NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486


"Invoking the name “Martin Luther King” and screaming “Black Power!” a gang of up to 30 black teens attacked four white girls in Marine Park in what police are saying is not a bias crime.

The March 30 attack was a hot topic at state Senator Marty Golden’s recent public safety forum.

According to witnesses and parents of the victims, four young girls from St. Edmund’s had the day off from school due to Easter recess. They were playing basketball during dismissal from nearby Marine Park Junior High School, when several Marine Park students demanded to use the court.

After adults intervened and asked them to wait their turn, the teens left - but returned in a pack of up to 30, both boys and girls, and stormed into the park.

Witnesses say the attackers were all black and called their victims “white crackers” during the bloody melee, which raged for almost 20 minutes.

“This is not being looked at as a bias crime,” NYPD Deputy Inspector Kevin McGinn said at the meeting."



This I find extremely absurd. A perfect example of the racial double standard...

...Anybody who would do that to anyone, on ANY basis, should be shot in the face.

Don't even need to add in the racist issue.

...Anybody who would do that to anyone, on ANY basis, should be shot in the face.

Don't even need to add in the racist issue.


I didn't have to , but it is evident.

The idea of "hate crimes" in general is idiotic in my opinion, but this should certainly qualify as one. I'd like to hear the officer's logic in not declaring it as such. The LAPD is scared to death of being seen as anti-black these days, so they tend to favor political correctness over uniform justice. Hopefully the NYPD doesn't fall to that level.

Thirty men attacking four girls is just terrible. Anyone attacking anyone is pretty terrible. I hope that justice is served and this does not happen again. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486


"Invoking the name “Martin Luther King” and screaming “Black Power!” a gang of up to 30 black teens attacked four white girls in Marine Park in what police are saying is not a bias crime.

The March 30 attack was a hot topic at state Senator Marty Golden’s recent public safety forum.

According to witnesses and parents of the victims, four young girls from St. Edmund’s had the day off from school due to Easter recess. They were playing basketball during dismissal from nearby Marine Park Junior High School, when several Marine Park students demanded to use the court.

After adults intervened and asked them to wait their turn, the teens left - but returned in a pack of up to 30, both boys and girls, and stormed into the park.

Witnesses say the attackers were all black and called their victims “white crackers” during the bloody melee, which raged for almost 20 minutes.

“This is not being looked at as a bias crime,” NYPD Deputy Inspector Kevin McGinn said at the meeting."



This I find extremely absurd. A perfect example of the racial double standard...


Let me guess..your a "Nationalist"?

I prefer the term racially aware.

This is why I tell people not to buy houses in Brooklyn. I mean, not only are you cut off from the civilized world. (Westchester), unless you live in Brooklyn heights it takes an hour to get anywhere not brooklyn.

Plus, it always seems on the verge of a riot down there.

This is why I tell people not to buy houses in Brooklyn. I mean, not only are you cut off from the civilized world. (Westchester), unless you live in Brooklyn heights it takes an hour to get anywhere not brooklyn.

Plus, it always seems on the verge of a riot down there.

I wouldn't know, haven't been there, don't plan on going.

I wouldn't know, haven't been there, don't plan on going.

Don't bother. It's all either faux trendy "manhattan lite" or urban decay.

Of course it was different in the old days before Guliani, when the cops didn't enforce DWI laws. Then it was pretty funny to drive down to nathan's at coney island for hotdogs and frogs legs when the bars shut. Plus back then, Nathan's would sell beer round the clock.

I prefer the term racially aware.


I prefer the term, "Misguided".

I know i will probably get it for this, but what amazes me is a white can fight and not even shout crazy things like white power, and get a hate charge. What does a minority or a person of color have to do before it is labeled as a hate crime?

I know i will probably get it for this, but what amazes me is a white can fight and not even shout crazy things like white power, and get a hate charge. What does a minority or a person of color have to do before it is labeled as a hate crime?


Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?

I prefer the term, "Misguided".

you must be mistaking me as a person who wants to declare racial holy war on all other ethnicities, your wrong. I didn't know you were misguided because you have pride in your race...

you must be mistaking me as a person who wants to declare racial holy war on all other ethnicities, your wrong. I didn't know you were misguided because you have pride in your race...


No, misguided is posting a story like the one above, and attempting to portray that as an example for all of one ethnicity.

And I tried to portray that how? My only reason for posting was that I found it a good read, which isn't a bad reason to post, and to express my opinion on the idea that one race fighting another race and shouting white/ black etc. power should be a hate crime.

hmmm shit happens.

This kind of incidents took place in my home town when I was a teenager. Of course the attackers weren't black as I don't think there was a single black person living in that town. Groups of white kids beat smaller groups of white kids. Usually the kids in the bigger group were from poor families. Kids just do that. I know it's scary (especially with all those screams etc) and I hate the fact that it happens. But it's nothing new. I'm not shocked.

edit: I guess the point was that only whites commit hate crimes (police thinks so) . It sure looks like it.

http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486

*snip*

Do you have any other information?

Anything that suggests this is even vaguelly accurate?

Can anyone confirm the reliability of this source?

Confirm the details?

I find this source -- which appears pretty amateur -- and supremicist copies of it. That's it.

Hmmm it's not showing up in Google News. But then again it's 9 days old. Who knows. I can't be bothered to look that hard.

And I tried to portray that how?


Your prejudice is painfully apparent.

With the forst line of the story, you associate black people with having an unrealistic hatred for all whites, and follow that with the mention that all of the attackers were indeed black.

More over, using phrases like "Black Power" we automatically assume the image of racial violence towards white america.

This was the intent of this kind of post.

Its trolling.

You think your the first personj to come from Stormfront.com or where ever and post this kind of thing on these forums?

Hardly.

The new sublte approaches are greasy, but still easy to see.

If your truly sincere, and arent one of these types, I apologize, but these forums used to get so many White power chumps, that shredding thier pitiful arguements became sport.

I don't recall hatred in any first line of the story.

Meh, I think this was a basketball motivated crime. They just happened to throw a couple of 'white cracker' names at them because they happened to be white and why just punch someone when you can punch AND verbally insult them?

More over, using phrases like "Black Power" we automatically assume the image of racial violence towards white america.

Huh? I didn't automatically assume anything. If it's a true story, it's worth looking into, because hate crime laws, as stupid as they are, might as well at least be applied fairly.

OccidentiaPrima']Huh? I didn't automatically assume anything. If it's a true story, it's worth looking into, because hate crime laws, as stupid as they are, might as well at least be applied fairly.


It would be no different if the tables had been turned and they had shouted "White Power".

It evokes an image of hatred towards the opposite skin color.

OccidentiaPrima']Huh? I didn't automatically assume anything. If it's a true story, it's worth looking into, because hate crime laws, as stupid as they are, might as well at least be applied fairly.

Exactly my opinion.

It would be no different if the tables had been turned and they had shouted "White Power".

It evokes an image of hatred towards the opposite skin color.

It would be different, and if you don't believe me, do the research.

By the way, apology accepted.

It's an actual newspaper, though a tiny little local one. It's been around for at least several years. I have no idea what it is really like though. Bad I would assume, coming as it does from Brooklyn.

I'm calling shenanigans.

Shenanigans!

To begin with, the story is implausible.

I've tried numerous searches on Google and Google News using names and "facts" from the story.

Nothing turns up in Google News. Nothing.

Despite the fact the story claims this was a topic of a public meeting led by a state senator. No other media coverage? Nothing.

Nothing turns up in Google except this story and white supremicist cites.

No one has come forward with anything to support this story.

Shenanigans.

It would be different, and if you don't believe me, do the research.

By the way, apology accepted.


Your swaying from the point Im making.

There would be no difference in the message portrayed by the author of the former article, if the attackers had been white.

When you read that article it opens up with an image of 30 black people yelling "Black Power", and "Remember M.L.K", what kind of image do you think that portrays?

Also, I suspect this article was written for a white nationalist website, or paper.

How many times have you ever heard anyone running around yelling "Remember M.L.K", as if he were the Alamo, or something?

I digress....

Seriously though, even if your not one of these people, this is a pretty standard tactic by suggesting the "reverse racism" card, and implyng that white people are now the downtrodden ones.

Wearing sheets and burning crosses went out of style years ago with these people, now thier into sublte manipulations to the young people who may have existing racial prejudices they can exploit.

I'm unclear on the term "racially aware"...

I'm a chinese english german french filipino spaniard, in indeterminate ratios. Who's side am I supposed to be on?

Also, can I declare "not playing"? You know, like when we were kids, some kids would be playing "hot lava" where certain parts of the playground would make you "dead", but if you wanted to go on the slide anyway, you could say "Oh, I'm not playing".

Seriously, in any violent conflict, people will dehumanize the other side via whatever distincitions they've been culturally indoctrinated with. Black kids in a fight with white kids will yell cracker, Brit loyalists fighting Irish nationalists will shout "filthy bogtrotter". To say "racially aware" just implies that you think your fight is more meaningful and valid than anybody else's.

SinoAngloDeutchenFrancoFiliSpanians Uber Alles! Long live the eleven of us.

It's an actual newspaper, though a tiny little local one. It's been around for at least several years. I have no idea what it is really like though. Bad I would assume, coming as it does from Brooklyn.

Thanks. At least we know that.

lets be honest. People suck. black white asian indian they all suck equally because they are human.

[QUOTE=Saint Curie]To say "racially aware" just implies that you think your fight is more meaningful and valid than anybody else's.
[QUOTE]

No, when I say I am racially aware I am saying that I am aware of my race, ethnicity, whatever you want to call it, and its rises and falls. I'm not fighting anything.

edit:sry, couldn't get the quote thing to work.

lets be honest. People suck. black white asian indian they all suck equally because they are human.

Riiiiight. Somebody is just a tiny bit bitter.

lets be honest. People suck. black white asian indian they all suck equally because they are human.

Ha, you suck. ;)

On a related note, does anyone else agree with me that we should just get rid of the idea of hate crimes altogether?

OccidentiaPrima']On a related note, does anyone else agree with me that we should just get rid of the idea of hate crimes altogether?


Douchebaggery is just that, regardless of whos doing it.

I totally agree, that way, there would'nt be a deterant to the fact that this was a horrible crime.

Douchebaggery is just that, regardless of whos doing it.

Something we agree on! ;)

[QUOTE=Saint Curie]To say "racially aware" just implies that you think your fight is more meaningful and valid than anybody else's.
[QUOTE]

No, when I say I am racially aware I am saying that I am aware of my race, ethnicity, whatever you want to call it, and its rises and falls. I'm not fighting anything.

edit:sry, couldn't get the quote thing to work.

Racially aware? That's the lamest 'buzzword' I've heard for a while.

[QUOTE=Hammerskin Nation][QUOTE=Saint Curie]To say "racially aware" just implies that you think your fight is more meaningful and valid than anybody else's.


Racially aware? That's the lamest 'buzzword' I've heard for a while.

Buzzword, unfamiliar with the term...

Ah here we go again. The media is making an Example of an incident involving black folk. Gangs attack each other all the time-Most of them WHITE.

This is just another example of a Biased media trying to demonise the black community-to stir up hatred, like it has done for the past 100 years.

You notice that almost every news show features a black guy shooting somone? This happens in the white community all the time too, but they never get much of a mention.

It makes me sick that American media is still so primative. And it makes me sick that there are still people primative enough to believe it. Stop believing everything you're told, grow some common sense and actually ask yourself "Are they giving me the whole story?"


This has been an unusually serious post by the TIN man.

[QUOTE=Bogstonia][QUOTE=Hammerskin Nation]

Buzzword, unfamiliar with the term...

Try "political correctness for racists"

I stress that "racially aware" is not my chosen term, it was used by Hammerskin and I was trying to understand better what he feels it means.

Also, Hammerskin, no offense, but your threadopening post makes it clear that you are fighting something. You are fighting what you believe is a racial double standard.

And don't worry about the quote thing, I dont' use it either. Let me ask, I'm what is referred to by some Aryans as a "Mud Person". If me and my ivory skinned wife were to move our interracial marriage next door to you, would you come over and shake hands? I'm asking honestly, not assuming.

I totally agree, that way, there would'nt be a deterant to the fact that this was a horrible crime.

Other than the part about it being fictional ....

The blacks where probably just mad that white people were playing basketball, I mean you don't see black people playing hockey.

I stress that "racially aware" is not my chosen term, it was used by Hammerskin and I was trying to understand better what he feels it means.

Also, Hammerskin, no offense, but your threadopening post makes it clear that you are fighting something. You are fighting what you believe is a racial double standard.

And don't worry about the quote thing, I dont' use it either. Let me ask, I'm what is referred to by some Aryans as a "Mud Person". If me and my ivory skinned wife were to move our interracial marriage next door to you, would you come over and shake hands? I'm asking honestly, not assuming.

Heck ya i would, oh and can i borrow your lawnmower mines in the shop. :)

I stress that "racially aware" is not my chosen term, it was used by Hammerskin and I was trying to understand better what he feels it means.

Also, Hammerskin, no offense, but your threadopening post makes it clear that you are fighting something. You are fighting what you believe is a racial double standard.

And don't worry about the quote thing, I dont' use it either. Let me ask, I'm what is referred to by some Aryans as a "Mud Person". If me and my ivory skinned wife were to move our interracial marriage next door to you, would you come over and shake hands? I'm asking honestly, not assuming.

That I would do...

Thirty men attacking four girls is just terrible.

