The War on Whiteness

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I am engaging in honest conversation and you are making excuses for obviously racist laws. They didn’t throw blacks in jail with tougher sentences for them to help them, that’s ridiculous. 

 

Should the drug squads descend on Appalachia to punish, I mean help, the poor there deal with opioids? Through them all in jail. 

 

I know you never answer me but what do you think is the best way to reduce drug use in a community? 

[Rob's House]

49 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

But now you're changing your words.  You didn't say systemic racial discrimination.  You said:

 

That's because your choice of words was impossibly broad. But racial discrimination was outlawed during the 20th century.

 

I'm sure you'll claim it continued beyond that, but supporting evidence would be nice.

 

49 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Tell me, since you seem to believe that racial discrimination ended in the 20th century:  do you know when blacks were no longer attacked simply for being black during the 20th century?  Because being attacked based on the color of ones skin is a form of racial discrimination.  

 

As you can see from the above Tweet, blacks are still being attacked just for being black.  

 

By that definition whites are the primary victims of discrimination. Whites are many times more likely to be attacked by blacks than vice versa. For some reason we're supposed to accept it and pretend that our attackers are the victims.

 

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

32 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Why does every individual act have to be turned into some sweeping generalization of a group. There are bad people of all races who do bad things - you just watched a couple of them in that video. Why can we just not hold them accountable for what they did and not attribute their qualities to everyone else?

Because rugged individualism is a white culture thing, or something. 

[Capco]

8 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

By that definition whites are the primary victims of discrimination. Whites are many times more likely to be attacked by blacks than vice versa. For some reason we're supposed to accept it and pretend that our attackers are the victims.

 

 

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that you agree or disagree with the notion that attacking someone based on the color of their skin is NOT a form of racial discrimination?  

Edited July 15, 2020 by Capco
Edited for clarity

[billsfan1959]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I am engaging in honest conversation and you are making excuses for obviously racist laws. They didn’t throw blacks in jail with tougher sentences for them to help them, that’s ridiculous. 

 

Should the drug squads descend on Appalachia to punish, I mean help, the poor there deal with opioids? Through them all in jail. 

 

No, you are not engaing in honest conversation. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine were implemented precisely to help black communities. They were being destroyed by the addictions and violence associated with the use and sale of crack cocaine. It was believed, as is often the case, stricter punishment would be a deterrent. It wasn't and it sent a lot of young black men to prison for ridiculously long sentences. Fortunately, they repealed those guidelines. The end result doesn't make the initial intent racist, no matter how much you want it to.

 

Try reading a little history instead of looking for bogeymen lurking around every corner to justify your irrational fears and beliefs.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's because your choice of words was impossibly broad. But racial discrimination was outlawed during the 20th century.

 

I'm sure you'll claim it continued beyond that, but supporting evidence would be nice.

 

 

By that definition whites are the primary victims of discrimination. Whites are many times more likely to be attacked by blacks than vice versa. For some reason we're supposed to accept it and pretend that our attackers are the victims.

 

 

 

Don't you know stats are only relevant when they support accusations of racism against blacks?

[Capco]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

Don't you know stats are only relevant when they support accusations of racism against blacks?

 

None of that data says anything about motive for those crimes.  On its own it's meaningless.  But you already knew that I'm sure.  

[BuffaloHokie13]

9 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that you agree or disagree with the notion that attacking someone based on the color of their skin is NOT a form of racial discrimination?  

This seems to be the part that is lacking. There are plenty of examples of interracial violence, but providing facts that the base motive is racial is nearly non-existent. The truth is that every number on the chart Rob used has individual circumstances. Some are willing to look at them to determine what happened, others see interracial and stop looking. 

[Unforgiven]

Black privilege? Tibs should get a chuckle here...white AND pregnant yowsah

[billsfan1959]

6 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

If you were the Police Chief and 75% of all of the violent crime in your jurisdiction existed in a 10 block area, and most of that violent crime revolved around control of drugs:

 

1) How would you allocate your resources?

2) Would steps would you take to reduce the problem?

 

 

@Tiberius I see you conveniently neglected to answer this question. Please, this is your chance to tell us what you would do and how things should be done.

 

4 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

None of that data says anything about motive for those crimes.  On its own it's meaningless.  But you already knew that I'm sure.  

 

Well, a few posts back you attributed motives to a video you saw without knowing the facts - simply because the victim was black and an assailant was white.

 

And stats about blacks killed by police say nothing about motivations - and have no context to them. Yet, they are used to support claims of systemic racism in law enforcement.

 

What does that say?

