NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by "The State of Black America" thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526479

Certainly, this is a subject relevant to it but that thread is too long and contains many aspects so I'll make a seperate thread here for this specific aspect so people who cares or interested at debate or whatever can write here. Anyway.

Here, these are statistics from US Department of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf

Go to page 1:


Per capita rates of hate crime victimization varied little by race or
ethnicity: about 0.9 per 1,000 whites, 0.7 per 1,000 blacks, and 0.9 per
1,000 Hispanics were reported to the National Crime Victimization Survey.



In page 7, there is the table for characteristics of offenders. 43.5% is White and 38.8% is Black. White population is like 70% of US population while blacks are 12% of the population, so by per capita rates, blacks are more likely to be offenders.

So what I'm trying to say here? The state of black America may be bad parly/mostly/fully due to discrimination but it's a two way street (isnt it usually?) here. This may be a "no shit" thing for many of you but believe me, I've encountered some people who hold "evil white men" responsible for everything so the statistics are interesting. Of course they may be wrong and race/ethnicity are not the only motivation for hate crimes (tho those reasons are in majority), but still, interesting...

It only becomes interesting once you actually tell us why you posted it, ie what you intend to do about it.

Referring to no one in particular (standard phrase: "not you, but some people I spoke to"), you're debunking nothing and speaking to no one.

So, you were "inspired: by a thread pointing out the plight of black America to post a thread alleging that the Black community is more guilty of hate crimes than whites? A real fucking hero of the common middle-American you are.

Did it occur to you that many hate crimes have nothing to do with race, that a great many number of hate crimes are against homosexuals and the trans-gendered?
Probably not.

It only becomes interesting once you actually tell us why you posted it, ie what you intend to do about it.

Referring to no one in particular (standard phrase: "not you, but some people I spoke to"), you're debunking nothing and speaking to no one.

Speaking to noone? Then how come you are replying?

So, you were "inspired: by a thread pointing out the plight of black America to post a thread alleging that the Black community is more guilty of hate crimes than whites? A real fucking hero of the common middle-American you are.

Did it occur to you that many hate crimes have nothing to do with race, that a great many number of hate crimes are against homosexuals and the trans-gendered?
Probably not.

You only made yourself look foolish.

1)

....
Of course they may be wrong and race/ethnicity are not the only motivation for hate crimes (tho those reasons are in majority), but still, interesting...

2) If by middle American, you mean middle class US citizen, then look at my location.

You only made yourself look foolish.
And they only make you look like a bigot. In light of that consideration any of your statements on the subject become meaningless.
2) If by middle American, you mean middle class US citizen, then look at my location.
Meh. Harper's your PM. Your country has to have some asshats.

And they only make you look like a bigot. In light of that consideration any of your statements on the subject become meaningless.

Meh. Harper's your PM. Your country has to have some asshats.

Ok. You are angry because you were slightly humiliated. I'm sorry...

Did it occur to you that many hate crimes have nothing to do with race, that a great many number of hate crimes are against homosexuals and the trans-gendered?
Probably not.

Yeah, but they probably deserve it. It's pretty clear from these statistics that blacks are racist.

small problem - hate crime reporting is notoriously variable, with many locations not keeping track at all, failing to report, or flat out lying

small problem - hate crime reporting is notoriously variable, with many locations not keeping track at all, failing to report, or flat out lying

Won't this be a horrible conversation?

*Enjoys a pot of tea with close black friend*...Care to join us Free Soviets?

small problem - hate crime reporting is notoriously variable, with many locations not keeping track at all, failing to report, or flat out lying

for example:

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/remote-page.jsp?itemID=28991009
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) recently released "Hate Crime Statistics, 2005" shows a decrease in the total number of hate crimes in the United States.
...
However, with no data on hate crimes from New York City and Phoenix - two of the Top 10 largest cities in the U.S. -- civil rights groups have said the data is incomplete. "The fact that New York City and Phoenix did not report hate crime data to the FBI ... marks a setback to the progress the Bureau has made in the program," said Deborah M. Lauter, director of civil rights at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Louisville, the 26th largest city in the United States, also failed to report any hate crimes.

