It is 13 percent, not 12 percent. Also where is your evidence that the Black population in The U.S is declining?
The percentage of Black women over the age of 40 who are childless is not that high. But the percentage of White women over the age of 40 who are not mothers is quite high.
Consider these events Little Reichstag Fires.
They could be prosecuted as hate crimes. The hoaxes immediate intention is to stir up racial fear and anxiety among black people (Newspeak: "raise awareness"). Their long term goal is to convert that black fear and anxiety into rage and to focus that rage against white people. The reality is a bit more complex.
To use an archetypal example, when a cross is burned on a hilltop it (supposedly) sends waves of fear and panic through the hearts of black folks for miles around. That is why public cross burnings are not protected by the first amendment (Virginia v. Black, 01-1107). They (supposedly) have a supremely magical power to terrorize the American Negro.
The fact is that they don't have this power. Black folks aren't terrified by cross burnings, the letters "KKK", loops of string hanging from door knobs, or a white boy rapping "nigga" while listening to NWA. The ease with which these incidents are forgotten when exposed as "hoaxes" should make that obvious.
They are better understood as breaches of racial etiquette, like belching at the dinner table.
If I KNOW that you "know better" than to belch, I will "take offense" at your belching--you are deliberately insulting me at my table.
On the other hand, if you are Japanese (where belching is a proper thing) I will ignore your belching, or even take pleasure in it because you are complimenting my cooking in the approved Japanese fashion. The offense depends on the knowledge and intention.
But there are other black-on-black hoaxes that black folks will NOT forget. Consider this. I, a black man, rob a bank, wave a [squirt] gun in the black teller's face and saying "gimme your money!" Terrified, the teller hands over the money.
When I am arrested and charged with armed robbery, I attempt to get off by arguing that it was NOT armed robbery because the gun was a squirt gun. I did not intend to hurt her, nor did I have the ability to do so. Regardless, charges will not be dropped. I will go to prison for armed robbery. Nor will the teller ever "readjust" her perception of the incident and forget my "hoax".
We legally and culturally pretend that scrawling "KKK" has some uncontrollable visceral effect on the American Negro and therefore should be universally punished, just like the "hoax" armed robbery.
Yet when the KKK incident is determined to be a "hoax", we treat it like a mistaken breach of racial etiquette: we immediately forget it. To use my example above, "I guess I should not take offense: he was Japanese."
The ease with which blacks forget "hoax" KKKs and do not forget "hoax" armed robberies should indicate that they really are not bothered by the "hoax" KKK itself. As long as they think a white person did it, they cry that they were terrified. But once discovered that a black person did it they immediately "readjust" their perception of the incident.Replies: @Marty, @Harry Baldwin
Good post, except for the legal argument. In 1992, a criminal statute addressing cross burnings was held to be facially invalid under the FA. R.A.V. v. St. Paul.
The most shocking to me about all this is there actually IS a Salisbury University. Who knew? I notice also the “notable” alumni are not really notable at all.
This is the death of liberalism, but then, it died some time ago.
Liberalism used to be associated mainly with reason.
Being liberal meant being rational.
To be rational, one has to be in control of oneself.
One must restrain one’s animal impulses and radical inclinations.
Animal impulses are driven by lust, rage, greed, hate, gluttony, etc.
Radical inclinations seek dogma and righteousness over truth and logic.
But to be liberal also came to mean ‘being liberated from social restraints and surrendering to pleasure’. But what happens to reason(that relies on the control of logic and evidence) when one’s life revolves around surrendering to animal impulses that favor gluttony, lust, indulgence, excess, and etc?
To be liberal also came to mean being ‘committed’ to crucial social causes because any trepidation, skepticism, or hesitation mean you were aiding and abetting an ‘evil’ like ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’,’xenophobia’. Radical inclinations are like sublimated animal passions or secularized religious feelings. This was another knock on reason. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
To be liberal also developed the fetish of being ‘creative’, ‘subversive’, and deliciously ‘decadent’. I guess affluent liberals just couldn’t resist the charm of bohemian transgression with all its color and poses.
Since Negroes dominate animal passion in rap and sports, liberalism became worship of blacks.
Since Jews dominate radical intellectualism, liberalism became worship of Jews.
Since homos dominate decadence, liberalism became worship of homos.
Once upon a time, when Anglos dominated liberalism, it meant that reason should be the school master over animal impulses, radical inclinations, and decadent delights.
But now, reason is at best a cynical lawyer or consiglieri to the celebrities of animalism, radicalism, and decadentism, all of which party together, especially in homo ‘pride’ parades that, in any rational order, should be called shameful indulgences. Reason is no longer the power that guides other forces. It is the agent that serves the other forces.
But the main force it serves is, ironically, the Tribalism of the most powerful group in the world. A tribalism that is masked by cults of pleasure, correctness, and decadence.
As Hillary tells us, we need to be 100% behind Israel cuz…. it puts on big ‘Pride’ parades. Never mind the Pallies.
In math, 47% of Asian students performed at or above proficiency. So did 32% of white students, 12% of Hispanic students and
7% of black students.
Using this Gaussian distribution calculator to get those percentages, 32% of white students are IQ > 107, so, changing the mean to get those percentages gives:
Asian : avg IQ=106
white : IQ 100,
Hispan[s]ic: IQ 89.5
Black: IQ 85.
Do those number look familiar?Replies: @Jack D
Most social science results are not reproducible but IQ estimates for the races have been solid for 100 years, ever since IQ testing began. These #’s are as close to a physical constant as any number you will ever see in social science. But the gap will be closed any day now, just as soon as we fork over a few more billion to the schools. Any day now.
yes i see – already judged, so hate hoaxes are simply an accelerate to the conclusion
They could be prosecuted as hate crimes. The hoaxes immediate intention is to stir up racial fear and anxiety among black people (Newspeak: "raise awareness"). Their long term goal is to convert that black fear and anxiety into rage and to focus that rage against white people. The reality is a bit more complex.