This seems to be turning into a game of chinese whispers (no racial slur intended). The original article actually said 30 boys and girls, not 30 men.

To Hammerskin: Cool. I'll shake with anybody willing to live in peace in next door.

To Georty: Sorry, I don't own a lawnmower. As an Englishman, I feel its beneath me. As a Frenchman, I believe everything's beneath me. As a German, I will not buy any motorized device not manufactured in Bavaria. As a Chinaman, I will not buy any device that IS manufactured in Taiwan (they all seem to be), as a Spaniard, I'm too busy trying to pick up women to mow my lawn, and as a Filipino, I'm too lazy. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Bogstonia][QUOTE=Hammerskin Nation]

Buzzword, unfamiliar with the term...

1. A word or phrase connected with a specialized field or group that usually sounds important or technical and is used primarily to impress laypersons:

2. A stylish or trendy word or phrase.

To Hammerskin: Cool. I'll shake with anybody willing to live in peace in next door.

To Georty: Sorry, I don't own a lawnmower. As an Englishman, I feel its beneath me. As a Frenchman, I believe everything's beneath me. As a German, I will not buy any motorized device not manufactured in Bavaria. As a Chinaman, I will not buy any device that IS manufactured in Taiwan (they all seem to be), as a Spaniard, I'm too busy trying to pick up women to mow my lawn, and as a Filipino, I'm too lazy. Sorry.

How many parents did you have?

Ah here we go again. The media is making an Example of an incident involving black folk. Gangs attack each other all the time-Most of them WHITE.

Huh? It was only reported in one local paper.


This is just another example of a Biased media trying to demonise the black community-to stir up hatred, like it has done for the past 100 years.

The media I watch shows strong, self-aware black people all the time.


You notice that almost every news show features a black guy shooting somone? This happens in the white community all the time too, but they never get much of a mention.

Hmm...Scott Peterson? All those serial killers? They got a lot of media attention.


It makes me sick that American media is still so primative. And it makes me sick that there are still people primative enough to believe it. Stop believing everything you're told, grow some common sense and actually ask yourself "Are they giving me the whole story?"

Yep. It's primitive. But that's because it caters to the lowest common denominator, not due to any racial bias.

To Hammerskin: Cool. I'll shake with anybody willing to live in peace in next door.

To Georty: Sorry, I don't own a lawnmower. As an Englishman, I feel its beneath me. As a Frenchman, I believe everything's beneath me. As a German, I will not buy any motorized device not manufactured in Bavaria. As a Chinaman, I will not buy any device that IS manufactured in Taiwan (they all seem to be), as a Spaniard, I'm too busy trying to pick up women to mow my lawn, and as a Filipino, I'm too lazy. Sorry.

lmao well back to work with the scissors i supose

lmao well back to work with the scissors i supose


HILARIOUS! LoL

OccidentiaPrima']Huh? It was only reported in one local paper.

Meh I have a habit of over-reacting. So I admit I was wrong. :p

The media I watch shows strong, self-aware black people all the time.

Really? I never seem to see it. Then again UK media is a lot nastier... "Unbiased" Is what they claim, but some news channels here are more biased than Fox. That might be why I adopted this view.

Hmm...Scott Peterson? All those serial killers? They got a lot of media attention.

Well of course ya not gonna miss out on the serial killer stories... because it was so nasty.

Yep. It's primitive. But that's because it caters to the lowest common denominator, not due to any racial bias.

The world is a disturbing place. Luckily I'm used to it.

So I was mostly wrong. But at least I admit it. :D

*Is useless at arguments, but admits mistakes*

Now I look stupid... :headbang:

To Bogstonia: I had two parents, but it was a muddled combination of their parent's parents that left me unable to participate in the Southern Nevada Committed Racist Kickball League...sniff.

Seriously, each of my parents were themselves quite mixed, but as its been mentioned, race is pretty much a social/cultural boundary that isn't particularly meaningful on a genetic level. Much like the advent of genetics has resulted in a rethinking of some aspects of Species Taxonomy, I think its pretty much made "race" a progressively more out-dated idea. Just my view, I could be wrong. "Racism" will persist, I'm sure, much like Nationalism or Religion or any of the other dotted lines we like to draw between one another. Just remember, there is exactly ONE profoundly meaningful separation between humans: Those who feel that [Adult Swim] should have its own 24 hour network, and those feel that market forces dictate that it remain a subset of Cartoon Network. I'll let you all decide who is superior.

I checked the story out and the e-mails made about it, for some reason the site has a major agenda. They "claim" that they left the most abusive emails out. Well lets have a perfect example of what they left in -
http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ane&na=1502

To the Editor:

If the police department does not arrest all those involved in this ape-assault, then we as white people our safety is doomed. We do not have the same protection as these sub-humans. You should be ashamed of where you live if you are white and this is your police department.

Sincerely,
Paul DeLaiarro
Via Email

Meh I have a habit of over-reacting. So I admit I was wrong. :p

*snip*

So I was mostly wrong. But at least I admit it. :D

*Is useless at arguments, but admits mistakes*

Now I look stupid... :headbang:

Don't worry.

The story is fake. I've said so several times and they don't even deny it.

You aren't the one looking stupid.

Don't worry.

The story is fake. I've said so several times and they don't even deny it.

You aren't the one looking stupid.

Actually that makes me look even more stupid... :mad:

...But i'm glad it didn't happen. :)

Actually that makes me look even more stupid... :mad:

...But i'm glad it didn't happen. :)

I should be more clear.

The story appears to have been published.

The story just isn't true.

Fits your model of racist hype quite well I think.

Actually that makes me look even more stupid... :mad:

...But i'm glad it didn't happen. :)

don't worry we all look stupid anyways might as well enjoy it ;) and i'm glad its fake too.

Don't worry.

The story is fake. I've said so several times and they don't even deny it.

You aren't the one looking stupid.

If the story isn't true, then so be it. I just happened upon it on google, and just decided to post it. I will try to check the validity, taking my attempts off the net, and phoning a couple people up in Nyc.

If the story isn't true, then so be it. I just happened upon it on google, and just decided to post it. I will try to check the validity, taking my attempts off the net, and phoning a couple people up in Nyc.

You "happened upon it on Google"?

Be honest.

It is all over the white supremicist & nationalist websites.

That is the only place it is found other than this local rag.

'Tis indeed a disturbing universe.

You "happened upon it on Google"?

Be honest.

It is all over the white supremicist & nationalist websites.

That is the only place it is found other than this local rag.

local rag, you mean the newspaper? The first result I had was the link to it.

local rag, you mean the newspaper? The first result I had was the link to it.
can i ask what your search was?

local rag, you mean the newspaper? The first result I had was the link to it.

Pray tell, what words did you use in this alleged Google search?

can i ask what your search was?

"KKK Propoganda"

can i ask what your search was?

nyc attack nypd, along those lines. I was doing research for things to put into a report. I don't understand why there is such scrutiny of me over something I thought may have been wrong, even if it doesn't turn out to be true.

I also want to add that it shouldnt matter what i searched, but 30 against 4, black on white or whatever, is horrible and wrong, even if i stated other opinions such as "racial double standard".

nyc attack nypd, along those lines. I was doing research for things to put into a report. I don't understand why there is such scrutiny of me over something I thought may have been wrong, even if it doesn't turn out to be true.

Nope.

nyc attack nypd turns up 85,300 hits

As far as I can tell, the article in question isn't even one of them.

You are not being honest.

The scrutiny is of your attempt to spread lies. Which you capitalized on, but failed to even defend their veracity.

The scrutiny is of your attempt to spread lies. Which you capitalized on, but failed to even defend their veracity.

Wow-loads of big words... nice to see equal interlect within these forums. :D

Nope.

nyc attack nypd turns up 85,300 hits

As far as I can tell, the article in question isn't even one of them.

You are not being honest.

The scrutiny is of your attempt to spread lies. Which you capitalized on, but failed to even defend their veracity.

as I stated, along those lines... no attempt to spread lies, if I thought it was the truth.

I also want to add that it shouldnt matter what i searched, but 30 against 4, black on white or whatever, is horrible and wrong, even if i stated other opinions such as "racial double standard".

Except it didn't happen like that.

You are an Aryan. You posted this with an agenda. Which you pushed.

And now you aren't being honest about it.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Tough.

as I stated, along those lines... no attempt to spread lies, if I thought it was the truth.

Always seek a secondary official source when reading the news. Most Net news is false or propoganda.

Everyone knows that... :mad:

as I stated, along those lines... no attempt to spread lies, if I thought it was the truth.

You didn't confirm.

You didn't even deny it was untrue.

And then you've lied about how you found it.

You posted this with an agenda. You didn't care if it wasn't true.

Except it didn't happen like that.

You are an Aryan. You posted this with an agenda. Which you pushed.

And now you aren't being honest about it.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Tough.

I go back to matters of opinion. It is my opinion I thought that that attack was horrible, true or not.

It is your opinion that because of my beliefs, I post something with some idea that I didn't have. I have respected your opinion, now respect mine.

Edit: You have brought it up that I was aryan, which means you are representing my beliefs with that one word. My beliefs or not, it is my opinion, and unless some law passed while I was asleep, the first ammendment is still in effect.

I go back to matters of opinion. It is my opinion I thought that that attack was horrible, true or not.

It is your opinion that because of my beliefs, I post something with some idea that I didn't have. I have respected your opinion, now respect mine.

You stated several "opinions" about the nature of the alleged crime that were not true. "Racial double-standard," etc.

If in a work of fiction, 30 people attack 4 people for no reason then that is bad.

If someone posts something untrue and tries to stir up racial tensions, that is bad.

If someone lies about why they posted something and/or how they found it, that is bad.

And, no, I don't respect your beliefs. I don't have to.

Please delete this post.

Edit: You have brought it up that I was aryan, which means you are representing my beliefs with that one word. My beliefs or not, it is my opinion, and unless some law passed while I was asleep, the first ammendment is still in effect.

The first amendment guarantees your right to free speech.

That means you can have any stupid, narrow-minded opinion you want.

It also means I can say it is stupid and narrow-minded.

Free speech is a two-way street.

You stated several "opinions" about the nature of the alleged crime that were not true. "Racial double-standard," etc.

If in a work of fiction, 30 people attack 4 people for no reason then that is bad.

If someone posts something untrue and tries to stir up racial tensions, that is bad.

If someone lies about why they posted something and/or how they found it, that is bad.

And, no, I don't respect your beliefs. I don't have to.

Dont put words in my mouth. Respect my opinion is what I said. And you cannot prove I have lied about anything. You cannot prove my intentions of this post, you are on the other side of the US from me, not behind me.

Also, have I not said earlier I agree that 30 on 4 is bad?

The first amendment guarantees your right to free speech.

That means you can have any stupid, narrow-minded opinion you want.

It also means I can say it is stupid and narrow-minded.

Free speech is a two-way street.

yay stupidity all over

I go back to matters of opinion. It is my opinion I thought that that attack was horrible, true or not.

It is your opinion that because of my beliefs, I post something with some idea that I didn't have. I have respected your opinion, now respect mine.

Edit: You have brought it up that I was aryan, which means you are representing my beliefs with that one word. My beliefs or not, it is my opinion, and unless some law passed while I was asleep, the first ammendment is still in effect.

What are you beliefs? White pride or what?

What are you beliefs? White pride or what?

I have White pride. Dont mistake that for White power, those are two different things.

Edit: I first said White pride isnt a belief, but i have white pride. that is a contradiction, because you can say I believe in white pride

I have purple pride! Purple people will cover the earth! :D

Just for note, never consider yourself superior to anyone. After all, we are all mortal. You will die just like the rest of us-that means you are in no way superior.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

I have purple pride! Purple people will cover the earth! :D

Just for note, never consider yourself superior to anyone. After all, we are all mortal. You will die just like the rest of us-that means you are in no way superior.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

You are mistaking White pride and White power. Having pride doesn't make anyone superior.

Ever hear someone say "Im proud of you son." ? That is pride, not saying he is superior.

Dont put words in my mouth. Respect my opinion is what I said.

And I said I don't and won't respect your opinion. I don't have to. And it isn't worthy of respect.


And you cannot prove I have lied about anything. You cannot prove my intentions of this post, you are on the other side of the US from me, not behind me.

Let's see:

Aryan + false story about a "wolf pack" of blacks attacking 4 little white girls + comments about the racial double standard + comments about how whites can't say anything without getting arrested for a hate crime = ? (It doesn't take Sherlock to solve this.)

Aryan + obsure internet story + story almost exclusively found on Aryan websites + implausible story about "happened" upon the story + alleged Google search that doesn't turn up the story = lied about how found story.

You are mistaking White pride and White power. Having pride doesn't make anyone superior.

You just don't see my jokes do you? I don't give a damn. You're opinion does not interest me. I have my own beliefs. By the way I just made you look silly! You made a serious response to a joke! Did you not see the MWAHAHAHAHAHA?

Hee hee! I rule the random roost!

http://www.1001funpics.com/funpics/krusty-kkk_sm.jpg

"Welcome to the Krusty Komedy Klassic! ...KKK? Uh oh."

[QUOTE=Hammerskin Nation] Dont put words in my mouth. Respect my opinion is what I said. {/QUOTE]
And I said I don't and won't respect your opinion. I don't have to. And it isn't worthy of respect.
Let's see:
Aryan + false story about a "wolf pack" of blacks attacking 4 little white girls + comments about the racial double standard + comments about how whites can't say anything without getting arrested for a hate crime = ? (It doesn't take Sherlock to solve this.)
Aryan + obsure internet story + story almost exclusively found on Aryan websites + implausible story about "happened" upon the story + alleged Google search that doesn't turn up the story = lied about how found story.