There is also concern that there were no reports of hate crime in two states and fewer than 10 hate crimes reported in four others, perhaps by virtue of the voluntary nature of the reporting. Neither Mississippi or Alabama reported any hate crimes for 2005, Hawaii did not participate at all, Wyoming reported 3, Alaska reported 4, and South Dakota reported 9.

for example:

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/remote-page.jsp?itemID=28991009

I actually think it might be pretty damn plausible that Alaska only had four hate crimes. The others two under reporters probably aren't too far off either. Small homogeneous populations and all.

Alabama and Mississippi are bullshit, though.

Don't know what Hawaii's problem is. Probably prefer their own system or something.

And with the spring comes the nazis?
Well, I was warned.

I actually think it might be pretty damn plausible that Alaska only had four hate crimes. The others two under reporters probably aren't too far off either. Small homogeneous populations and all.

maybe. but note that none of those are really homogeneous at all, what with the large native populations, and actually have a significant history of racially motivated violence directed that way

Don't know what Hawaii's problem is. Probably prefer their own system or something.

no idea. i do know that i personally met a nazi on a hill above honolulu, and he seemed far too confident to me.

So, you were "inspired: by a thread pointing out the plight of black America to post a thread alleging that the Black community is more guilty of hate crimes than whites? A real fucking hero of the common middle-American you are.

Did it occur to you that many hate crimes have nothing to do with race, that a great many number of hate crimes are against homosexuals and the trans-gendered?
Probably not.

i would have to agree with you,i would say the vast majority of real hate crimes are against the homosexual and transgendered.

one could point to the crime committed by blacks against whites,and i will say (i was a victim of crime committed by blacks against me multible times,verse never by whites..unless yo include cops..lol)
but that does not mean it was a hate crime,if anything,it points too the social and economic disparacy between the races.
just because i was mugged by blacks does not indicate hate...at the most it may indicate basic greed and wanting what i have/had.

the op glosses over this and insinuates that blacks hate whites ,and fundamentally that argument is flawed.

i would argue that there is still rascism and fear of blacks in the white community,and vice versa,but predominantly...when together one on one..we all get on pretty good.

this is nothing more then fear mongering.

At least "hate" crimes are down, overall. That can't be bad.

I think all this hate crimes thing is pretty silly. I really hope that the majority of violent crimes are against people that the aggressors hate. I would rather see somebody shooting someone that they hate rather than shoot some random pedestrian just to take their shoes. Hate should be a mitigating factor in crimes and not an aggravating factor. I think it is pretty hard to be totally cold blooded when you hate someone, no matter how premeditated the violence.

I think all this hate crimes thing is pretty silly. I really hope that the majority of violent crimes are against people that the aggressors hate. I would rather see somebody shooting someone that they hate rather than shoot some random pedestrian just to take their shoes. Hate should be a mitigating factor in crimes and not an aggravating factor. I think it is pretty hard to be totally cold blooded when you hate someone, no matter how premeditated the violence.

hate crimes explicitly do not refer to personal-level hate. they are much closer to your random pedestrian scenario.

i would have to agree with you,i would say the vast majority of real hate crimes are against the homosexual and transgendered.




You'd be wrong, it's in the report.

You'd be wrong, it's in the report.

I stopped reading the report at the graph. You know, where the numbers didn't add up.

I stopped reading the report at the graph. You know, where the numbers didn't add up.

Which graph?

edit: If you mean the first one, it's very plausable that people reported hate crimes for multiple motivations. Such as a victim of race/ethnicity hate crime or someone may be a victim due to race/ethnicity/sexuality, etc...

Which graph?

Well, the bar chart at the top of the first page.

I'm not entirely sure how race at 55%, association at 30%, ethnicity at about 28%, sexual orientation at about 18%, and then three others between 10 and 15% all add up to 100%.

Well, the bar chart at the top of the first page.

I'm not entirely sure how race at 55%, association at 30%, ethnicity at about 28%, sexual orientation at about 18%, and then three others between 10 and 15% all add up to 100%.

They dont have to. Read my edit...

I don't care who are more or less likely to be the perpetrators/victims. Hate crimes are bad whoever's doing them.

Hate crimes are a farce. Crime is crime and the outcome of a crime doesn't make it's modivating factors any less relevant. If I murder someone, it shouldn't matter WHY I did it; the fact people should be looking at is that I murdered someone. The person is just as dead as if I had murdered them for money, spite or racism.