To use an archetypal example, when a cross is burned on a hilltop it (supposedly) sends waves of fear and panic through the hearts of black folks for miles around. That is why public cross burnings are not protected by the first amendment (Virginia v. Black, 01-1107). They (supposedly) have a supremely magical power to terrorize the American Negro.
The fact is that they don't have this power. Black folks aren't terrified by cross burnings, the letters "KKK", loops of string hanging from door knobs, or a white boy rapping "nigga" while listening to NWA. The ease with which these incidents are forgotten when exposed as "hoaxes" should make that obvious.
They are better understood as breaches of racial etiquette, like belching at the dinner table.
If I KNOW that you "know better" than to belch, I will "take offense" at your belching--you are deliberately insulting me at my table.
On the other hand, if you are Japanese (where belching is a proper thing) I will ignore your belching, or even take pleasure in it because you are complimenting my cooking in the approved Japanese fashion. The offense depends on the knowledge and intention.
But there are other black-on-black hoaxes that black folks will NOT forget. Consider this. I, a black man, rob a bank, wave a [squirt] gun in the black teller's face and saying "gimme your money!" Terrified, the teller hands over the money.
When I am arrested and charged with armed robbery, I attempt to get off by arguing that it was NOT armed robbery because the gun was a squirt gun. I did not intend to hurt her, nor did I have the ability to do so. Regardless, charges will not be dropped. I will go to prison for armed robbery. Nor will the teller ever "readjust" her perception of the incident and forget my "hoax".
We legally and culturally pretend that scrawling "KKK" has some uncontrollable visceral effect on the American Negro and therefore should be universally punished, just like the "hoax" armed robbery.
Yet when the KKK incident is determined to be a "hoax", we treat it like a mistaken breach of racial etiquette: we immediately forget it. To use my example above, "I guess I should not take offense: he was Japanese."
The ease with which blacks forget "hoax" KKKs and do not forget "hoax" armed robberies should indicate that they really are not bothered by the "hoax" KKK itself. As long as they think a white person did it, they cry that they were terrified. But once discovered that a black person did it they immediately "readjust" their perception of the incident.Replies: @Marty, @Harry Baldwin
Excellent analysis!
So, in other words, Negroes were disproportionately responsible for hate crimes. This seems like a good argument for cracking down on this group of perps a little bit harder,
I like the name “hate fraud” better. A hoax is just a trick, a prank. But a fraud is a lie told in order to gain something. And in American law, you do not need privity to suffer damages from a fraud. Anyone can suffer damages, not just the intended victim. And the people perpetrating these lies are most assuredly trying to gain from them. And we all are victims. Is it too late to vote for “hate fraud” (which admittedly does not have the benefit of the two h initial letters).
Actually, real numbers matter most. The majority of hate crime offenders are white. Now, I’m not a fan of this legal designation; regardless, its a fact that more whites than black commit them. However, ALL should be equally prosecuted. Your simplistic notion to focus on one group than another group is diabolically idiotic.
Is that a fact? Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don't bother looking for motive? Reading people's minds is tough work. Easier to go with what groups you assume going into it have a higher propensity for "hate."Replies: @Brutusale
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
You know about six months ago we used to have competent trolls. But now we have idiots like you.
“its a fact that more whites than black commit them”
Is that a fact? Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive? Reading people’s minds is tough work. Easier to go with what groups you assume going into it have a higher propensity for “hate.”
Please explain the logic to us.Replies: @Corvinus
These things are weapons of mass destruction.Replies: @artichoke, @ben tillman
Michigan fans have already been at it:
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
“By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .”
Who are you trying to kid? “People of Color” won’t be running things in 20 years. Running things into the ground, maybe, but not running things. They won’t because they can’t. They can’t even run Detroit.
“Is that a fact?”
Clearly, as the numbers indicate.
“Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?”
With high black incarceration rates, the police absolutely have also looked for a motive in “hate crimes”.
If you would like evidence to the contrary, I think http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ provides a good start.Replies: @Corvinus
Is this what they do when the supposed perps are white? I’m just trying to remember.
Also, what’s up with the bizarre verb in the headline?
“Connected” to each other? Or is it just to avoid writing “implicated”?
Clearly, as the numbers indicate.
"Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?"
With high black incarceration rates, the police absolutely have also looked for a motive in "hate crimes".Replies: @res, @guest
Evidence? One reason I accuse you of projection is your posts frequently show the same deficiencies you call out in others.
If you would like evidence to the contrary, I think http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ provides a good start.
"Evidence? One reason I accuse you of projection is your posts frequently show the same deficiencies you call out in others."
What deficiency? Please read more carefully next time. I stated "I'm not a fan of this legal designation". Moreover, if you take umbrage with the statistic I listed (5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013), I suggest you offer what specifically is the issue.
"If you would like evidence to the contrary, I think http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ provides a good start."
You weren't paying attention. I responded to this comment “Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?” by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison. Your source only solidifies my contention. That is, minorities who claim hate crimes occur will find themselves in jail for lying, as the police will properly vet the situation. Thanks for your help.Replies: @res
Wow, that was fast.
If you would like evidence to the contrary, I think http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ provides a good start.Replies: @Corvinus
Now, I’m not a fan of this legal designation; regardless, its a fact that more whites than black commit them
“Evidence? One reason I accuse you of projection is your posts frequently show the same deficiencies you call out in others.”