That is your opinion, as you still lack proof of anything. There goes you Sherlock line...

To Hammerskin: So if you are "proud" in the parental context, are you equally proud of the accomplishments of non-"white" people?

Do you have "human pride" in the tremendous contributions of blacks and asians and slavic folks?

For example, I'm not Polish, but I'm proud of Marie and Pierre Curie, whose self-sacrifice allowed for advances in medicine. Can you also be proud of people who aren't part of your "race"? (oh, before anybody gets technical, although they worked in France, they were of Polish descent, ethnicly speaking)

To Hammerskin: So if you are "proud" in the parental context, are you equally proud of the accomplishments of non-"white" people?

Do you have "human pride" in the tremendous contributions of blacks and asians and slavic folks?

For example, I'm not Polish, but I'm proud of Marie and Pierre Curie, whose self-sacrifice allowed for advances in medicine. Can you also be proud of people who aren't part of your "race"?

Did I ever say I could'nt? I can be proud of other peoples accomplishments, althogh that may become a suprise to cat tribe...

I don't understand why alot of you want to think that I am some tobacco spitting redneck burning crosses when I have only said white pride, and you don't even know me...

I don't understand why alot of you want to think that I am some tobacco spitting redneck burning crosses when I have only said white pride, and you don't even know me...

You said white pride.

And didn't deny Nationalist.

And said "racially aware."

And admitted Aryan.

And have an Aryan nation in the Aryan region of NS.

Don't have to be a tobacco spitting redneck.

I'm very familiar with the Aryan Nations and The Order, etc.

You've more than sufficiently identified your beliefs.

To Hammerskin: Its the internal inconsistency in the idea of "white pride". By definition, it indicates a belief in the superlative validity of one group over another. A priori, it is a statement of superiority to indicate any group is more worthy of pride than another. I'm not a fan of it when Farakhan touts black superiority, and I disliked it when my friends in Japan ranked on Chinese and Koreans and called it "national pride".

I guess I should have clarified my question: Can you hold your pride in other races as EQUAL to your pride in whites, and once it is equal, once you hold them all equal, doesn't it become meaningless to advocate pride specifically in any one race?

EDIT: As much as a I hate to agree with Cat-Tribe (because I'm a dog person), he/she is just asking you to take ownership of the belief system that you claim.

Wait, wait, wait. Ok, lets all take a deep breath and think. What was the original meat of this thread? That would be about a gang of people committing assault and battery correct? So, the correct response would be to round up those responsible (RESPONSIBLE mind you! No picking up some random person) and have them punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Now, if the article is not true, then nothing happens. If it is true, find the ones responsible.

Now then. How the heck did this get to become a racial thing? I would have thought it was more along the lines of a criminal offence (assault and battery was still it when I last checked) rather than anything else. They could have shouted "oogely boogely" for all I care, but it doesn't change the fact that they have broken the law by assaulting others without proper justification (being told to wait for your turn isn't really a good reason to fight).

Hello? This is the voice of reason speaking.

Oh who am I kidding. I'd love to see what you guys can make with just bits of string and a stick though.

You said white pride.

And didn't deny Nationalist.

And said "racially aware."

And admitted Aryan.

And have an Aryan nation in the Aryan region of NS.

Don't have to be a tobacco spitting redneck.

I'm very familiar with the Aryan Nations and The Order, etc.

You've more than sufficiently identified your beliefs.

Takin a game too seriously I see... I guess you are the one on tv running around saying they killed us all when you see a post on ns from a roleplay.

I love to be the humorous one. :D

Wait, wait, wait. Ok, lets all take a deep breath and think. What was the original meat of this thread? That would be about a gang of people committing assault and battery correct? So, the correct response would be to round up those responsible (RESPONSIBLE mind you! No picking up some random person) and have them punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Now, if the article is not true, then nothing happens. If it is true, find the ones responsible.

Now then. How the heck did this get to become a racial thing? I would have thought it was more along the lines of a criminal offence (assault and battery was still it when I last checked) rather than anything else. They could have shouted "oogely boogely" for all I care, but it doesn't change the fact that they have broken the law by assaulting others without proper justification (being told to wait for your turn isn't really a good reason to fight).

Hello? This is the voice of reason speaking.

Oh who am I kidding. I'd love to see what you guys can make with just bits of string and a stick though.

ahh, someone who takes for what it was supposed to be somewhat.

I love to be the humorous one. :D

I admit I did take you seriously, hard not to when you have people wanting to run you down over something silly.

Takin a game too seriously I see... I guess you are the one on tv running around saying they killed us all when you see a post on ns from a roleplay.

Um, no.

Taking "white pride," Nationalist, "racially aware," and Aryan seriously.

Didn't see you denying any of those.

Your "roleplay" is just consistent.

Takin a game too seriously I see... I guess you are the one on tv running around saying they killed us all when you see a post on ns from a roleplay.

Says the man who thought this news story was true. Don't be a hypocryte.

Nya nya! Caught you out! :p

Wait, wait, wait. Ok, lets all take a deep breath and think. What was the original meat of this thread? That would be about a gang of people committing assault and battery correct? So, the correct response would be to round up those responsible (RESPONSIBLE mind you! No picking up some random person) and have them punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Now, if the article is not true, then nothing happens. If it is true, find the ones responsible.

Now then. How the heck did this get to become a racial thing? I would have thought it was more along the lines of a criminal offence (assault and battery was still it when I last checked) rather than anything else. They could have shouted "oogely boogely" for all I care, but it doesn't change the fact that they have broken the law by assaulting others without proper justification (being told to wait for your turn isn't really a good reason to fight).

Hello? This is the voice of reason speaking.

Oh who am I kidding. I'd love to see what you guys can make with just bits of string and a stick though.

Apparently the voice of reason has neither read the thread nor the first post.

I admit I did take you seriously, hard not to when you have people wanting to run you down over something silly.

I respect all opinions, so long as the imorral ones are not acted apon-then I fight back. But beware my self-rightiousness... :D

Um, no.

Taking "white pride," Nationalist, "racially aware," and Aryan seriously.

Didn't see you denying any of those.

Your "roleplay" is just consistent.

Didnt say I was a nationalist. There is nothing to deny about White pride and racially aware, nothing wrong ith those.

Non-aligned States: I agree that the event itself, if it was a real event, should be regarded as an assault in and of itself, rather than a racial thing. As I previously posted, I believe whenever there is violence, each side will dehumanize the other via whatever cultural/social/political distinctions that they were raised to believe in. However, the closing line of the opening post of the thread described the event as a "perfect example of a racial double standard", and I think the contention of that opinion is the source of the race-related dialogue.

My uncle Tuling used to use string and sticks to build little bird traps to catch sparrows. Then he'd let them go. I wish I'd payed attention to how he did that...

Apparently the voice of reason has neither read the thread nor the first post.

I did. I got tired at about the 4th or 5th page

He's as much entitled to his opinion as. If he were to actualize it into action, then that would depend on the action itself.

But in either case, I notice a distinct lack of actual attention on the subject matter. Which primarily dealt with a bunch of people behaving like hooligans. If they were green skinned and singing "Kumbaya" while committing this violence, does it make it any less deplorable?

ahh, someone who takes for what it was supposed to be somewhat.
If it's just about the violence, then why bring up race at all?

If it's just about the violence, then why bring up race at all?

read that whole statement you have quoted, note last word.

To Non-Aligned States: Why is it not reasonable to discuss Hammerskin's interpretation of the "subject matter"? Nobody has suggested he be censored or silenced, but some of us choose to address his statement of a "racial double standard" and the percumbent issues. It is not less deplorable, but we are having a conversation about whether it is a "racial double standard" as per the opening post.

He's as much entitled to his opinion as. If he were to actualize it into action, then that would depend on the action itself.

He is entitled to have whatever opinion he wants.

I am entitled to have whatever opinion I want about his opinion.

I'm sure not all of his opinions are odious, but the ones relevant here are.


But in either case, I notice a distinct lack of actual attention on the subject matter. Which primarily dealt with a bunch of people behaving like hooligans. If they were green skinned and singing "Kumbaya" while committing this violence, does it make it any less deplorable?

Of course, I called attention to the probable falsity of the article right away -- and there was no response.

The article said the ones responsible were being charged with assault. If the article is true, then that is exactly what you said should be done.

The article, however, was written to sensationalize the alleged racial nature of the "attack" and was designed to place blacks in a bad light. That they were black was very much the point of the article.

That they were blacks allegedly attacking 4 little white girls was the poster's point too.

Putting on a blindfold doesn't make you colorblind. Just blind.

To Non-Aligned States: Why is it not reasonable to discuss Hammerskin's interpretation of the "subject matter"? Nobody has suggested he be censored or silenced, but some of us choose to address his statement of a "racial double standard" and the percumbent issues. It is not less deplorable, but we are having a conversation about whether it is a "racial double standard" as per the opening post.


No we arent Saint Curie, no one really has mentioned or asked how it is a racial double standard, nor do I want to, because no one here can accept anyones opinions. Although you do seem like the only on to question me that hasnt tried to be aggressive in your words, rather inquisitive. I applaud you for it.

Didnt say I was a nationalist.

Been alleged several times. You've never denied.

To the contrary, when you were asked if you were a Nationalist, you replied "I prefer the term racially aware."

That's a yes.

There is nothing to deny about White pride and racially aware, nothing wrong ith those.

Yes, there is. Lots wrong with those.

And I note you skipped over being an Aryan.

Why are you trying to hide your beliefs and motives? Shame?

He is entitled to have whatever opinion he wants.

I am entitled to have whatever opinion I want about his opinion.

I'm sure not all of his opinions are odious, but the ones relevant here are.




Of course, I called attention to the probable falsity of the article right away -- and there was no response.

The article said the ones responsible were being charged with assault. If the article is true, then that is exactly what you said should be done.

The article, however, was written to sensationalize the alleged racial nature of the "attack" and was designed to place blacks in a bad light. That they were black was very much the point of the article.

That they were blacks allegedly attacking 4 little white girls was the poster's point too.

Putting on a blindfold doesn't make you colorblind. Just blind.

Just because Black was mentioned dont mean they arent people.

almost as if saying, 30 siberian tigers killed 4 bengal tigers, there still tigers. Again, your translations of my intentions.

Hate is wrong.

We should cooperate and treat each other with dignity, Seriously, you'd be surprised at how much easier the world would be if we were just polite to each other.

Whether or not it'll happen is besides the point, but if were just more polite to each other, and kinder, there never would of been any violence, there never would of been any racist rhetoric, this story never would happened, and thus never would of been reported (or used to promote a racist agenda afterwards...)

Been alleged several times. You've never denied.

To the contrary, when you were asked if you were a Nationalist, you replied "I prefer racially aware."

That's a yes.



Yes, there is. Lots wrong with those.

And I note you skipped over being an Aryan.

Why are you trying to hide your beliefs and motives? Shame?

You must excuse me for being mistaken, for Aryan means lord or noble, according to wikipedia. Some people think Aryan as a european person.

Just because Black was mentioned dont mean they arent people.

almost as if saying, 30 siberian tigers killed 4 bengal tigers, there still tigers. Again, your translations of my intentions.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Unless ... I didn't accuse of saying that blacks weren't people, but you felt the need to clarify that anyway. Funny how your mind works.

Yes, there is. Lots wrong with those.


Then Black, Irish, Japanese, any other race or ethnic pride is wrong also, based on your logic.

You must excuse me for being mistaken, for Aryan means lord or noble, according to wikipedia. Some people think Aryan as a european person.

LOL.

Man, you don't even lie well.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Unless ... I didn't accuse of saying that blacks weren't people, but you felt the need to clarify that anyway. Funny how your mind works.

It makes sense because it regardless of what you put in front of it, people attacked people. I just happened to state my opinion after it, which you cant stand.

To Hammerskin: Well, I have no problem discussing the premise of a "racial double standard", I just think blacks and minorities take a lot of abuse, and its not fair to say they are getting preferential treatment in every aspect of society. That said, I'm not a fan of Hate Crime laws, because I believe just about every violent act has some hate. A man beats his wife, there's hate, a rapist hates women, etc. There is a body of evidence in research that indicates that hate and its related behaviours may be sourced from the amygdala in the brain. So, if you removed that part of your brain and calmly beat somebody to death, would that not be a crime?

But, Hammerskin, if this were a thread about horticulture and we were talking about peruvian horny orchids, and you mentioned "white pride" and "racial awareness", you would have to expect the thread to take a different turn, eh?

Just because Black was mentioned dont mean they arent people.

almost as if saying, 30 siberian tigers killed 4 bengal tigers, there still tigers. Again, your translations of my intentions.

But the news would report a 34 tiger battle royalé, not the racial make up.

Race is the proper word in this case as well. ;)

LOL.

Man, you don't even lie well.

Lie, check wikipedia yourself...did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or do you insult people all the time?

To Hammerskin: Well, I have no problem discussing the premise of a "racial double standard", I just think blacks and minorities take a lot of abuse, and its not fair to say they are getting preferential treatment in every aspect of society. That said, I'm not a fan of Hate Crime laws, because I believe just about every violent act has some hate. A man beats his wife, there's hate, a rapist hates women, etc. There is a body of evidence in research that indicates that hate and its related behaviours may be sourced from the amygdala in the brain. So, if you removed that part of your brain and calmly beat somebody to death, would that not be a crime?