I also find it comical how some people called the OP racist and a nazi simply because of his post. I forgot that only White people can be racist. Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and everyone else can NEVER be racist pricks. You'll have to excuse that Strawman right there but it boggles the mind that the minute someone is critical of a minority he/she is a racist. Do you all hate your own race that much? Does it really matter anyways?

I tend to agree with the OP. I live in the south where all white people are apparently "redneck inbreed hicks who are racist as hell" except the majority of the racism I've seen has been started by blacks against whites, hispanics against whites, hispanics against blacks and blacks against hispanics. Rarely have I ever witnessed Asians, Arabs or Whites actually starting it.

I also find it comical how some people called the OP racist and a nazi simply because of his post.

It's more because he seems to think that the ethnicity of people committing hate crimes is something highly important that we should focus on.

The difference between hate crime and "normal" crime is that if you commit a crime against someone purely because they are a member of a race/are of a sexuality/whatever then you are, let's face it, likely to commit a similar crime again, for the same reason.

Hate crimes are a farce. Crime is crime and the outcome of a crime doesn't make it's modivating factors any less relevant. If I murder someone, it shouldn't matter WHY I did it; the fact people should be looking at is that I murdered someone. The person is just as dead as if I had murdered them for money, spite or racism.

*sigh*

We hear this same tired argument everytime hate crimes come up. Motives and intent are critical elements of criminal law. We do treat homicides differently depending on the intent. We also treat murder for hire differently than ordinary murder.

I also find it comical how some people called the OP racist and a nazi simply because of his post.

Where, pray tell, did the OP get called a racist and a nazi in this thread?

Nice bogeyman you have there.

I forgot that only White people can be racist. Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and everyone else can NEVER be racist pricks. You'll have to excuse that Strawman right there but it boggles the mind that the minute someone is critical of a minority he/she is a racist. Do you all hate your own race that much? Does it really matter anyways?

tend to agree with the OP. I live in the south where all white people are apparently "redneck inbreed hicks who are racist as hell" except the majority of the racism I've seen has been started by blacks against whites, hispanics against whites, hispanics against blacks and blacks against hispanics. Rarely have I ever witnessed Asians, Arabs or Whites actually starting it.

You are a host of contradictions. First you focus on race, then you say it doesn't matter, then you focus on race again.

No one is saying that only white people can be racist -- you admit yourself that it's a strawman.

As for being "critical of a minority," such criticism may or may not be racist. Doesn't it depend on the criticism and it's motives?

I for one find this whole thread extremely amusing, having come from someone who has previously argued that hate crime laws were biased against whites and provided privileges to minorities. Clearly, that isn't true.

Yay for the slight reduction in hate crime rate.

However the horrible amount of crime in America is all due to gangs.

Without gangs US crime rate (and hate crime rate) would go down at least 50%. But instead many just keep on joining gangs to go roll and shoot at da po po with there best buddies.

By the way, how does the OP explain away these statistics from the FBI?

2005 Hate crime statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm):

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

It's kind of funny to notice the people who will constantly rise that whatever argument against blacks is flawed in some way, and they lurk about looking for them.
Than we have the people who assert that whites are in NO WAY shape or form responsible for any acts ever commited on the black society.

So for bystanders their's a few choices,
1) Stand back
2) Pick and argument and immidiately be eligible to be called racist(Happened in other threads, this one's been alright about it.)
or 3)Just tell everyone to stfu and g(row)tfu, realize that a perfect world can't, and won't exist as long as there are differences between people, giving varying races and genders benefits and disadvantages, and just accept the fact that life isn't fair.

Once one comes to term with the fact that life really isn't fair, one can:
1)Protest like a yuppie(Correct word here?) college student.
2)Grow bitter and cynical
3)Argue endlessly on forums
4)Make differences by being someone outside the poor part of statistics(IE:White person hires a black person at the same income he makes if the same job and time in it. A black person going to get a better job, and make sure that he/she receives the same attention and respect that any other race would receive)
and even 5)Raise your children to be completely colorblind

The entire problem with "Seeing colors" won't be fixed in this generation, and probably never will be, but it's fun to imagine that after several generations of as many people that could, teach their children to only see race as a minor characteristic, like if a person wears glasses.