What deficiency? Please read more carefully next time. I stated “I’m not a fan of this legal designation”. Moreover, if you take umbrage with the statistic I listed (5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013), I suggest you offer what specifically is the issue.
“If you would like evidence to the contrary, I think http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ provides a good start.”
You weren’t paying attention. I responded to this comment “Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?” by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison. Your source only solidifies my contention. That is, minorities who claim hate crimes occur will find themselves in jail for lying, as the police will properly vet the situation. Thanks for your help.
1. Frequently making demands for evidence and calling out posters who do not comply.
2. Seldom providing evidence for your own assertions (e.g. a statement like "5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013" would be much more credible with a supporting link).
There are other criticisms involving style of argument and rigor in making points, but let's start with the more concrete complaint.There are currently 222 incidents listed on that page. There are certainly a number which involve arrest. What would you estimate that proportion to be? How many were prosecuted as hate crimes? The latter is the key point. The assertion is not that motive is never looked for or that blacks are never arrested for crimes against whites. The assertion is that a racial motive leading to a hate crime designation is imputed much less often in one direction than the other--regardless of evidence like the use of racial epithets or offensive stereotypes or hot buttons (e.g. lynching references). Another assertion is that the media are much more diligent reporting on inter-racial hate crimes in one direction than the other.
I think that makes clear how fallacious the reasoning behind "by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison." is. Being in prison is not the same as being in prison for a designated hate crime.
As for "as the police will properly vet the situation", I think iSteve supplies enough counterexamples (e.g. Harvard and the Royall Asses: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-crisis-on-campus/ ) to show how laughable that claim is.
I am sincerely curious about whether you actually believe the world view you argue for in these comments or whether you are simply being a devil's advocate.Replies: @Corvinus
Most of Steve's readers would favor bringing back Jim Crow, but how would that even be implemented in 2016 if they had it their way? Especially since Jim Crow was tied to the one drop rule and most Latinos in The U.S are Triracial.
Unless they go by phenotype instead of the one drop rule. Geraldo Rivera can eat at an all White restaurant but his African featured Puerto Rican grandmother could not if she was still alive.
And where would people who are visibly Amerindian or Asian in appearance legally stand under a sequel to Jim Crow?Replies: @Ozymandias
“Most of Steve’s readers would favor bringing back Jim Crow, but how would that even be implemented in 2016 if they had it their way? ”
We knows ’em when we sees ’em, boy.
"Evidence? One reason I accuse you of projection is your posts frequently show the same deficiencies you call out in others."
What deficiency? Please read more carefully next time. I stated "I'm not a fan of this legal designation". Moreover, if you take umbrage with the statistic I listed (5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013), I suggest you offer what specifically is the issue.
"If you would like evidence to the contrary, I think http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ provides a good start."
You weren't paying attention. I responded to this comment “Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?” by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison. Your source only solidifies my contention. That is, minorities who claim hate crimes occur will find themselves in jail for lying, as the police will properly vet the situation. Thanks for your help.Replies: @res
You are quite consistent with:
1. Frequently making demands for evidence and calling out posters who do not comply.
2. Seldom providing evidence for your own assertions (e.g. a statement like “5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013” would be much more credible with a supporting link).
There are other criticisms involving style of argument and rigor in making points, but let’s start with the more concrete complaint.
There are currently 222 incidents listed on that page. There are certainly a number which involve arrest. What would you estimate that proportion to be? How many were prosecuted as hate crimes? The latter is the key point. The assertion is not that motive is never looked for or that blacks are never arrested for crimes against whites. The assertion is that a racial motive leading to a hate crime designation is imputed much less often in one direction than the other–regardless of evidence like the use of racial epithets or offensive stereotypes or hot buttons (e.g. lynching references). Another assertion is that the media are much more diligent reporting on inter-racial hate crimes in one direction than the other.
I think that makes clear how fallacious the reasoning behind “by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison.” is. Being in prison is not the same as being in prison for a designated hate crime.
As for “as the police will properly vet the situation”, I think iSteve supplies enough counterexamples (e.g. Harvard and the Royall Asses: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-crisis-on-campus/ ) to show how laughable that claim is.
I am sincerely curious about whether you actually believe the world view you argue for in these comments or whether you are simply being a devil’s advocate.