But, Hammerskin, if this were a thread about horticulture and we were talking about peruvian horny orchids, and you mentioned "white pride" and "racial awareness", you would have to expect the thread to take a different turn, eh?
No, because on this board, other people cant stand others opinions....

Lie, check wikipedia yourself...did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or do you insult people all the time?

Try not to take too much insult. Anyway, it's not like he can hurt you... if you don't like what he has to say, just laugh. :D

Ultimately, the story itself is suspect. Violence while shouting 'remember MLK?' the nonviolence guy? Okay, either the writer is a moron who was jazzing up the details or the perps are wacked in the head. And we're really supposed to believe that four innocent white girls were just suddenly attacked by a mob of black kids over a civil disagreement over a basketball court, huh? I suppose black kids just snap and decide to beat whitey all the time. Methinks the story is not being told with the key elements, if it ever occurred at all. Without them I'm not too sure we're in much place to figure out what the supposed quote about "no bias" is about.

Lie, check wikipedia yourself...did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or do you insult people all the time?

LOL.

The rather obvious lie was not about Wikipedia but about your alleged "misunderstanding" of the term.

What is the likelihood that someone who is a Nationalist, who professes "white pride" and "racial awareness," and who belongs to the Aryan Nations region of NS is going to misunderstand the term Aryan as a harmless reference to "lord" or "noble" -- particularly when referred to in the same context as the Aryan Nations and The Order? Hmmm?

No one -- no one -- is going to buy that whopper.

This is way beyond pathetic. I wash my hands of you -- for now.

Try not to take too much insult. Anyway, it's not like he can hurt you... if you don't like what he has to say, just laugh. :D


You know, I wish you lived nearby, you are probably a great person to be around, with your joking attitude and keen sense of humer. :D

You know, I wish you lived nearby, you are probably a great person to be around, with your joking attitude and keen sense of humer. :D

If ya don't force your beliefs on me, (Like some religious nuts do) I welcome ya with open arms. Now lets all get drunk and play ping-pong! :D

Of course, I called attention to the probable falsity of the article right away -- and there was no response.

Yes, there is a possibility of the news being false, but due to lack of contrary evidence, it could also be true in equal portions. Hence my original post containing the clause "if false, then nothing happens".

I suppose I should have amended it by adding that people would continue to butt heads.


The article said the ones responsible were being charged with assault. If the article is true, then that is exactly what you said should be done.


If they did commit the crime, then that is good. If they didn't commit the crime, then that is bad. Enough sad on that matter.


The article, however, was written to sensationalize the alleged racial nature of the "attack" and was designed to place blacks in a bad light. That they were black was very much the point of the article.

Sadly, media has a distinct tendency to paint news with a black and white paintbrush (metaphorically speaking here, the typical division of the so called 'good' side and 'bad' side). I try not to let their attitudes paint mine.


Putting on a blindfold doesn't make you colorblind. Just blind.

That was rather uncalled for. Granted, compared to how others do their insulting, it is rather tame, but still, I wonder why you determine that I am blind.

not only are you cut off from the civilized world. (Westchester),

Haha: Suburbs and the people who live in them I find amusing.

Especially ones in West Chester, Pennsylvania who will yell at you ("This ain't New York!!!!") if you spell it Westchester.

And I was skeptical about reading thsi thread at first, and after the first few lines of the article, it did seem racist; but then after reading the whole thing, it became evident to me that the article's main point was that blacks and whites are held to different standards, not that blacks are more criminal.

That was rather uncalled for. Granted, compared to how others do their insulting, it is rather tame, but still, I wonder why you determine that I am blind.

Cat tribe is full of spews like that, you think thats something? I dare you to mention White pride... ;)

Cat tribe is full of spews like that, you think thats something? I dare you to mention White pride... ;)

Yep. Mean ole' me. I'm so darn intolerant of intolerance. I just hate hatred.

How dare I?

I should love my Aryan brothers. They are so cute with their "white pride."

To Hammerskin: Well, your call, I wouldn't and couldn't try to force anybody to discuss anything. But you posted this thread. Now you don't want to discuss it because "on this board, other people cant stand others opinions." I'm sorry, I feel that is overly broad and unfair. Several of us have been willing to discuss it. Will you refuse discourse any time anyone is contrary? Thats your right, but it hardly makes it fruitful to post threads.

Try this: help me better understand what you mean when you say "white pride". What does that entail in terms of policy? Would you marry a black woman if you fell in love with her? Could you fall in love with her? Would you let your son marry a nice Jewish girl? (that might be religion, rather than race, but you get the idea). What I'm asking for here is defining examples.

e.g. fill in the blank: My "white pride" means I would __________. My "white pride" means I would refuse to __________.

I promise to make a sincere effort not to "run you down" or morally indite you for your response. This is a genuinely respectful invitation to give your view. Peace!

Yep. Mean ole' me. I'm so darn intolerant of intolerance. I just hate hatred.

How dare I?

I should love my Aryan brothers. They are so cute with their "white pride."

Still confused huh? never said I hated anyone...

30/4 = 7.5 to 1 odds

Damn that was brutal.

And it raged on for 20 minutes? How the hell did four teenage girls take on 30 people for 20 minutes with only two of them getting seriously injured?? That should have been enough time for all four on them to be killed. Were they attacked by midgets or something?

To Hammerskin: Well, you're call, I wouldn't and couldn't try to force anybody to discuss anything. But you posted this thread. Now you don't want to discuss it because "on this board, other people cant stand others opinions." I'm sorry, I feel that is overly broad and unfair. Several of us have been willing to discuss it. Will you refuse discourse any time anyone is contrary? Thats your right, but it hardly makes it fruitful to post threads.

Try this: help me better understand what you mean when you say "white pride". What does that entail in terms of policy? Would you marry a black woman if you fell in love with her? Could you fall in love with her? Would you let your son marry a nice Jewish girl? (that might be religion, rather than race, but you get the idea). What I'm asking for here is defining examples.

e.g. fill in the blank: My "white pride" means I would __________. My "white pride" means I would refuse to __________.

I promise to make a sincere effort not to "run you down" or morally indite you for your response. Peace!

I take White pride as being proud to be white, proud of white accomplishments. I do not believe in intermixing, do it if you want, but I dont see my dog, cat, or my coatimundi having sex with each other, at least I Havent caught them. As far as my "future" son, I am underage, other people can do as they please.

Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?

Hmmm....my family came to the US in 1848. They were farmers. They had no slaves. They killed no one--they didn't have time to go after anyone else--they were working all the time, as they were farmers.

Maybe the generalizations should stop for EVERYONE, since they are no longer allowed for minorities....

To Khudros: Don't dismiss the tremendous combat formidability of achondroplasiatics (midgets, as you call them). I once saw footage of a group of little people that had the power to combine, forming into a giant robot. It was animated, and I was drunk on Kirin, but it looked real. I remain terrified and would urge you not to antagonize short people. Remember, in the instance of an insurgency, it takes them half as long to dig a foxhole.

There, I've now proven that I am as bigoted (in my own way) as anybody else, and thus am tolerant of intolerance.

http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486


Story leaves out the dumb white parents telling the black kids, "You damn niggers need to remember your place and wait your turn."

Anyway ... I've perused the rest of the publication site ... local rag. The story seems to hold no legitimate function except as a sounding board for the rather ugly woman, who writes the "Whatevah" column, tp spew her hatred for everyone from Muslims to Gays and back again.

I take White pride as being proud to be white, proud of white accomplishments. I do not believe in intermixing, do it if you want, but I dont see my dog, cat, or my coatimundi having sex with each other, at least I Havent caught them. As far as my "future" son, I am underage, other people can do as they please.
Ugh.

Please learn some genetics and biology, then speak. Human races are essentially not genetically different... Dfferent SPECIES (let alone genera, as you have quoted) cannot even reproduce together. That's what makes them different species. Different "races" obviously CAN, you your analogy is bullshit...

Edit:
Story leaves out the dumb white parents telling the black kids, "You damn niggers need to remember your place and wait your turn."

Anyway ... I've perused the rest of the publication site ... local rag. The story seems to hold no legitimate function except as a sounding board for the rather ugly woman, who writes the "Whatevah" column, tp spew her hatred for everyone from Muslims to Gays and back again.
Ah, that explains a lot. What a snotrag.

To Hammerskin: Dogs and cats are of a different species. By drawing this comparison, you suggest that blacks and whites are of a different species. I believe there is a huge gathering of biological laboratory evidence to the contrary. I think that makes the comparison somewhat flawed.

Say, what's a coatamundi?

Hmmm....my family came to the US in 1848. They were farmers. They had no slaves. They killed no one--they didn't have time to go after anyone else--they were working all the time, as they were farmers.


No, but I bet their farmland was previously tilled on the sweat and blood of a hapless tribe of American Indians who couldn't imagine why those white people were raping their daughters and kicking them out.

SO THERE! :p

Ugh.

Please learn some genetics and biology, then speak. Human races are essentially not genetically different... Dfferent SPECIES (let alone genera, as you have quoted) cannot even reproduce together. That's what makes them different species. Different "races" obviously CAN, you your analogy is bullshit...

Regardless of analogy, I would not intermix.

To Hammerskin: Dogs and cats are of a different species. By drawing this comparison, you suggest that blacks and whites are of a different species. I believe there is a huge gathering of biological laboratory evidence to the contrary. I think that makes the comparison somewhat flawed.

Say, what's a coatamundi?

Animal from south america. I ordered it a few years ago, make great pets, look them up... search coatimundi, not coatAmundi

[QUOTE=Saint Curie]To Hammerskin: Dogs and cats are of a different species. By drawing this comparison, you suggest that blacks and whites are of a different species. I believe there is a huge gathering of biological laboratory evidence to the contrary. I think that makes the comparison somewhat flawed.

[QUOTE]

I stated earlier, blacks are people too, I didnt mean for you to be so specific on the cat and dog thing.

Regardless of analogy, I would not intermix.

I would hope you wouldn't breed all together. If I were in charge, it would be mandatory that people of your ilk and ideaology be castrated and made to serve in a purely servantile setting until such time as all of those like you are wiped from the Earth. No ... not White people ... just your particular brand of useless White people. The kind who believe teaching their children that skin color matters is more important than teaching them love.

Funny thing about that, though, is that the eugenics people had it right, just didn't have the right target. Best hope I'm never in charge, eh?

give me a sec, and Ill take a pic of her, and post it up...

I also want to add that it shouldnt matter what i searched, but 30 against 4, black on white or whatever, is horrible and wrong, even if i stated other opinions such as "racial double standard".
You didn't have to answer, i just thought it strange that this particular story which, being frank is very obscure. was "the first result" of a search

I would hope you wouldn't breed all together. If I were in charge, it would be mandatory that people of your ilk and ideaology be castrated and made to serve in a purely servantile setting until such time as all of those like you are wiped from the Earth. No ... not White people ... just your particular brand of useless White people. The kind who believe teaching their children that skin color matters is more important than teaching them love.

Funny thing about that, though, is that the eugenics people had it right, just didn't have the right target. Best hope I'm never in charge, eh?

I said earlier that my son could do as he wanted as far as intermixing, thats him.

I would hope you wouldn't breed all together. If I were in charge, it would be mandatory that people of your ilk and ideaology be castrated and made to serve in a purely servantile setting until such time as all of those like you are wiped from the Earth. No ... not White people ... just your particular brand of useless White people. The kind who believe teaching their children that skin color matters is more important than teaching them love.

Funny thing about that, though, is that the eugenics people had it right, just didn't have the right target. Best hope I'm never in charge, eh?

*votes for Keruvalia in the next election*

I don't care if you're not in the running and in the wrong country! *draws in little box on ballot*

To Zaxon: I don't believe you should have to defend or exonerate your ancestors to exonerate yourself. Regardless of what was done in the 19th century, I don't think it was your fault and you shouldn't be made to pay for it. I'm glad your ancestors weren't slave owners, but even if they were, that wouldn't really be your fault.

I really don't like the idea of blaming descendants for the acts of ancestors. My mother says my father is the biggest bastard alive, but she never asked me to apologize for it. She has hinted, though...

I take White pride as being proud to be white, proud of white accomplishments. I do not believe in intermixing, do it if you want, but I dont see my dog, cat, or my coatimundi having sex with each other, at least I Havent caught them. As far as my "future" son, I am underage, other people can do as they please.

I must admit I'm a bit partial in the matter, as I'm multiracial myself. But you can do as you please as long as you aren't killing people for being born a certain way.

I feel I should point out however that the canine and feline genus are separated by 40 million years of evolution, while the human diaspora separated the different races of man into only about 5,000 years of genetic drift, so your analogy isn't all that accurate.

Uh, guys, I'm not sure a process of eugenics will eradicate racist ideology, as it is a sociopathy transmitted not just through parental indoctrination but peer to peer cultural pressure as well. 'Course, the process itself might serve as a deterrent...

Seriously, would you guys really castrate people? I know it was probably just a strong show of revulsion against racism, but this is a pretty charged issue. You wouldn't really do it, would you?

I said earlier that my son could do as he wanted as far as intermixing, thats him.

Yes, well, your attitude says it all. Your son, who is smarter than you think, is absorbing everything you say and do and every little way your treat and react to people.