And to Khermi, :P It's a hard argument to make, though I think the US law systems got a very nice classification of murder down pat with the degrees. Slaying someone BECAUSE their a certain race should be equivalent to first degree murder, because it's plotted out. But if some (race 1)guy is driving down the side of the road and just slams into a group of teenagers and kills a (race 2) kid. No one should be able to cry out "It's because he was (race 2) this is a HATE crime!"
Its rediculous. Crimes should be judged on intent and planning.
As for what punishment, I think that's an entirely different argument.

And upon reveiwing again "A real fucking hero of the common middle-American you are." from Neo Undelia.
Yeah, g(row)tfu. :D

Giant post is obnoxiously large!

*snip*

If you want anyone to respond to you, write legibly and, if not succintly, then in an organized fashion.

Use the quote box to respond to people. It is easy to do and makes your posts more readable.

A real fucking hero of the common middle-American you are.

Here Cat-Tribe-maybe-mod.
"Saying things like this bring no argument besides name-calling."

Unless you endorse sarcastic comments as valid points. :D

Much of the 'hate' crime issue is probably attributable to gang violence. That's usually how it is. I say: let it be. Things will resolve themselves among the civilized population, and one less gang member is no shame, regardless the race. :)

Here Cat-Tribe-maybe-mod.
"Saying things like this bring no argument besides name-calling."

Unless you endorse sarcastic comments as valid points. :D

Two new mods in two weeks?

*Gets paranoid* :eek:

Two new mods in two weeks?

*Gets paranoid* :eek:

hahaha I'm so confused as to who's a mod and who isn't. Hence the "maybe-mod"

hahaha I'm so confused as to who's a mod and who isn't. Hence the "maybe-mod"

Oh, my mistake.

Here's hoping the guy's just got a self-righteous streak and isn't a mod. :D

Not that the mods aren't great, but there's a reasonable number that I think has already been achieved. ;)

hahaha I'm so confused as to who's a mod and who isn't. Hence the "maybe-mod"

I merely offered friendly advice on how you might better get responses to your posts. Your posting style isn't very easy to respond to.

.....

I for one find this whole thread extremely amusing, having come from someone who has previously argued that hate crime laws were biased against whites and provided privileges to minorities. Clearly, that isn't true.


Ah...Surprised to see you not trolling/flaming this time. But I didnt argue that hate crime laws were biased against whites and provided privileges to minorities. Just like you are easy to be amused, it is easy for you to forget, I see. I just criticized PEOPLE who are interpreting and enforcing those laws.

In any case, the statistics dont prove anything. There may be still anti-white bias and without it, the rate of white hate crime offenders may be even lower. Or not. As I said, the statistics dont prove anything, either for or against what I've said.

By the way, how does the OP explain away these statistics from the FBI?

2005 Hate crime statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm):

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

There is no contradiction between statistics or this and what I've written if that's what you imply. And:



Ethnicity/National Origin Bias

Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,228 victims. Of these victims:

58.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.


Given the black-hispanic conflict in USA,

for ex: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0610F73B540C748DDDA80894DF404482


Racial Hate Feeds a Gang War's Senseless Killing

January 17, 2007, Wednesday
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 2, 1403 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Latino gang's killing of 14-year-old Cheryl Green because she was black is particularly senseless crime in wave of bias attacks in Los Angeles, where black and Latino gangs are battling, often in black neighborhoods where Latino population is surging; violence grew at alarming rate last year and 14 percent increase in gang crime is linked to interracial conflict; hate crimes overall rose 34 percent; Rabbi Allen Freehling blames failure of political leaders to prepare people for socioeconomic and demographic changes; other particularly violent attacks on blacks by Latinos and by black youths against young white women also cited; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Comr William Bratton promise crackdowns; Green killing in Harbor Gateway, where blacks and Latinos have set up dividing line, particularly alarms officials; two Latinos are charged with murder


the majority of anti black and anti hispanic crimes may be due to hispanics and blacks themselves. But that's a speculation.

What we know is that Blacks are less likely to be victims of hate crimes and more likely to commit hate crimes. And now, your link says they are more likely to be victims of racially motivated single-bias hate crimes. But we still dont know about multiple bias hate crimes in which racial motivation is one of the reasons.

Actually, the one thing that gets glossed over, especially by people like Cat-Tribe, is that 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by blacks.