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Capco]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This seems to be the part that is lacking. There are plenty of examples of interracial violence, but providing facts that the base motive is racial is nearly non-existent. The truth is that every number on the chart Rob used has individual circumstances. Some are willing to look at them to determine what happened, others see interracial and stop looking. 

 

Haha we both just posted about motives.  

 

But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)?  At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different.  

3 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

Well, a few posts back you attributed motives to a video you saw without knowing the facts - simply because the victim was black and an assailant was white.

 

What does that say?

 

I read the article about racial slurs being used during the attack. 

 

If I was on a jury and the prosecution was using that as part of the evidence to establish racially motivated intent, those racial slurs would have spoken volumes to me.  

[SoCal Deek]

I come back to this thread and see the same nonsense hour after hour. You’re all being played!!! Don’t give these Marxist losers one inch.

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

Haha we both just posted about motives.  

 

But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)?  At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different.  

 

Motive is not an element to most offenses because we are smart enough to know motives can be incredibly complex, and sometimes impossible to prove. It is my primary objection to hate crimes. There are laws on the books for those crimes, they are called murder, assault, etc. If you think motivation makes the crime worse deal with it in sentencing.

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Haha we both just posted about motives.  

 

But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)?  At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different.  

I do think motive can be established to a reasonable extent, and I absolutely think racial prejudices can be that motive. I also happen to think that many jump to that conclusion far more often than it actually happens, and well before it is anywhere close to established. Often times without any evidence of racial prejudice other than different skin tones.

[billsfan1959]

5 minutes ago, Capco said:

I read the article about racial slurs being used during the attack. 

 

If I was on a jury and the prosecution was using that as part of the evidence to establish racially motivated intent, those racial slurs would have spoken volumes to me.  

 

Right, you read the article and assumed the information was true. We have no idea because we are not privy to actual investigative findings at this point. If, in fact, it did occur, then it could be an aggravating factor in sentencing (rather than charged as a hate crime).

[B-Man]

 

[Capco]

8 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

If, in fact, it did occur, then it could be an aggravating factor in sentencing (rather than charged as a hate crime).

 

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course).  

 

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. 

 

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-was-significance-court-ruling-wisconsin-v-468966

Edited July 15, 2020 by Capco

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course).  

According to the chart posted earlier there were almost ONE MILLION crimes committed against WHITE people last year.....and we're going to go on and on for hours about the 60,000 white on black crimes?  Really? You are all being played!!!

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

According to the chart posted earlier there were almost ONE MILLION crimes committed against WHITE people last year.....and we're going to go on and on for hours about the 60,000 white on black crimes?  Really? You are all being played!!!

By the way....I'm guessing the vast majority of those crimes are domestic violence. 

[billsfan1959]

20 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I do think motive can be established to a reasonable extent, and I absolutely think racial prejudices can be that motive. I also happen to think that many jump to that conclusion far more often than it actually happens, and well before it is anywhere close to established. Often times without any evidence of racial prejudice other than different skin tones.

 

When we started creating hate crimes, we moved motive to the center of the crime, rather than the act itself. To me, motive is a sentencing issue. If a jury or a judge believes a certain motivation is worse than another motivation, then have sentencing enhancements and sentence the defendant appropriately. Creating hate crimes inherently draws distinctions between victims that shouldn't be there.

 

14 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course).  

 

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. 

 

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-was-significance-court-ruling-wisconsin-v-468966

 

Agree. I just posted something to this effect above. Aggravating factors already exist in certain crimes, I don't know why motive couldn't constitute an aggravating factor as well.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

No, you are not engaing in honest conversation. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine were implemented precisely to help black communities. They were being destroyed by the addictions and violence associated with the use and sale of crack cocaine. It was believed, as is often the case, stricter punishment would be a deterrent. It wasn't and it sent a lot of young black men to prison for ridiculously long sentences. Fortunately, they repealed those guidelines. The end result doesn't make the initial intent racist, no matter how much you want it to.

 

Try reading a little history instead of looking for bogeymen lurking around every corner to justify your irrational fears and beliefs.

 

 

 

Don't you know stats are only relevant when they support accusations of racism against blacks?

So we should send the police in to raid and punish the white communities being ravaged by opioids? 

 

I love how drug laws to punish blacks was there to help them, lol!of course you probably also think Trump didn’t do anything wrong with Ukraine, either. Punish blacks, it’s good for them, but let Trump try and shake down another country to win an election, that’s ok. 

 

 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Tiberius said:

So we should send the police in to raid and punish the white communities being ravaged by opioids? 

 

I love how drug laws to punish blacks was there to help them, lol!of course you probably also think Trump didn’t do anything wrong with Ukraine, either. Punish blacks, it’s good for them, but let Trump try and shake down another country to win an election, that’s ok. 

 

You're an idiot and delusional.