He will see what you read, what you watch on TV, which grocery aisles you choose, and which strangers you bother to give the time of day to. Every moment of every day that your son is in your presence, he is watching.

He will also figure out some day that "separatist = racist" whether you like it or not.

Your single minded world view was supposed to have died out in the 1930s, but I guess enough people clung to it long enough to where the global media that is the internet brought it back.

Oh ... and clue: you're mixed. I'm willing to bet 10 acres and $100,000 on it.

That, in my book, makes you 100% pure grade-A hypocrite.

How do you put pics in a post?

How do you put pics in a post?

-URL of image

-URL of image

I have place the image from my dig cam to desktop, so no url i do not believe.

Uh, guys, I'm not sure a process of eugenics will eradicate racist ideology, as it is a sociopathy transmitted not just through parental indoctrination but peer to peer cultural pressure as well. 'Course, the process itself might serve as a deterrent...


I feel inclined to agree. Nazi Germany firmly believed that Slavs, Jews, Poles, Saxons, and Brittons all constituted different races. A lot of eugenicists still believe they do.

Striving for racial purity under such circumstances would leave a LOT of people dead and the few survivors feeling very guilty about killing off their fellow humans.

I have place the image from my dig cam to desktop, so no url i do not believe.

Then ya need to host the image somwhere. I suggest www.imageshack.us

I use it all the time. ;)

No, but I bet their farmland was previously tilled on the sweat and blood of a hapless tribe of American Indians who couldn't imagine why those white people were raping their daughters and kicking them out.

SO THERE! :p

Dear god...the conquest of that particular section of the US had already happened....and my fam didn't partake. They just came to the US, the land was already available. Sorry, but my relatives had nothing to do with that. They were there after. And they continued to till the soil on their own sweat and blood.

And somehow they didn't rape anyone...don't know how they manged that--you know that's all we white folk think about--raping someone. :rolleyes:

Wait, was I supposed to take your post seriously?

to saint curie...
http://img149.echo.cx/my.php?image=picture0014xc.jpg

To Khudros: Yup. Sounds like a high price to pay, in the toe-tag column. I'm not categorically against every suggestion of eugenics, but if we were going to do it, I think we'd have to identify and compare specefic genetic proclivities and establish their desirability unequivocably, and even then, we would have to be in desperate straits (i.e., overpopulation to the point of mass overcrowding and the utter collapse of civilization if reproduction is not regulated). I don't know anybody, myself included, that I would trust to judge what traits are worthy of expression in the next generation.

Wait, was I supposed to take your post seriously?

Nope.

To Hammerskin: cool, what's it weigh? It looks a little like a badger. Not sure if we can import exotics where I'm at.

So, dude, if your coatimundi wanted to mate with a coatimundi with a different fur pattern, would that be intermixing? 'Cause my white wife and my caramel self isn't really any differnt. I know you have no problem with what others do, but like others have said, when you make a choice, you model that choice for your children and for the world.

Anyway, cool pic. What does it eat?

To Hammerskin: cool, what's it weigh? It looks a little like a badger. Not sure if we can import exotics where I'm at.

So, dude, if your coatimundi wanted to mate with a coatimundi with a different fur pattern, would that be intermixing? 'Cause my white wife and my caramel self isn't really any differnt. I know you have no problem with what others do, but like others have said, when you make a choice, you model that choice for your children and for the world.

Anyway, cool pic. What does it eat?

Itll eat anything I will, not sure of weight. Yes that is intermixing, although not celebrated as mucha difference as it is in humans.

Does it really matter? As it's been pointed out, the story is bunk. The orginal question on if hate laws are not evenly applied is legit, but so far no one has answered that question. Yelling at bigiots won't convert them over any more than their message would convert you.

As to the orginal (or so I assume) question if hate laws are not applied equally, it's hard to say. I haven't heard of anything that approaches lynchings, genocide, or dragging someone from behind their pickup truck. Well, done by a minority group to a white person in the United States. Anyone have encountered something like that?

Er, let me add, something that is verifiable in more than a local rag?

To Hammerskin: cool, what's it weigh? It looks a little like a badger. Not sure if we can import exotics where I'm at.

So, dude, if your coatimundi wanted to mate with a coatimundi with a different fur pattern, would that be intermixing? 'Cause my white wife and my caramel self isn't really any differnt. I know you have no problem with what others do, but like others have said, when you make a choice, you model that choice for your children and for the world.

Anyway, cool pic. What does it eat?

also, the different fur patterns dictate where they are from, so chances of interbreeding them in the wild, are slim.

To Hammerskin: So, to make sure I understand, you don't intermix because you feel intermixing is wrong, or do you feel its unnatural? If animals do it (and animals with varying fur patterns mate quite readily) can it be unnatural?

Consider this: Interracial people (like me) and interracial marriages (like mine) and the mounting biochemical evidence that race is not a meaningful biological property, all comine to one inexorable progression: Soon, there will be almost no "pure" specimens of any particular race. A deliberate policy of not "intermixing" with other races means that within relatively few generations, you're so-called "unmixed" descendants will be left with fewer people to procreate with, until your line becomes inbred. I'm not saying that to be insulting, its just a natural consequence of your personal policy.

Would you subject your progeny to the price of inbreeding, including hemophilia, microcephalia, occular deformities, and the disastrous expression of several recessed traits at once?

To Nervun: I don't feel that I was yelling, and I just like to pursue a course of dialogue that springs naturally from the thread. I'm sorry if it bothers you, its not meant to.

As to hate crime laws, as I've said in a couple posts already, I feel they are flawed to begin with. I'm not sure how you can evenly apply a law that requires you to quantify or adjudicate something as nebulous as "hate". If Hate Crime laws are applied any time a minority is a victim, and never otherwise, than I guess that would be uneven. But as to whether whites are being subjected to an unfair standard, I'd want to see some evidence for both sides.

As it stands now, I don't think Hate Crime laws can be fairly applied, as I believe they are flawed in conception. If somebody beats me to death because I'm of this race or that, they should be tried and punished in the same way as someone who beat me to death for my wallet, or because I was looking at their girl, or because they were cranked up on meth.

I still don't feel like I'm yelling, though.

No, misguided is posting a story like the one above, and attempting to portray that as an example for all of one ethnicity.


No-misguided is comparing it to someone putting a sheet on his head and "murdering innocent people for 200 years". Thats misguided.

A crime is a crime. There is no need to compound it by labeling something a "bias crime". Just prosecute fully under existing law regardless of race of either parties. But since we are wasting time by worrying about "bias crimes"-this certainly fits the bill.

Nope.
@#$&@*#$*$@W(*&@#%&

Too flippin' early. :mad:

You can bet that if it was the other way round it wouldn't be a baised crime.

Interestingly enough, a Google search yeilds the following:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=brooklyn+30+blacks+attack+4+white&spell=1

The top slots go to The National Vanguard, Stormfront, Skinheads.net, David Duke's page, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the American Renaissance News.

Yep ... some fine, unbiased places!

Not one single major media outlet, including Reuters (a source I find to be rather impeccable), has said word one about this "atrocity".

This is going in my "happened in some sweaty white man's dream, but in the dream it was an orgy and he woke up sticky, so he wrote it as a fight instead".

@#$&@*#$*$@W(*&@#%&

Too flippin' early. :mad:


:D Sorry.

To Nervun: I don't feel that I was yelling, and I just like to pursue a course of dialogue that springs naturally from the thread. I'm sorry if it bothers you, its not meant to.

My apologies, I wasn't targeting you in particular, rather more commenting on this particular thread in general, which as gone along the lines of:

Person 1: See? Black people can gang up on white people and not get changed with hate crimes.
Person 2: It sounds like you're a bigot.
Person 1: I have white pride, so?
Everyone else: That is wrong for so and so reasons.
Person 1: So? White people are better for so and so reasons.
Wash, rince, and repeat. ;)

That is why I posted the way I did, not because I was particuarly annoyed, just was hoping for a debate on hate laws. Endless insults traded back and forth over ideological points gets boring because no one will yeild. If I wanted to see THAT, I'd just go watch the US Congress. :)

But no, I was not after anyone in particular and I apologize if it seemed if I was.

To the issue you brought up about hate laws, I wonder though if they add a needed componet to the criminal system in regards to motive. What I mean is that most crime, and sentencing laws, have a great deal to do with motives. You stole someone's wallet, well, the reason you did was to buy medicine for your ill wife (or husband as the case may be), which is factored in. You killed in the heat of the moment when finding your mate cheating on you. All of which has an infulance on how you are charged and so on.

Hate crimes though seem to lack no motive other than you just don't like someone even if you don't know them. Not only does it make chraging and prosocuting easy, but it also adds a more logical componet than just randomness that people usually need in order to get on with their lives.

Thoughts?

Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?

I'm a campaigning anti-racist (in a small way).

I don't believe that the lack of historical oppression of whites by blacks in the US justifies turning a blind eye to the racial aspects of what seems to have been a non-race issue turned into a racist crime.

The black kids in question were almost certainly initially ticked off about being denied the basketball court, not about race. However, someone among them deliberately turned it into a race issue.

Hate crimes, particularly race hate crimes, are treated as more serious because they *are* more serious for the community in which they occur than similar crimes without a racist element.

The racist element promotes much wider disquiet in the community and is much more inflammatory of further violence. A racist element was deliberately introduced here, and I think the NYPD should own up to that.

My apologies, I wasn't targeting you in particular, rather more commenting on this particular thread in general, which as gone along the lines of:

Person 1: See? Black people can gang up on white people and not get changed with hate crimes.
Person 2: It sounds like you're a bigot.
Person 1: I have white pride, so?
Everyone else: That is wrong for so and so reasons.
Person 1: So? White people are better for so and so reasons.
Wash, rince, and repeat. ;)


This pretty much simplifies and sums up what is going on here. One can be proud of their heritage/nationality/race and that doesnt automatically mean they are bigotted against another. Even if the person is caucasian.
ANd there is nothing worse than latching onto the trend of being ashamed of who you are, who your people were, to try to gain acceptance.
Self loathing isnt hip, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Regardless of analogy, I would not intermix.

I would, like a crazy rabbit.

If I wasn't already married to a lovely girl who as it happens is of roughly the same ethnic background that I am. Them's the breaks.

I would, like a crazy rabbit.

If I wasn't already married to a lovely girl who as it happens is of roughly the same ethnic background that I am. Them's the breaks.
May I do so on your behalf? :p :D

The racist element promotes much wider disquiet in the community and is much more inflammatory of further violence. A racist element was deliberately introduced here, and I think the NYPD should own up to that.


The antagonists and aggressors should be correctly identified and charged and prosecuted, regardless of what race they were.
Next we'll have laws that protect idiots and morons if you happen to say "idiot" or "moron" whilst depriving somone of their civil rights. Unless they dont have civil rights.

This pretty much simplifies and sums up what is going on here. One can be proud of their heritage/nationality/race and that doesnt automatically mean they are bigotted against another. Even if the person is caucasian.
ANd there is nothing worse than latching onto the trend of being ashamed of who you are, who your people were, to try to gain acceptance.
Self loathing isnt hip, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Can you see any alternative other than pride in your race and loathing of your race? Like indifference to your race, for instance?

I would, like a crazy rabbit.

If I wasn't already married to a lovely girl who as it happens is of roughly the same ethnic background that I am. Them's the breaks.

May I do so on your behalf? :p :D

can i watch?

can i watch?

I'll have to check with my boy. ;)

To Nervun: Thats cool, no apology necessary. What you described in term of the character of the exchange (and the futility) was definetly present in the thread.

So, I took a 169 on the LSAT last October, but opted out of Law School. So, my observations about the law are layman-style (hopefully not lamin' style).
I believe there is a concept in law, "mens rea" or something, about the state of the guilty mind, awareness of wrong doing, malice, recklessness, and so forth. I think it is a factor in American courts, sometimes manifesting in "degrees" of a crime, or separating murder from manslaughter, that kind of thing. Is that related to what you're referring to?

So, I believe the motivation might have a place in sentencing (i.e., the guy who took my wallet to get medicine for his wife shouldn't be treated like the guy who did it to buy new exhaust headers for his Camaro). But the problem is, if we allow those kinds of things to mitigate the unlawful act itself, will the act became more prevalent among those in the mitigating condition? (i.e., if we let off the guy who robbed for medicine, will there be crime sprees followed by a line at the pharmacy?).

You do point out a powerful schism in the nature a set of criminal acts. Those who commit crime due to poverty perhaps should be addressed differently than those who commit crime due to substance abuse, or those who commit crime due to laziness and arrogance (lot of white collar criminals, I used to be an accountant, and some cases we studied stole because they just thought they could get away with it).

But hate, thats a tougher line to draw. I once suggested elsewhere that those who commit crime based SOLELY on racial motivations, like the Bergman murder, where essentially posturing themselves as a uniformed enemy army, unwilling to live in peace with others.

I guess in terms of how criminals are studied and rehabilitated, motive should definitely be key. But in terms of punishment, I continue to believe that no truly criminal act can be justified, and if it can be justified, it should be excused via existing case law related to extraordinary circumstances. (according to my prof, it has its basis in British maritime law, four sailors killed and ate a shipmate when stranded at sea for months...they were acquitted because the action under the circumstances could be universalized and understood)...

Anyway, Nervun, you make good points and I'm sorry I got defensive.

The antagonists and aggressors should be correctly identified and charged and prosecuted, regardless of what race they were.
Next we'll have laws that protect idiots and morons if you happen to say "idiot" or "moron" whilst depriving somone of their civil rights. Unless they dont have civil rights.