1. Frequently making demands for evidence and calling out posters who do not comply.
2. Seldom providing evidence for your own assertions (e.g. a statement like “5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013″ would be much more credible with a supporting link).”Regarding #1, you're correct. Several posters here make general statements without the requisite data.Regarding #2, you be inaccurate. I am quite aware of the standards I demand from posters, and do my due diligence to meet those standards. I offered evidence, but no link. If you look at my posts carefully, I normally provide links when appropriate.“There are currently 222 incidents listed on that page. There are certainly a number which involve arrest. What would you estimate that proportion to be?”Do you have the actual answer to this question? Because asking for a proportion without knowing exactly the circumstances for each case is like finding a needle in a haystack. You are asking me to make a guess when there are a myriad of factors involved. So, I really don’t know. I would surmise that if these incidents are hoaxes, there would be an investigation, and based on the merits of the case, charges would filed. In perusing the first page of the link you provided, I noticed several charges (with punishment meted) were issued for those who falsified accounts of hate crimes.“How many were prosecuted as hate crimes? The latter is the key point. The assertion is not that motive is never looked for or that blacks are never arrested for crimes against whites.”Probably few, since the legal definition of hate crime is a "traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. The FBI has defined 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. Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overviewSo, if people want hate hoaxes to be considered a hate crime, I would suggest that they contact members of Congress and work toward including that in the legal definition. D.A.'s are not going to charge people who committed hate hoaxes with a hate crime if hate hoaxes fail to meet the specified criteria.Again, the assertion I directly responded to “Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?” I provided a specific fact that indicates police do indeed look for a motive because a large percentage of those charged for hate crimes are non-white.“The assertion is that a racial motive leading to a hate crime designation is imputed much less often in one direction than the other–regardless of evidence like the use of racial epithets or offensive stereotypes or hot buttons (e.g. lynching references).” Had this assertion been made, I would have addressed it specifically. Ask D.A.'s why there are more white people charged than non-whites. I would imagine that they have discretion under their authority based on the circumstances involved to add this charge. Not a fan of this designation, for to me it is broad.“Another assertion is that the media are much more diligent reporting on inter-racial hate crimes in one direction than the other.Yes, Jews in particular feel this way.https://www.aei.org/publication/interesting-facts-of-the-day-on-us-hate-crimes-in-2014/“I think that makes clear how fallacious the reasoning behind “by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison.” is. Being in prison is not the same as being in prison for a designated hate crime.”People on this fine blog make comments all the time regarding the likelihood of blacks being engaged in criminal activity. A “hate crime” is a crime, even though I disagree with its premise and execution. A reasonable person is able to surmise that because blacks are associated with crime, and a hate crime has been committed, and blacks allegedly lack the ability to be forthright, it would lead police to properly vet the situation, with outcome resulting in charges being filed against the alleged perpetrator or victim.“As for “as the police will properly vet the situation”, I think iSteve supplies enough counterexamples (e.g. Harvard and the Royall Asses: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-crisis-on-campus/ ) to show how laughable that claim is.”The link merely shows a group of students protesting. Not really sure what is your point. Are you saying that this group ought to be prosecuted for a hate crime?“I am sincerely curious about whether you actually believe the world view you argue for in these comments or whether you are simply being a devil’s advocate.”What world view do you assume I am taking, considering I stated before that I am not a fan of this legal definition of “hate crimes”?Replies: @res
Clearly, as the numbers indicate.
"Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?"
With high black incarceration rates, the police absolutely have also looked for a motive in "hate crimes".Replies: @res, @guest
“With high black incarceration rates, the police absolutely have also looked for a motive in ‘hate crimes.’”
That doesn’t follow. Just because a lot of black people are in prison doesn’t mean the police pursued evidence of hateful motive with the same diligence as with other groups. I know for a fact, for instance,that the justice department gives non-white hate criminals lower priority. The attorney general told me so.
If there were nearly 6000 reported cases of hate crimes in 2014, and 34% were non-white, it would appear that the police pursued those instances with vim and vigor.
"I know for a fact, for instance,that the justice department gives non-white hate criminals lower priority. The attorney general told me so."
Which attorney general?
Is that a fact? Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don't bother looking for motive? Reading people's minds is tough work. Easier to go with what groups you assume going into it have a higher propensity for "hate."Replies: @Brutusale
Well, corvine? We live in a country where an anonymous noose is a hate crime but a gang of blacks kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering a white couple isn’t.
Please explain the logic to us.
Historical significance and context.
"but a gang of blacks kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering a white couple isn’t."
Fair point. I suggest you contact your local D.A. to address your concern. Allen West points out this hypocrisy. Can't say I disagree.
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/wasnt-classified-hate-crimeReplies: @Brutusale
1. Frequently making demands for evidence and calling out posters who do not comply.
2. Seldom providing evidence for your own assertions (e.g. a statement like "5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013" would be much more credible with a supporting link).
There are other criticisms involving style of argument and rigor in making points, but let's start with the more concrete complaint.There are currently 222 incidents listed on that page. There are certainly a number which involve arrest. What would you estimate that proportion to be? How many were prosecuted as hate crimes? The latter is the key point. The assertion is not that motive is never looked for or that blacks are never arrested for crimes against whites. The assertion is that a racial motive leading to a hate crime designation is imputed much less often in one direction than the other--regardless of evidence like the use of racial epithets or offensive stereotypes or hot buttons (e.g. lynching references). Another assertion is that the media are much more diligent reporting on inter-racial hate crimes in one direction than the other.
I think that makes clear how fallacious the reasoning behind "by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison." is. Being in prison is not the same as being in prison for a designated hate crime.
As for "as the police will properly vet the situation", I think iSteve supplies enough counterexamples (e.g. Harvard and the Royall Asses: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-crisis-on-campus/ ) to show how laughable that claim is.
I am sincerely curious about whether you actually believe the world view you argue for in these comments or whether you are simply being a devil's advocate.Replies: @Corvinus
“You are quite consistent with:
1. Frequently making demands for evidence and calling out posters who do not comply.
2. Seldom providing evidence for your own assertions (e.g. a statement like “5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013″ would be much more credible with a supporting link).”
Regarding #1, you’re correct. Several posters here make general statements without the requisite data.
Regarding #2, you be inaccurate. I am quite aware of the standards I demand from posters, and do my due diligence to meet those standards. I offered evidence, but no link. If you look at my posts carefully, I normally provide links when appropriate.
“There are currently 222 incidents listed on that page. There are certainly a number which involve arrest. What would you estimate that proportion to be?”
Do you have the actual answer to this question? Because asking for a proportion without knowing exactly the circumstances for each case is like finding a needle in a haystack. You are asking me to make a guess when there are a myriad of factors involved. So, I really don’t know. I would surmise that if these incidents are hoaxes, there would be an investigation, and based on the merits of the case, charges would filed. In perusing the first page of the link you provided, I noticed several charges (with punishment meted) were issued for those who falsified accounts of hate crimes.
“How many were prosecuted as hate crimes? The latter is the key point. The assertion is not that motive is never looked for or that blacks are never arrested for crimes against whites.”