It doesn't have anything to do with protecting races. Having special hate crime legislation for racist crimes doesn't protect "people with a race", because everybody has a race*.

What it has to do with is this: If i smack you up because you ran over my cat, it's between me and you and my cat, and the people down the street might tut, but they aren't going to worry too much about it. If i smack you up because you're chinese, the chinese people on the block and going to get scared or angry or both and maybe some will join in the wailing-on, and some of the non chinese might think "yeah, dam yeller peeples" and join in the wailing-on, and soon the whole neighbourhood can be wailing on each other. So "hate crimes" so-called are more serious because they can have broader social implications than non hate crimes.



*NB "race is a social construct" people: SO? Baseball is a social construct, but that doesn't stop people playing baseball. So everybody has a race, even if that just means that everybody has some vague ethnic heritage that can be pointed to and loosely described.

I'll have to check with my boy. ;)
you do that ;)

Can you see any alternative other than pride in your race and loathing of your race? Like indifference to your race, for instance?


Of course-read what I said again. In no way did I rule that out.

Of course-read what I said again. In no way did I rule that out.

you have to rule it in, man.

It doesn't have anything to do with protecting races. Having special hate crime legislation for racist crimes doesn't protect "people with a race", because everybody has a race*.

What it has to do with is this: If i smack you up because you ran over my cat, it's between me and you and my cat, and the people down the street might tut, but they aren't going to worry too much about it. If i smack you up because you're chinese, the chinese people on the block and going to get scared or angry or both and maybe some will join in the wailing-on, and some of the non chinese might think "yeah, dam yeller peeples" and join in the wailing-on, and soon the whole neighbourhood can be wailing on each other. So "hate crimes" so-called are more serious because they can have broader social implications than non hate crimes.



*NB "race is a social construct" people: SO? Baseball is a social construct, but that doesn't stop people playing baseball. So everybody has a race, even if that just means that everybody has some vague ethnic heritage that can be pointed to and loosely described.

Its a total waste of time money and breath. If I drop you on your head a few times, I wont be labeling you as I do it.
Charge a criminal as a criminal for their criminal actions and dont try to prosecute what their opinion might be.

To be clear, is there a general consensus in the thread that Hate Crimes should by necessity include an actualized crime? In other words, to be charged, somebody would have to do something illegal coupled with the motivation of hate/racism, yeah? I include in that a group that encourages, equips, or abets criminal acts in its membership. If a Klan Grand Cyclops or whatever says "I'm the leader here, adn we should hang some black people", I think he can and should be charged EDIT: if they then go do it.

But what about some hateful old crank who just sits in his house and gives the stink-eye to passing interracial couples? Can we charge him just for that?

you have to rule it in, man.


However well intended and clear minded you are, you can never cover all the bases in here. Someone that may have a different point of view will always be able to pick at what you post. The simple fact that I didnt offer indifference for your race doesnt mean I dont agree with you there. And arguing this trivial ommission is a total waste of time as well as a disraction, unless thats the intent.

Its a total waste of time money and breath. If I drop you on your head a few times, I wont be labeling you as I do it.
Charge a criminal as a criminal for their criminal actions and dont try to prosecute what their opinion might be.

You might not be doing that, but the BNP would be doing it, and doing it bigstyle. Motivation is very important in crimes, we already acknowledge that in for instance the difference between manslaughter and murder.

And the distinction in hatecrime isn't a moral or philosophical distinction, it is a practical one.

However well intended and clear minded you are, you can never cover all the bases in here. Someone that may have a different point of view will always be able to pick at what you post. The simple fact that I didnt offer indifference for your race doesnt mean I dont agree with you there. And arguing this trivial ommission is a total waste of time as well as a disraction, unless thats the intent.

Actually, I just like saying "you have to rule it in, man". I don't get many opportunities to say it. Sorry for wasting your time.

This pretty much simplifies and sums up what is going on here. One can be proud of their heritage/nationality/race and that doesnt automatically mean they are bigotted against another. Even if the person is caucasian.
ANd there is nothing worse than latching onto the trend of being ashamed of who you are, who your people were, to try to gain acceptance.
Self loathing isnt hip, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Pride in who you are and what your are, as well as acceptance is indeed a good thing. And it has been noted that many times caucasians don't think about what white culture is, or what it means to BE white (of course in countries that are predominately white, they don't have to).

However, using that pride as a spring board or a base to claim being better than another race/culture or to deny other races/cultures their own pride is wrong. That is the careful line we all, no matter what color or culture we hail from, must tread.

To be clear, is there a general consensus in the thread that Hate Crimes should by necessity include an actualized crime? In other words, to be charged, somebody would have to do something illegal coupled with the motivation of hate/racism, yeah? I include in that a group that encourages, equips, or abets criminal acts in its membership. If a Klan Grand Cyclops or whatever says "I'm the leader here, adn we should hang some black people", I think he can and should be charged EDIT: if they then go do it.

But what about some hateful old crank who just sits in his house and gives the stink-eye to passing interracial couples? Can we charge him just for that?

I don't believe that someone should be prosecuted for holding racist opinions, but espousing racist opinions is a different matter. In the UK you can be charged for saying "I'm the leader here, and we should hang some black people" even if none of your followers do it. It's called "incitement to racial hatred" and the leader of the BNP just got prosecuted for it. I don't know if he got off or not.

Say, Nervun, I spent six months last year in Sendai-shi in Miyagi-ken. I remember a Canadian friend of mine got a rough introduction to the Japanese justice system. He got wasted in Kokobuncho one night and "borrowed" a bicycle to go home. When he came to next morning, he figured, well, I already took it, in for a penny, in for a pound, eh?

Six weeks later, six Japanese cops tackled him when he was getting on his bike after work. They must have scanned the registration tag and seen it was stolen, they staked out the bike and nabbed him.

I guess that was one nice thing about Japan. Black, white, Korean, didn't matter. A Gaijin bike thief is a Gaijin bike thief. Poor guy had to call his Japanese girl to come translate for him with the cops. She dumped him after that. Sorry, this was off-topic, but loosely related.

I think this says enough:



Aryan Nations
World Factbook Entry: Created March 12, 2005. This land is for white people only. Race mixing is illegal and those who are guilty of it will be put to death.


"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Our pride is in the superiority of our beloved white European heritage, and the enemy (the Jew, the brown, the black and the yellow) will someday fall to the prophecy of our Führer and we will, as nature intended, reign supreme.

Alliances- WAR, Fatherland

-14/88, Sieg Heil!

UN Delegate: The Holy Empire of The White Nations (elected 35 days ago).

Founder: Valhalla vikings

Aryan Nations contains 10 nations. [List all nations]

To Independent Homesteads: Thanks for that, I'm pretty unaware of how they do things on your side of the pond. I just googled the BNP. I'm reading the manifesto on their site. Are they prominent? Do they hold a lot of seats in partliament? They sound pretty unfriendly, but I haven't read the whole thing yet.

*snip*I believe there is a concept in law, "mens rea" or something, about the state of the guilty mind, awareness of wrong doing, malice, recklessness, and so forth. I think it is a factor in American courts, sometimes manifesting in "degrees" of a crime, or separating murder from manslaughter, that kind of thing. Is that related to what you're referring to?
Yes, the charges of manslaughter vs first degree murder. The crimes committed in the heat of passion and so on.
So, I believe the motivation might have a place in sentencing (i.e., the guy who took my wallet to get medicine for his wife shouldn't be treated like the guy who did it to buy new exhaust headers for his Camaro). But the problem is, if we allow those kinds of things to mitigate the unlawful act itself, will the act became more prevalent among those in the mitigating condition? (i.e., if we let off the guy who robbed for medicine, will there be crime sprees followed by a line at the pharmacy?).
As I understand it, this is built into American case law (I'm an educator btw, so unless it has to do with educational law, I'm am really not an expert, please be heavy on the salt). The idea is not just that justice should be equal, but should be tempered with an equal amount of mercy. The legal system rocks back and forth between strict justice (eye for an eye) and mercy (Bleeding hearts is the current phrase). Hate laws then provide a measuring stick to show intolerance for intolerance and doesn't allow for other excuses. In that way though, they do seem to cut too broad.

Lawrence Kohlberg's famous moral tests uses the sick wife by the way. Noting the intent of the person and allowing for it is supposed to show a higher moral devlopment.
Anyway, Nervun, you make good points and I'm sorry I got defensive.
No worries, in reading my orginal post I was more cranky and abrasive than I should have been. Sorry 'bout that. :)

To Independent Homesteads: Thanks for that, I'm pretty unaware of how they do things on your side of the pond. I just googled the BNP. I'm reading the manifesto on their site. Are they prominent? Do they hold a lot of seats in partliament?

they have no parliamentary seats, thank whatever, but they do have a few local council seats. in the last local council (town and county level) elections, they got around 10 to 15% of the vote in most of the wards near me.

They were born out of the obviously racist national front, and have tried to look like an ordinary party. a lot of people voted for them without realising what nazi thugs they are. a year or so ago, there was a documentary of secret filming from inside bnp meetings in my county, where they were shown ranting on about killing muslims etc.

the next day, the newspapers were full of "Shock revelation: BNP are Racist" type headlines, which anyone with half a brain would see in the same light as "Pope Catholic" or "Bears found to shit in woods".

Don't bother. It's all either faux trendy "manhattan lite" or urban decay.

Of course it was different in the old days before Guliani, when the cops didn't enforce DWI laws. Then it was pretty funny to drive down to nathan's at coney island for hotdogs and frogs legs when the bars shut. Plus back then, Nathan's would sell beer round the clock.

Ive been to that Nathans. Of course, I keep getting lost in Brooklyn.

It's an actual newspaper, though a tiny little local one. It's been around for at least several years. I have no idea what it is really like though. Bad I would assume, coming as it does from Brooklyn.

forgive me but you act as if the bronx is all bad. sure it has its moments as does every place but it would be too extreme to say the things your saying. as far as i've ever known brooklyn is one of the most culturally "saturated" places we have. if you can't appreciate that then you have some serious reflecting to do.... or could it be that you don't understand the culture enough to know what you are talking about in the first place....

OccidentiaPrima']The idea of "hate crimes" in general is idiotic in my opinion, but this should certainly qualify as one. I'd like to hear the officer's logic in not declaring it as such. The LAPD is scared to death of being seen as anti-black these days, so they tend to favor political correctness over uniform justice. Hopefully the NYPD doesn't fall to that level.

ehh...NYPD is limited by the same PC that the LAPD is but we just don't have some of the images that you guys have. Although we do have stuff like plungers, 41 shots, etc. PC has taken over America and justice means little. The avg. murderer spends 7 years in jail in NY and that's just pathetic. Good behavior my ass, if you killed someone either rot in jail forever to get that needle when your appeals run out. But alas, what are you to expect in two of the most liberal states in the US :(.

Either way, NY rules all ;).

To Nervun: I think educational law is as perfect a background as any to examine human behaviour. Unfortunately, where I live now, education law and criminal law appear to share an increasingly sizable overlap...

That reminds me, I've got to get my "Educational Law" credit to renew my sub license...crap.

To Independent Homesteads: Gotcha, so really, the BNP is kind of a whitewashed (pardon my pun) reincarnation of a more overtly supremacist bunch. Thats a bit dodgy. What is really difficult for me to sort out is when supremacist groups incorporate a small portion of sound elements into their platform to gain support for their less reasonable views. (i.e. "Today, the Klan announced its support for reducing government bureaucracy")

I take White pride as being proud to be white, proud of white accomplishments. I do not believe in intermixing, do it if you want, but I dont see my dog, cat, or my coatimundi having sex with each other, at least I Havent caught them. As far as my "future" son, I am underage, other people can do as they please.

Your cat and dog mating are <b>NOT</b> the same thing as a two <i>humans</i> bearing offspring.

Dogs and cats are different species, with a number of chromosomes unequal to the other, 78 and 38, respectively. As well, the two animals probably have incompatible gametes (sex cells) as well. This means that cats and dogs couldn't reproduce together even if they tried.

All normal humans (leaving out those with a genetic disease such as Down Syndrome) have 46 chromosomes and sex cells that (barring deformity or disease) can fuse to create a new human. This means that any two healthy humans, regardless of origin or race (ethnicity if you prefer) can reproduce together.

If you're going to label any crime a "hate crime" this one qualifies. It's clearly reverse discrimination to treat this as anything else.

I wonder, if the story had been about "white pride" people attacking blacks would its legitimacy be automatically approved? Most likely so.

OccidentiaPrima']On a related note, does anyone else agree with me that we should just get rid of the idea of hate crimes altogether?
Yes, and we should have extremely stiff penalties for violent crimes where a large group of people decide to attack a single individual or a very small group of people. That kind of mob behavior cannot be tolerated. It's much more dangerous than a one on one fight because a mob attack is much more likely to go to the point of murder. I think participating in a mob attack should guarantee a minimum of 5 years in maximum security prison for anyone age 16 and up, and a minimum of 5 years in a youth correctional facility for anyone age 15 or below.

I should be more clear.

The story appears to have been published.

The story just isn't true.

Fits your model of racist hype quite well I think.
I'm glad it didn't happen. My faith in humanity is low enough already.

I wonder, if the story had been about "white pride" people attacking blacks would its legitimacy be automatically approved? Most likely so.

In all things, consider the source.

That should be the mantra of any respectable person's life.

I think that what happened here was that a seemingly fair person was angered by a seemingly false racist story.

Can't find it at all on Google News.

Ok well that just furthers the fact that this whole thing is based on fallacy. I think the person who started this was a bit misinformed... i think that he/she only was angry about what the story implied, a double standard for the races

yea, people said that earlier in the posts....i think that hammerskin was just a bit perturbed at a story that wasn't even credible. By the way, being mad at a group of people (let's say 30 attackers) doesn't necesarily make someone hate a certain race (let's say african people).

Of course, I called attention to the probable falsity of the article right away -- and there was no response.

The article said the ones responsible were being charged with assault. If the article is true, then that is exactly what you said should be done.

The article, however, was written to sensationalize the alleged racial nature of the "attack" and was designed to place blacks in a bad light. That they were black was very much the point of the article.

That they were blacks allegedly attacking 4 little white girls was the poster's point too.

Putting on a blindfold doesn't make you colorblind. Just blind.

Cat,

I agree this article is almost assuredly false.

I've read about the first seven pages and I think one point can be made. If this had happened, it's true that it should qualify as a hate crime as much as a similar event involving white kids attacking black kids and calling them niggers. Personally, I don't believe in hate crimes but that's the law.

If this were 30 white kids attacking 4 black kids and calling them niggers the articles we would see would almost certainly be worded similarly and would portray white people in bad light. It would sensationalize the racial nature of the crime. It's not racism, it's media.

Yep. Mean ole' me. I'm so darn intolerant of intolerance. I just hate hatred.

How dare I?

I should love my Aryan brothers. They are so cute with their "white pride."

Dude.

While I am not into the whole "aryan nation" thing, your colour is very appparant. Seriously, you are not helping the cause.

I agree this article is almost assuredly false.

It would appear that something happened, but this article seems to blow it out of all proportion and has several facts wrong. The evidsence that something hapened comes from Senator Marty Golden's site:

The establishment of this police substation is in response to the growing needs of the community and the increase of activities within Marine Park. At the town hall meeting hosted by Senator Golden, a call for increased park patrol was made by neighboring residents and concerns related to a fight involving Marine Park Junior High School students was an issue of much discussion.
source (http://www.senatorgolden.com/press_archive_story.asp?id=10724)


I've read about the first seven pages and I think one point can be made. If this had happened, it's true that it should qualify as a hate crime as much as a similar event involving white kids attacking black kids and calling them niggers. Personally, I don't believe in hate crimes but that's the law.

As I understood it, a racial hate crime was one that was motivated simply and purely by the racial difference. If there is any content to the story, it stillwould not be a hate crime as it was motivated by the desire to use a basketball court, not by the fact that the girls were white. The racial chants etc. are actually irrelevant in this respect. There may be a case that could be made that the attack only happened because the kids were of a different race, in which case it would qualify, but it would be very hard to prove that.

If this were 30 white kids attacking 4 black kids and calling them niggers the articles we would see would almost certainly be worded similarly and would portray white people in bad light. It would sensationalize the racial nature of the crime. It's not racism, it's media.

The report quoted does try to sensationalize the racial aspect of the event. The media, however, tends to respond to the public taste, and racial conflict seems to be a subject of interest in the USA. Here, we have just had a foreign football (soccer) player arrested on the pitch for racial taunting of an opposition player. It has made the news, but only in the sports pages. It is a bigger story in other parts of the world. Don't blame the media for supplying what the public want. (Market forces in action).

No, but I bet their farmland was previously tilled on the sweat and blood of a hapless tribe of American Indians who couldn't imagine why those white people were raping their daughters and kicking them out.

SO THERE! :p

Most likely so was the land you're standing on. So what? Doesn't make their fault. You want them to give it back?

As I understood it, a racial hate crime was one that was motivated simply and purely by the racial difference. If there is any content to the story, it stillwould not be a hate crime as it was motivated by the desire to use a basketball court, not by the fact that the girls were white. The racial chants etc. are actually irrelevant in this respect. There may be a case that could be made that the attack only happened because the kids were of a different race, in which case it would qualify, but it would be very hard to prove that.

If this were 30 white kids beating up 4 black kids while shouting ****** it would almost certainly be called a hate crime, if nothing else, in the media and by parents and police. I wouldn't necessarily think they were wrong to say it.

I disagree with the idea of calling it a hate crime because how do you prove they did it simply because of race. I feel like kicking someone's ass so I go out and pick someone to beat up that is smaller than me. Was my crime motivated by their size?

I kicked their ass. It's assault and it's already a crime. We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the ones we have. In the first GWB election, it was pointed out that GWB wasn't hard enough on crime because he didn't call those white guys dragging the black guy behind the car a hate crime and it was not charged as such. Everyone of those guys got at least life in prison. How is that not hard enough? If you're a malicious fuck, I don't care why you decided to act out, I just want you locked up.

It's also a stupid name. I just kicked your ass. Do you think there might have been some hate involved?

The report quoted does try to sensationalize the racial aspect of the event. The media, however, tends to respond to the public taste, and racial conflict seems to be a subject of interest in the USA. Here, we have just had a foreign football (soccer) player arrested on the pitch for racial taunting of an opposition player. It has made the news, but only in the sports pages. It is a bigger story in other parts of the world. Don't blame the media for supplying what the public want. (Market forces in action).

I totally agree. They are just trying to get the slackjawed to watch and it works every time. That's why they sensationalize school shootings and riots and racial tensions. If they don't make us think it's chaos out there we won't stay glued to the news to get our next fix.

If this were 30 white kids beating up 4 black kids while shouting ****** it would almost certainly be called a hate crime, if nothing else, in the media and by parents and police. I wouldn't necessarily think they were wrong to say it.
True, and they would not be wrong, except legally.

I disagree with the idea of calling it a hate crime because how do you prove they did it simply because of race. I feel like kicking someone's ass so I go out and pick someone to beat up that is smaller than me. Was my crime motivated by their size?
Did you feel like kicking their ass because they were smaller than you?
The problem is that if I, as a white man, mug a black man then this becomes a hate crime under those standards. It isn't as I was doing it for the money and the race of my victim is irrelevant to this, but the fact of the racial difference makes it a hate crime unless this typoe of crime is defined on the basis of motive. On the basis of the reason for the crime happening.

I kicked their ass. It's assault and it's already a crime. We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the ones we have. In the first GWB election, it was pointed out that GWB wasn't hard enough on crime because he didn't call those white guys dragging the black guy behind the car a hate crime and it was not charged as such. Everyone of those guys got at least life in prison. How is that not hard enough? If you're a malicious fuck, I don't care why you decided to act out, I just want you locked up.
I agree with this. However to succesfully prosecute it is often necessary to show a motive. If an attack is purely racially motivated then unless this possibility is recognised by the legal system such crimes can be difficult to convict for. Where there are statutes in place then these should be used, the racial (or other motive) hate crime sets the precedent for prejudice as a motive. This aspect is needed.

I wonder, if the story had been about "white pride" people attacking blacks would its legitimacy be automatically approved? Most likely so.
Not by me or anyone that actualy cared

To Alien Born: As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm asking this as a genuine question, not making an argument either way.

If a guy beats up another guy, and the officers and prosecutors determine it was racially motivated, and they must establish motive, capacity, and opportunity for the crime, can they present racism or a comparable abstract ideology as the motive, but do so within the context of a standard assault charge? Is there an established statutory scope of motivations, or can the jury convict on any motivation that seems supported by the evidence, and do so without a special law for that motive?

If I were on a jury, and the prosecutor wants to charge with standard, vanilla "assault", I would be willing to accept racism as a motive if the body of evidence for the act itself were sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the prosecution establishes that the defendent performed the act, I think any plausible motivation would cause me to vote guilty.

In Speilberg's classic film "Duel", the actor who played the murderous truck driver asked the director, "What's my motivation for attacking this guy?" and Speilberg says "You're a no good evil son of a b----h". I'd convict just on that if the other evidence was there. But does non-hate crime law allow me to convict without a proscribed motivation?

Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?
That was a bad thing and Americans should be ashamed of it. However, let us not forget that the same thing happens every day in countries in Africa such as Zimbabwe and South Africa. What happened at that riot is just the first time that it has happened in the West.

This is why I tell people not to buy houses in Brooklyn. I mean, not only are you cut off from the civilized world. (Westchester), unless you live in Brooklyn heights it takes an hour to get anywhere not brooklyn.

Plus, it always seems on the verge of a riot down there.

Way to be closed off to the rest of New York. Really now. "Cut off from the civilized world"? Just because a number of absolutely horrible people did this to a number of girls does NOT make it the uncivilized world. And it is those kinds of thoughts and reactions to these types of crimes that allows these crimes to keep getting progressively worse, because no one will do anything substantial.

Did you feel like kicking their ass because they were smaller than you? No. That was specifically the point I was making.

The problem is that if I, as a white man, mug a black man then this becomes a hate crime under those standards. It isn't as I was doing it for the money and the race of my victim is irrelevant to this, but the fact of the racial difference makes it a hate crime unless this typoe of crime is defined on the basis of motive. On the basis of the reason for the crime happening.

I'm just saying the waters are muddy. I'll change the example. I decide I want to know what it's like to kill somebody. I choose the victim specifically because they are black and I think that black people are worthless. Is this a hate crime? I think it would depend who you asked even in legal circles.

I agree with this. However to succesfully prosecute it is often necessary to show a motive. If an attack is purely racially motivated then unless this possibility is recognised by the legal system such crimes can be difficult to convict for. Where there are statutes in place then these should be used, the racial (or other motive) hate crime sets the precedent for prejudice as a motive. This aspect is needed.

Actually, I may have changed my mind. Someone made two very good points. One, wealready consider rationale in figuring the severity of a crime. Two, hate crimes are inherently more dangerous because of their effect on the community.

However, I was making the point that we make all these laws that make things more and more specific crimes and I think it often muddies the water. Why should it be a different crime if I shoot you from my car (driveby shooting as specifically dealt with in law in MN) than if I just shoot you? Either way I killed you or could have. Why does it matter if I shot you from a car or from a mountain top?

I also think it's funny that attempted murder is a lesser crime. I tried to kill you but because I suck at killing I'll be on the streets sooner. Personally I'm more afraid of the guy who misses because he's more likely to hit what he's not aiming at. /joke

Dude.

While I am not into the whole "aryan nation" thing, your colour is very appparant. Seriously, you are not helping the cause.

Dude,

I'm white.

Seriously, way to make assumptions.

And Aryans don't deserve a free pass.

To Alien Born: As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm asking this as a genuine question, not making an argument either way.

If a guy beats up another guy, and the officers and prosecutors determine it was racially motivated, and they must establish motive, capacity, and opportunity for the crime, can they present racism or a comparable abstract ideology as the motive, but do so within the context of a standard assault charge? Is there an established statutory scope of motivations, or can the jury convict on any motivation that seems supported by the evidence, and do so without a special law for that motive?

If I were on a jury, and the prosecutor wants to charge with standard, vanilla "assault", I would be willing to accept racism as a motive if the body of evidence for the act itself were sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the prosecution establishes that the defendent performed the act, I think any plausible motivation would cause me to vote guilty.

In Speilberg's classic film "Duel", the actor who played the murderous truck driver asked the director, "What's my motivation for attacking this guy?" and Speilberg says "You're a no good evil son of a b----h". I'd convict just on that if the other evidence was there. But does non-hate crime law allow me to convict without a proscribed motivation?


I am not a lawyer either, nor am I even in the US. However, as I understand things, there is no actual need to prove motive to convict. The difficulty lies in the unpredictability of juries. Where no motive can be established, other than "You're a no good evil son of a b----h" there is going to be space for reasonable doubt or a defense of temporary insanity.

It is possible to prosecute for common assault if the motivation appears to be a prejudice of any kind, but this would not carry the same penalties as a hate crime. As had been ststed earlier a hate crime affects more than just the direct victim, and as such should potentially carry a higher penalty.

I would be interested to see what The Cat-Tribe, who is a lawyer, has to say about this.

Cat,

I find it interesting that you nailed one guy, a white guy, for his racist ideologies, but you said nothing when people made clear and utterly racist statements about white people. Don't you think if you find one so upsetting you should find all such acts equally upsetting?

when people made clear and utterly racist statements about white people

When did someone do that?

To Alien Born: Cool, thanks for the reply. Could I ask you to elaborate a little on the idea of hate crimes affecting more than just the direct victim. Are we talking about the atmosphere of fear that they can create, or that the event itself can polarize and/or antagonize the community at large? Is it the risk of copy-cat events?

My Russian prof used to talk about how small, but vicious attacks by hard-core anti-semites would sometimes escalate into huge, city-wide pogroms in the old days. Is that a risk here that would justify additional punishment for hate-motivated crimes?

On the other hand, could it be seen as unequal protection under the law for some groups to carry a harsher penalty when victimized? See, this is why I don't go around attacking people. Raises too many issues. Well, that, and I have no idea how to fight.

I have White pride. Dont mistake that for White power, those are two different things.

Either you are rather uneducated or a bold liar. Hammerskin Nation isnt exactly the name for a harmless group of people just being proud of their colour. (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Hammerskin.asp?xpicked=3&item=15)

*sigh* People can be so irrational sometimes.

Try this one:

Maybe the police did not label this "crime" (if it even happened -- it's not clear from the posts) as a hate crime because *gasp* they may have details we don't? We don't know the age of these people, we don't know the circumstances, we have just some guy posting about hypocrisy and a supposed hate crime. 30 teens ganging up on 4 white girls? Why? What were said girls doing? What was the history? What was going on?