Probably few, since the legal definition of hate crime is a “traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. The FBI has defined 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. Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
So, if people want hate hoaxes to be considered a hate crime, I would suggest that they contact members of Congress and work toward including that in the legal definition. D.A.’s are not going to charge people who committed hate hoaxes with a hate crime if hate hoaxes fail to meet the specified criteria.
Again, the assertion I directly responded to “Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?” I provided a specific fact that indicates police do indeed look for a motive because a large percentage of those charged for hate crimes are non-white.
“The assertion is that a racial motive leading to a hate crime designation is imputed much less often in one direction than the other–regardless of evidence like the use of racial epithets or offensive stereotypes or hot buttons (e.g. lynching references).”
Had this assertion been made, I would have addressed it specifically. Ask D.A.’s why there are more white people charged than non-whites. I would imagine that they have discretion under their authority based on the circumstances involved to add this charge. Not a fan of this designation, for to me it is broad.
“Another assertion is that the media are much more diligent reporting on inter-racial hate crimes in one direction than the other.
Yes, Jews in particular feel this way.
https://www.aei.org/publication/interesting-facts-of-the-day-on-us-hate-crimes-in-2014/
“I think that makes clear how fallacious the reasoning behind “by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison.” is. Being in prison is not the same as being in prison for a designated hate crime.”
People on this fine blog make comments all the time regarding the likelihood of blacks being engaged in criminal activity. A “hate crime” is a crime, even though I disagree with its premise and execution. A reasonable person is able to surmise that because blacks are associated with crime, and a hate crime has been committed, and blacks allegedly lack the ability to be forthright, it would lead police to properly vet the situation, with outcome resulting in charges being filed against the alleged perpetrator or victim.
“As for “as the police will properly vet the situation”, I think iSteve supplies enough counterexamples (e.g. Harvard and the Royall Asses: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-crisis-on-campus/ ) to show how laughable that claim is.”
The link merely shows a group of students protesting. Not really sure what is your point. Are you saying that this group ought to be prosecuted for a hate crime?
“I am sincerely curious about whether you actually believe the world view you argue for in these comments or whether you are simply being a devil’s advocate.”
What world view do you assume I am taking, considering I stated before that I am not a fan of this legal definition of “hate crimes”?
And regarding this from another comment:That would be Eric Holder. For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOABBn5Tnm0
Or Google "eric holder hate crime" for more.Replies: @Corvinus
“Just because a lot of black people are in prison doesn’t mean the police pursued evidence of hateful motive with the same diligence as with other groups.”
If there were nearly 6000 reported cases of hate crimes in 2014, and 34% were non-white, it would appear that the police pursued those instances with vim and vigor.
“I know for a fact, for instance,that the justice department gives non-white hate criminals lower priority. The attorney general told me so.”
Which attorney general?
Please explain the logic to us.Replies: @Corvinus
“Well, corvine? We live in a country where an anonymous noose is a hate crime…”
Historical significance and context.
“but a gang of blacks kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering a white couple isn’t.”
Fair point. I suggest you contact your local D.A. to address your concern. Allen West points out this hypocrisy. Can’t say I disagree.
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/wasnt-classified-hate-crime
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/us/austin-peay-state-rainbow-nooses.html
Who decides what historical context a noose has? To me, nooses mean the old Wild West, but I'm just and old reactionary racist.Replies: @Corvinus
“university would not provide names of the students”
had this not been a hoax, had the students been white, they would have been expelled and their names would be headlines.
that’s their privilege.
By the way, People of Color will soon be a majority and will remember the shabby treatment and snide comments. You guys better start treating them with respect since they will be running things in. 20 years .Replies: @JSM, @Yak-15, @gcochran, @Alfa158, @Forbes, @Marty, @TWS, @Jus' Sayin'..., @guest, @Reg Cæsar, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Kylie, @interesting
LOL, i get the joke!!!
1. Frequently making demands for evidence and calling out posters who do not comply.
2. Seldom providing evidence for your own assertions (e.g. a statement like “5,814 known offenders for hate crimes in 2013″ would be much more credible with a supporting link).”Regarding #1, you're correct. Several posters here make general statements without the requisite data.Regarding #2, you be inaccurate. I am quite aware of the standards I demand from posters, and do my due diligence to meet those standards. I offered evidence, but no link. If you look at my posts carefully, I normally provide links when appropriate.“There are currently 222 incidents listed on that page. There are certainly a number which involve arrest. What would you estimate that proportion to be?”Do you have the actual answer to this question? Because asking for a proportion without knowing exactly the circumstances for each case is like finding a needle in a haystack. You are asking me to make a guess when there are a myriad of factors involved. So, I really don’t know. I would surmise that if these incidents are hoaxes, there would be an investigation, and based on the merits of the case, charges would filed. In perusing the first page of the link you provided, I noticed several charges (with punishment meted) were issued for those who falsified accounts of hate crimes.“How many were prosecuted as hate crimes? The latter is the key point. The assertion is not that motive is never looked for or that blacks are never arrested for crimes against whites.”Probably few, since the legal definition of hate crime is a "traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. The FBI has defined 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. Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overviewSo, if people want hate hoaxes to be considered a hate crime, I would suggest that they contact members of Congress and work toward including that in the legal definition. D.A.'s are not going to charge people who committed hate hoaxes with a hate crime if hate hoaxes fail to meet the specified criteria.Again, the assertion I directly responded to “Or is it that when a black person harms a white, brown, yellow, whatever person, for instance, police don’t bother looking for motive?” I provided a specific fact that indicates police do indeed look for a motive because a large percentage of those charged for hate crimes are non-white.