And why, for God's sake, would these supposed 30 teens be calling MARTIN LUTHER KING when committing an act of violence? Sounds fishy to me. Was it, for example...the name of their high school...?

I could see a fight bnreaking out over such a rivalry. That's not a hate crime.

The whole tale sounds spurious, and even if it's not, I suspect the police have other reasons for not labeling this a hate crime besides the supposed perpetrators being black.

Either way, the original poster is trolling. S/he should have gathered more facts before posting this illogical mess.

Ge-Ren

When did someone do that?

I know i will probably get it for this, but what amazes me is a white can fight and not even shout crazy things like white power, and get a hate charge. What does a minority or a person of color have to do before it is labeled as a hate crime?

Wear a sheet on his head, and murder innocent people for 200 years?

People I'm not even related to do something horrible but because I'm of the same skin-tone I'm not permitted to have justice. I think this pretty clearly qualifies as racist.

OccidentiaPrima']The idea of "hate crimes" in general is idiotic in my opinion, but this should certainly qualify as one. I'd like to hear the officer's logic in not declaring it as such. The LAPD is scared to death of being seen as anti-black these days, so they tend to favor political correctness over uniform justice. Hopefully the NYPD doesn't fall to that level.

they're keeping in step with the political-correctness status quo.

only white people can be racists.

Cat,

I find it interesting that you nailed one guy, a white guy, for his racist ideologies, but you said nothing when people made clear and utterly racist statements about white people. Don't you think if you find one so upsetting you should find all such acts equally upsetting?

I don't recall clear and utterly racist statements about white people.

I don't approve of racism of any kind.

But there is a significant difference both in the historical context and in the present danger posed by racism against minorities and racism against white people.

I definitely oppose both. I regret if I overlooked racist statements against whites. If there were any, I wish I had responded.

But the Aryan ideology is nasty. "White pride" is not harmless.

I believe that there is a South Park episode which covers hate crime, that perticular episode i believd had more insight into the issue then the original poster.

I don't recall clear and utterly racist statements about white people.

I don't approve of racism of any kind.

But there is a significant difference both in the historical context and in the present danger posed by racism against minorities and racism against white people.

I definitely oppose both. I regret if I overlooked racist statements against whites. If there were any, I wish I had responded.

But the Aryan ideology is nasty. "White pride" is not harmless.

I think it's clear that this kid is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I wasn't making the point that he's not. I just think that in a search for equality we should find all hateful acts to be equally unstomachable. That's why I noticed the thing that were said by Hammerskin and the things that were said by BackwoodSquatches. I think they both were making terribly ignorant statements. I also was originally bothered by the clearing of the bloodied land comment until I found out it was just in jest.

how valiant of all of you to attempt to argue with hammer skin, and his like.

however, i will state here, any supposed "white nationalist, racially aware person, etc." who only makes an appearance with an article that seems to back their cause, AND never posts otherwise, because they are not informed and supportive enough of their own views to state them in casual conversation as a general poster, is a FAKE. hammerskins are drug dealing degenerates, any one associated with that name is a spineless, angry child, that has no clue about the entire movement.

also- april 20 is adolf hitlers borthday. they get all bold this week....

People I'm not even related to do something horrible but because I'm of the same skin-tone I'm not permitted to have justice. I think this pretty clearly qualifies as racist.

So you're saying there weren't a bunch of White people who wore sheets on their head and committed senseless acts of terrorism against minorities, particularly blacks and catholics?

The truth is not racism.

To Alien Born: Cool, thanks for the reply. Could I ask you to elaborate a little on the idea of hate crimes affecting more than just the direct victim. Are we talking about the atmosphere of fear that they can create, or that the event itself can polarize and/or antagonize the community at large? Is it the risk of copy-cat events?

This is just my opinion. When a crime is propagated against an individual it is a crime against 'an other'. As such it is an item of interest, and maybe of concern to the pubic in general. If there is reason to believe that the crime is likely to be repeated then it is of greater concern. A woman who kills her cheating husband is an item of scandal and interest. It is not a cause of fear in others (unless they are cheating husbands maybe, but even then their wife is not the murderer). A bank robbery is also a curiosity. An assault on someone because they were part of a gang is of concern to the gang but no-one else. An assault on a person because of their race, however, is a cause for fear for all citizens of that race. It is the atmosphere of fear, the us vs. them culture that is generated by such crimes that make them more heinous. Additionally there are the options open to the victim to be considered. If someone is threatened and has their money demanded, they have the option of handing over the money and avoiding the physical attack or even murder. However a gay or an arab can not hand over their gayness or arabic nature. Even if they could, the perpetrator does not want it. The intent of the crime is to cause physical harm, it is not aggravated robbery, it is pure assault.

My Russian prof used to talk about how small, but vicious attacks by hard-core anti-semites would sometimes escalate into huge, city-wide pogroms in the old days. Is that a risk here that would justify additional punishment for hate-motivated crimes?
I do not think that this is particularly a risk where the state culture is opposed to such pogroms. The justification is more on the more widespread effect of the single incident, than on the fear of escalation.

On the other hand, could it be seen as unequal protection under the law for some groups to carry a harsher penalty when victimized? See, this is why I don't go around attacking people. Raises too many issues. Well, that, and I have no idea how to fight.

Hate crimes are not unilateral. It does not apply to one group or even a limited section of society. Ifd a group of lesbians decided to attack a man for being man, then this would be a hate crime and should carry the same penalty as a group of white supremicists attacking a black for being black.

Glad to know that you don't go around attacking people. I limited myself to doing it on the sports field (D Line was fun :D )

they're keeping in step with the political-correctness status quo.

only white people can be racists.

Meh. Anyone can be racist.

We almost all are to some degree (at least in the US).

But we can be aware of prejudices and seek to educate ourselves and overcome them.

The simple fact of the matter is that most discrimination in the US is against minorities by whites. (Not even considering it historical but just right now.)

But, every civil rights law and hate crime law protects whites just as much as minorities. And people are sued for discriminating against whites and prosecuted for committing hate crimes against whites.

In 2003, the FBI reports 4,574 hate crimes. 3,032 against blacks. 969 against whites. Blacks are approximately 12% of the population. So the amount of hate crimes against blacks is way disproportionate.

I can understand hostility to affirmative action.

And I know equality crusaders or zealots like myself can be over the top, but I honestly do not understand hostility towards neutral laws that protect everyone equally.

Either you are rather uneducated or a bold liar. Hammerskin Nation isnt exactly the name for a harmless group of people just being proud of their colour. (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Hammerskin.asp?xpicked=3&item=15)
thank you jester. i was hinting at that inmy proir post.

So you're saying there weren't a bunch of White people who wore sheets on their head and committed senseless acts of terrorism against minorities, particularly blacks and catholics?

The truth is not racism.

No the fact that he said this in response to the question what would it take for black people to be held to the same standard by the law as white people is racism.

I'm white but I don't know of any acts of hatred committed by my ancestors in any way. I've tracked my ancestors back to when they entered the US from Norway and Sweden. That was just over a hundred years ago. They lived in a town only populated by scandanavians until my grandparents met and moved to Indiana. None of them owned slaves. None of them killed Indians. None of them (that I know of) have been members of the KKK. My best friend married my sister and they have two children of mixed race. My other sister had a mixed race child that has since passed away. More importantly even all of this were not true, what does that have to do with me? I don't care if my father was Adolf fucking Hitler, that has no bearing on me and who I am.

What have I (not *my people*) done that would suggest that I don't deserve justice as much as anyone? His point was that I automatically deserve less justice because of the color of my skin. It's an ignorant and racist statements when referring to minorities and it's just as ignorant when referring to white people. It's really very simple.

The fact that history occurred does not change the fact that we need to press for equality, but not lifting up one group while pressing down another. Most people seeking equality don't make statements like Backwood made but making statements like that give ammunition to idiots that claim that white people's are being trampled by a movement towards equality.

EDIT: My last name is now an Irish last name (though I have no Irish blood) because my paternal grandfather couldn't find work in Chicago because of his ethnicity. He pretended to be Irish so he could survive.

No, misguided is posting a story like the one above, and attempting to portray that as an example for all of one ethnicity.
Yes, but so is the acceptance of reverse rascism. Not all white people were slave owners and members of the KKK two-hundred years ago. Some, like my grandfathers, were white, and were discriminated against and tormented as well. If the story is even partially true, what happened was an attrocity - and if they were slinging rascist terms while doing such acts with a mob mentality - then I argue it should be considered a hate crime.

So you're saying there weren't a bunch of White people who wore sheets on their head and committed senseless acts of terrorism against minorities, particularly blacks and catholics?

The truth is not racism.

No, that isn't what he said at all. What he said was that he should not be blamed for what other white people did, any more than every black person should be blamed for one black criminal, or all Muslims should be blamed for a terrorist attack, or all Christians should be blamed for one bombing a clinic.

If Jocabia were attacked for being white (which is rare, but not unheard of - wasn't rare at all when tensions were high in the '60s, depending on where you were), he should get the same hate-crime law protections as a minority.

Yes, but so is the acceptance of reverse rascism.
reverse rascism is just rascism. nothing revervse about it.

No, that isn't what he said at all. What he said was that he should not be blamed for what other white people did, any more than every black person should be blamed for one black criminal, or all Muslims should be blamed for a terrorist attack, or all Christians should be blamed for one bombing a clinic.

If Jocabia were attacked for being white (which is rare, but not unheard of - wasn't rare at all when tensions were high in the '60s, depending on where you were), he should get the same hate-crime law protections as a minority.

Thank you.

Also, I have actually been attacked for being white. I shaved my head before going to Norway with the military. I have very blond hair and very much looked like a skinhead which is why four black men attacked me. Or, at least, that's what they said just before one of them hit me. No, I don't feel like a victim and, no, I don't think this is evidence of some large problem of discrimination towards white people. But it does happen on occasion.

I am not a lawyer either, nor am I even in the US. However, as I understand things, there is no actual need to prove motive to convict. The difficulty lies in the unpredictability of juries. Where no motive can be established, other than "You're a no good evil son of a b----h" there is going to be space for reasonable doubt or a defense of temporary insanity.

It is possible to prosecute for common assault if the motivation appears to be a prejudice of any kind, but this would not carry the same penalties as a hate crime. As had been ststed earlier a hate crime affects more than just the direct victim, and as such should potentially carry a higher penalty.

I would be interested to see what The Cat-Tribe, who is a lawyer, has to say about this.

I'm not particularly knowledge about the law re hate crimes, but I am looking into it now.

Intent is a common element of crimes. In order for someone to be convicted of almost any crimes, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a certain mental state when they committed certain acts. (I'm not fully awake, but I can provide examples when my head clears, if necessary.)

Motive is rarely an element of a crime. It is often a subject of trials because the appearance of a motive or the lack of a motive may tend to indicate guilt or innocence.

This (http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/care.html) appears to be an accurate description of hate crime legislation at the federal level:

Congress, working in bipartisan fashion, has on several occasions tackled the problem of bigotry that spills over into violence. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990; the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1994; and the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 are three such examples.

Enacted in 1990, the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA) requires the Justice Department to collect data on crimes which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings. In 1994, Congress expanded coverage of the HCSA to require FBI reporting on crimes motivated by bias against persons with disabilities. By reviewing statistics and charting the geographic distribution of these crimes, police officials may be able to recognize patterns and anticipate an increase in racial tensions in a given jurisdiction. However, the accuracy of the Hate Crime Statistic Report is hampered by the fact that law enforcement agencies are not required to participate.

Originally introduced by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as freestanding legislation, the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act was enacted into law as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Pursuant to the Act, the United States Sentencing Commission established a sentencing enhancement of "not less than 3 offense levels for [federal] offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes." The enhancement defines a hate crime as "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." In other words, sentences imposed on defendants convicted of federal crimes may be substantially increased if the crime is found to be motivated by bias. This measure--which covers only federal crimes--applies, for example, to bias-motivated attacks and vandalism that occur in national parks and on other Federal property. This enhancement took effect on November 1, 1995.

The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 was enacted in response to a disturbing rash of arsons directed at houses of worship, with African American churches disproportionately victimized. According to Justice Department officials, DOJ opened 658 investigations of suspicious fires, bombings, and attempted bombings from January 1, 1995, to August 18, 1998. Of the 658 attacks directed against houses of worship, 220 were predominantly African-American institutions.

The Church Arson Prevention Act was initially sponsored by Sens. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and by Reps. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and John Conyers (D-MI). In a welcome example of bipartisanship, both the House and the Senate unanimously approved the legislation, which broadened existing Federal criminal jurisdiction and facilitated criminal prosecutions for attacks against houses of worship, increased penalties for these crimes, established a loan guarantee recovery fund for rebuilding, and authorized additional law enforcement personnel "investigate, prevent, and respond" to these incidents. Recognizing that data collection efforts complement criminal prosecutions of hate crime offenders, Congress also included a continuing mandate for the HCSA.

So, at the federal level, other than church arsons, hate crimes provisions:

(a) define hate crimes and provide for collection of statistical data about them and

(b) provide for enhanced sentencing when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

Here is the National Criminal Justice Reference Service's (DOJ) website on hate crimes (http://www.ncjrs.org/hate_crimes/summary.html). It has pretty definitive information.

I'll get back to you when I know more.

Particularly I'll look at some state statutes.