“The assertion is that a racial motive leading to a hate crime designation is imputed much less often in one direction than the other–regardless of evidence like the use of racial epithets or offensive stereotypes or hot buttons (e.g. lynching references).” Had this assertion been made, I would have addressed it specifically. Ask D.A.'s why there are more white people charged than non-whites. I would imagine that they have discretion under their authority based on the circumstances involved to add this charge. Not a fan of this designation, for to me it is broad.“Another assertion is that the media are much more diligent reporting on inter-racial hate crimes in one direction than the other.Yes, Jews in particular feel this way.https://www.aei.org/publication/interesting-facts-of-the-day-on-us-hate-crimes-in-2014/“I think that makes clear how fallacious the reasoning behind “by stating that the police do indeed investigate these matters closely, because black people have higher rates of being in prison.” is. Being in prison is not the same as being in prison for a designated hate crime.”People on this fine blog make comments all the time regarding the likelihood of blacks being engaged in criminal activity. A “hate crime” is a crime, even though I disagree with its premise and execution. A reasonable person is able to surmise that because blacks are associated with crime, and a hate crime has been committed, and blacks allegedly lack the ability to be forthright, it would lead police to properly vet the situation, with outcome resulting in charges being filed against the alleged perpetrator or victim.“As for “as the police will properly vet the situation”, I think iSteve supplies enough counterexamples (e.g. Harvard and the Royall Asses: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-crisis-on-campus/ ) to show how laughable that claim is.”The link merely shows a group of students protesting. Not really sure what is your point. Are you saying that this group ought to be prosecuted for a hate crime?“I am sincerely curious about whether you actually believe the world view you argue for in these comments or whether you are simply being a devil’s advocate.”What world view do you assume I am taking, considering I stated before that I am not a fan of this legal definition of “hate crimes”?Replies: @res
Well, I’m not going to go back through all the iSteve threads to check statistics (or attempt to define “normally” rigorously), but I will note that the only links you provided in comments under this post were after I criticized the lack of them. Thanks for being so good about including supporting links after that! Hopefully you will continue to do so.
But there often is a traditional offense (usually vandalism or making a threat) applicable. Or at least it seems applicable when the narrative runs in the “correct” direction (like the Harvard case).
The point I am making is that an initially aggressive response by the authorities for pursuing that incident as a hate crime came to a screeching halt once it became apparent it was probably a hoax. As for what I think–I think false accusers should be subject to the same penalties that would apply to the accused if the accusation was true (for hate frauds, false rape accusations, etc.).
See Harvard case above. That was why I gave it as an example. Also, FWIW, I believe observing is superior to surmising. Hence the example.
Well, you only added that last part after I asked my question. The world view which I believe was implicit in your earlier comments was that hate crime accusations were pursued with equal vigor for black on white hate crimes (or hoaxes) as they are for white on black hate crimes. Do you believe that to be true? If so, how do you explain cases like the Allen West link you gave?
And regarding this from another comment:
That would be Eric Holder. For example, see
Or Google “eric holder hate crime” for more.
So, when you stated that I “seldom providing evidence for you own assertions”, you actually had no clue as to what accurately constituted my past actions. Was that surmising or an observation on your part?
“but I will note that the only links you provided in comments under this post were after I criticized the lack of them.”
I didn’t know you part of I-Steve’s link police. Is that a paid position or do you volunteer? I have cited sources in the past, but just for you, sweetie, I will make sure to include them when deemed necessary.
“Or at least it seems applicable when the narrative runs in the “correct” direction (like the Harvard case).”
Is this an observation, or are you surmising? Pressure was placed to investigate the matter as a hate crime. The investigation closed with no suspects in place. There is speculation that this incident is a racial fraud. With heightened tensions caused by the Coalition of the Right fringe groups and the Coalition of the Left fringe groups, there is indeed a narrative as to what constitutes the “correct” direction in racial matters.
“As for what I think–I think false accusers should be subject to the same penalties that would apply to the accused if the accusation was true (for hate frauds, false rape accusations, etc.).”
Not unless the law stipulates. Call your representatives.
“The point I am making is that an initially aggressive response by the authorities for pursuing that incident as a hate crime came to a screeching halt once it became apparent it was probably a hoax.”
Apparently and probably, unfortunately, doesn’t warrant further investigation by the Harvard University police department. One never wants a serious crisis to go to waste. Ginning up controversy where none exists is the m.o. of the Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left.
“Also, FWIW, I believe observing is superior to surmising. Hence the example.”
A first observation leads one to surmise something, with that surmise requiring to be confirmed by subsequent observations.
“The world view which I believe was implicit in your earlier comments was that hate crime accusations were pursued with equal vigor for black on white hate crimes (or hoaxes) as they are for white on black hate crimes.”
Here is my comment--If there were nearly 6000 reported cases of hate crimes in 2014, and 34% were non-white, it would appear that the police pursued those instances with vim and vigor.
Appear is the operative word here. Those instances directly refer to the non-white cases. The police are going to investigate crimes, and the D.A. will determine, right or wrong, if the case warrants a hate crime tag. It's under their purview.
“That would be Eric Holder.”
Guest was not specific. According to your own standard, he ought to have included a link, rather than merely state “the attorney general told me so”, given that there are state attorney generals. He was vague. I thought you sought clarity.Replies: @res
Historical significance and context.
"but a gang of blacks kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering a white couple isn’t."
Fair point. I suggest you contact your local D.A. to address your concern. Allen West points out this hypocrisy. Can't say I disagree.
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/wasnt-classified-hate-crimeReplies: @Brutusale
Well, I guess various art students need a course in historical significance and context.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/us/austin-peay-state-rainbow-nooses.html
Who decides what historical context a noose has? To me, nooses mean the old Wild West, but I’m just and old reactionary racist.
“Who decides what historical context a noose has? To me, nooses mean the old Wild West, but I’m just and old reactionary racist.” Law enforcement ultimately decides through a careful application of the law in relation to the circumstances surrounding a potential crime and the intention of the suspects. And, you’re right, nooses mean the old Wild West, where lynching would be a form of street justice, with lynching also being a distinct tool used by a number of southern whites. Gee, I wonder what for?Along a similar vein, have you put some thought into what constitutes “low-grade street battles”?Replies: @Brutusale
And regarding this from another comment:That would be Eric Holder. For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOABBn5Tnm0
Or Google "eric holder hate crime" for more.Replies: @Corvinus
“Well, I’m not going to go back through all the iSteve threads to check statistics (or attempt to define “normally” rigorously)…”
So, when you stated that I “seldom providing evidence for you own assertions”, you actually had no clue as to what accurately constituted my past actions. Was that surmising or an observation on your part?
“but I will note that the only links you provided in comments under this post were after I criticized the lack of them.”
I didn’t know you part of I-Steve’s link police. Is that a paid position or do you volunteer? I have cited sources in the past, but just for you, sweetie, I will make sure to include them when deemed necessary.
“Or at least it seems applicable when the narrative runs in the “correct” direction (like the Harvard case).”
Is this an observation, or are you surmising? Pressure was placed to investigate the matter as a hate crime. The investigation closed with no suspects in place. There is speculation that this incident is a racial fraud. With heightened tensions caused by the Coalition of the Right fringe groups and the Coalition of the Left fringe groups, there is indeed a narrative as to what constitutes the “correct” direction in racial matters.
“As for what I think–I think false accusers should be subject to the same penalties that would apply to the accused if the accusation was true (for hate frauds, false rape accusations, etc.).”
Not unless the law stipulates. Call your representatives.
“The point I am making is that an initially aggressive response by the authorities for pursuing that incident as a hate crime came to a screeching halt once it became apparent it was probably a hoax.”
Apparently and probably, unfortunately, doesn’t warrant further investigation by the Harvard University police department. One never wants a serious crisis to go to waste. Ginning up controversy where none exists is the m.o. of the Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left.
“Also, FWIW, I believe observing is superior to surmising. Hence the example.”
A first observation leads one to surmise something, with that surmise requiring to be confirmed by subsequent observations.
“The world view which I believe was implicit in your earlier comments was that hate crime accusations were pursued with equal vigor for black on white hate crimes (or hoaxes) as they are for white on black hate crimes.”
Here is my comment–If there were nearly 6000 reported cases of hate crimes in 2014, and 34% were non-white, it would appear that the police pursued those instances with vim and vigor.
Appear is the operative word here. Those instances directly refer to the non-white cases. The police are going to investigate crimes, and the D.A. will determine, right or wrong, if the case warrants a hate crime tag. It’s under their purview.
“That would be Eric Holder.”
Guest was not specific. According to your own standard, he ought to have included a link, rather than merely state “the attorney general told me so”, given that there are state attorney generals. He was vague. I thought you sought clarity.
That seems to be one of the primary "tools" in your toolbox.This is a new addition to your shtick. Am I bothering you?This is one of the most intelligent things I have read from you. Unfortunately, the case I referred to only included you surmising without observation (or at least no mention of observation).I agree with you which is why I supplied a link even though it was easy enough to find online with Google. Not sure how you see this conflicting with my desire for clarity since that was exactly what I supplied. And not even a thank you. I guess your question was less than sincere, but that's not exactly a surprise.
P.S. I think Guest was actually somewhat justified in assuming that anyone who reads iSteve regularly would recognize that it was Eric Holder, but I still think including a link helps.Replies: @Corvinus
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/us/austin-peay-state-rainbow-nooses.html
Who decides what historical context a noose has? To me, nooses mean the old Wild West, but I'm just and old reactionary racist.Replies: @Corvinus
“Well, I guess various art students need a course in historical significance and context.”
Yes.
“Who decides what historical context a noose has? To me, nooses mean the old Wild West, but I’m just and old reactionary racist.”
Law enforcement ultimately decides through a careful application of the law in relation to the circumstances surrounding a potential crime and the intention of the suspects. And, you’re right, nooses mean the old Wild West, where lynching would be a form of street justice, with lynching also being a distinct tool used by a number of southern whites. Gee, I wonder what for?
Along a similar vein, have you put some thought into what constitutes “low-grade street battles”?
Yet.
“Who decides what historical context a noose has? To me, nooses mean the old Wild West, but I’m just and old reactionary racist.” Law enforcement ultimately decides through a careful application of the law in relation to the circumstances surrounding a potential crime and the intention of the suspects. And, you’re right, nooses mean the old Wild West, where lynching would be a form of street justice, with lynching also being a distinct tool used by a number of southern whites. Gee, I wonder what for?Along a similar vein, have you put some thought into what constitutes “low-grade street battles”?Replies: @Brutusale
Where I live, no. Were I to move about 15 miles south to the Roxbury/Mattapan area, I’d be pretty familiar with the concept. No white people involved, though.
Yet.
So, when you stated that I “seldom providing evidence for you own assertions”, you actually had no clue as to what accurately constituted my past actions. Was that surmising or an observation on your part?
“but I will note that the only links you provided in comments under this post were after I criticized the lack of them.”
I didn’t know you part of I-Steve’s link police. Is that a paid position or do you volunteer? I have cited sources in the past, but just for you, sweetie, I will make sure to include them when deemed necessary.
“Or at least it seems applicable when the narrative runs in the “correct” direction (like the Harvard case).”
Is this an observation, or are you surmising? Pressure was placed to investigate the matter as a hate crime. The investigation closed with no suspects in place. There is speculation that this incident is a racial fraud. With heightened tensions caused by the Coalition of the Right fringe groups and the Coalition of the Left fringe groups, there is indeed a narrative as to what constitutes the “correct” direction in racial matters.
“As for what I think–I think false accusers should be subject to the same penalties that would apply to the accused if the accusation was true (for hate frauds, false rape accusations, etc.).”
Not unless the law stipulates. Call your representatives.
“The point I am making is that an initially aggressive response by the authorities for pursuing that incident as a hate crime came to a screeching halt once it became apparent it was probably a hoax.”
Apparently and probably, unfortunately, doesn’t warrant further investigation by the Harvard University police department. One never wants a serious crisis to go to waste. Ginning up controversy where none exists is the m.o. of the Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left.
“Also, FWIW, I believe observing is superior to surmising. Hence the example.”
A first observation leads one to surmise something, with that surmise requiring to be confirmed by subsequent observations.
“The world view which I believe was implicit in your earlier comments was that hate crime accusations were pursued with equal vigor for black on white hate crimes (or hoaxes) as they are for white on black hate crimes.”
Here is my comment--If there were nearly 6000 reported cases of hate crimes in 2014, and 34% were non-white, it would appear that the police pursued those instances with vim and vigor.
Appear is the operative word here. Those instances directly refer to the non-white cases. The police are going to investigate crimes, and the D.A. will determine, right or wrong, if the case warrants a hate crime tag. It's under their purview.
“That would be Eric Holder.”
Guest was not specific. According to your own standard, he ought to have included a link, rather than merely state “the attorney general told me so”, given that there are state attorney generals. He was vague. I thought you sought clarity.Replies: @res
That was based on my reading (far too) many of your comments here over a period of time. So observation (in particular, your frequent demands for evidence made me more sensitive to how seldom you provide evidence yourself). I stand by my assertion that you tend not to include links, but I welcome you (or anyone else) providing evidence either way. Are you really unable to tell the difference between having a clue and exact statistics? Or do you just love demonstrating the motte and bailey fallacy? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
That seems to be one of the primary “tools” in your toolbox.
This is a new addition to your shtick. Am I bothering you?
This is one of the most intelligent things I have read from you. Unfortunately, the case I referred to only included you surmising without observation (or at least no mention of observation).
I agree with you which is why I supplied a link even though it was easy enough to find online with Google. Not sure how you see this conflicting with my desire for clarity since that was exactly what I supplied. And not even a thank you. I guess your question was less than sincere, but that’s not exactly a surprise.
P.S. I think Guest was actually somewhat justified in assuming that anyone who reads iSteve regularly would recognize that it was Eric Holder, but I still think including a link helps.
If you are going to make that accusation, without offer evidence a particular instance, you are merely posturing and posing for effect.
“I stand by my assertion that you tend not to include links, but I welcome you (or anyone else) providing evidence either way.”
That’s easy. Click on my handle. There is a recorded history of my statements. When appropriate for the situation, I include links. There are occasions where links are not required, that through my own observations and studies I am able to articulate a position by incorporating that information I learned along the way. Should someone question those statements, and demand proof, then I will oblige.
“Are you really unable to tell the difference between having a clue and exact statistics? Or do you just love demonstrating the motte and bailey fallacy?
Anybody can search the web and find a rhetorical device that is allegedly used by someone. If you are going to make that reference, why don’t you come up with a specific example in which I employ “motte and bailey”?
“This is a new addition to your shtick. Am I bothering you?”
Yes, my safe space has been infiltrated by your presence. I am going to hug my teddy bear and rock myself to sleep, hoping that the world tomorrow will not be so cruel.
“This is one of the most intelligent things I have read from you.”
Then you haven’t been paying close attention, dear.
“And not even a thank you. I guess your question was less than sincere, but that’s not exactly a surprise.”
Just trying to follow your lead of online decorum. What you give is what you get.
That seems to be one of the primary "tools" in your toolbox.This is a new addition to your shtick. Am I bothering you?This is one of the most intelligent things I have read from you. Unfortunately, the case I referred to only included you surmising without observation (or at least no mention of observation).I agree with you which is why I supplied a link even though it was easy enough to find online with Google. Not sure how you see this conflicting with my desire for clarity since that was exactly what I supplied. And not even a thank you. I guess your question was less than sincere, but that's not exactly a surprise.
P.S. I think Guest was actually somewhat justified in assuming that anyone who reads iSteve regularly would recognize that it was Eric Holder, but I still think including a link helps.Replies: @Corvinus
“So observation (in particular, your frequent demands for evidence made me more sensitive to how seldom you provide evidence yourself)”.
If you are going to make that accusation, without offer evidence a particular instance, you are merely posturing and posing for effect.
“I stand by my assertion that you tend not to include links, but I welcome you (or anyone else) providing evidence either way.”
That’s easy. Click on my handle. There is a recorded history of my statements. When appropriate for the situation, I include links. There are occasions where links are not required, that through my own observations and studies I am able to articulate a position by incorporating that information I learned along the way. Should someone question those statements, and demand proof, then I will oblige.
“Are you really unable to tell the difference between having a clue and exact statistics? Or do you just love demonstrating the motte and bailey fallacy?
Anybody can search the web and find a rhetorical device that is allegedly used by someone. If you are going to make that reference, why don’t you come up with a specific example in which I employ “motte and bailey”?
“This is a new addition to your shtick. Am I bothering you?”
Yes, my safe space has been infiltrated by your presence. I am going to hug my teddy bear and rock myself to sleep, hoping that the world tomorrow will not be so cruel.
“This is one of the most intelligent things I have read from you.”
Then you haven’t been paying close attention, dear.
“And not even a thank you. I guess your question was less than sincere, but that’s not exactly a surprise.”
Just trying to follow your lead of online decorum. What you give is what you get.