Whether or not it's a hate crime seems irrelevant to me.

If whites were killing blacks at this rate, people would be up in arms, criticizing the killers.

I only see the culture of the killers celebrated in popular song, video, and movies.

And don't tell me that somehow, whites are making blacks kill other blacks.

This is what I'm talking about:

From 1993 to 2001, blacks were 12% of the U.S. population age 12 or older but 46% of all homicide victims and 54% of all victims of firearm homicide. Among homicide victims, blacks were more likely than whites to have been killed with a firearm. About 8 in 10 black homicide victims and 7 in 10 white homicide victims died from gunshot injuries.

Blacks were about 7 times more likely than whites to be a homicide victim (30 versus 4 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older respectively), and approximately 9 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide committed with a firearm (25 versus 3 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older, respectively).

This trend is consistent across income levels - when comparing black homicide rates to white or Hispanics at the SAME income level, the blacks are far more likely to be victims AND to be the offenders.

Actually, the one thing that gets glossed over, especially by people like Cat-Tribe, is that 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by blacks.

Whether or not it's a hate crime seems irrelevant to me.

yes, and we all know how important seeming relevant to you is...

yes, and we all know how important seeming relevant to you is...

So you'll be glad to gloss over the fact that blacks are killing each other wholesale in a way that would be called racist genocide if whites were doing it to them.

In other words, "murder is fine, as long as it's not a hate crime".

So you'll be glad to gloss over the fact that blacks are killing each other wholesale in a way that would be called racist genocide if whites were doing it to them.

first off, you ain't one to talk about the evils of genocide, dk.
second, who is glossing over anything? hate crimes are different things from regular crimes, emanating from different motivations and resulting in different societal outcomes. we are discussing these here.

first off, you ain't one to talk about the evils of genocide, dk.
second, who is glossing over anything? hate crimes are different things from regular crimes, emanating from different motivations and resulting in different societal outcomes. we are discussing these here.

Once again, killing is OK as long as it isn't a hate crime...:headbang:

Once again, killing is OK as long as it isn't a hate crime...:headbang:

question - are you even capable of being intellectually honest?

question - are you even capable of being intellectually honest?

What's dishonest about that? You're the one who has to be held to the moral standard, not me.

What's dishonest about that?

the fact that i never said anything of the sort, genocide-boy

So, you were "inspired: by a thread pointing out the plight of black America to post a thread alleging that the Black community is more guilty of hate crimes than whites? A real fucking hero of the common middle-American you are.

Did it occur to you that many hate crimes have nothing to do with race, that a great many number of hate crimes are against homosexuals and the trans-gendered?
Probably not.

That is for victims...he is pointing out regardless of who the crime is against the criminal on per capitia basis is much more likely to be black.

That in general the Black community is more prone to xenophobic violence...
The numbers justifiy his statement.

Since when is it a crime to state negative facts about Blacks?

Fuck White Apologists.

I never owned a slave, I never denied anyone a job, a hand shake, or a plate of cookies when I baked them. I will drink a beer you if you will drink a beer with me...but i wont apologize for racism or feel bad for you.

Everyone gets stepped on, I am personally sick...sick...sick of listening to Black Defeatists whine about it, and White Apologists enable it.

You dont like the treatment take action but shut the fuck up.

I dont know of and ethnic or national group in this country that didnt get shit on, and abroad at some point everyone has been culture with a boot on its neck.

Buy a damn helmut and move on...we get it, your life isnt fair.
Welcome to the real world, life isnt fair for anyone.

first off, you ain't one to talk about the evils of genocide, dk.
second, who is glossing over anything? hate crimes are different things from regular crimes, emanating from different motivations and resulting in different societal outcomes. we are discussing these here.

Hate crime legislation in the US is unconstitutional.
It provides unfair and biased protection.

Murder is Murder. If i kill you because you stepped on my shoe or because you are "Not Like Me" I have still killed you.

If I kill you out of rage and not premeditation that can be considered...but
Making the crime some how different because I didnt like you sexual orientation, skin color, religion, is absurd. It is not relevant to the crime, was it premeditated or not is relevant---was it excessively brutal is relevant---is there a likelihood of me committing a crime again is relevant...Why is inconsequential and completely speculative unless I flatout say why.


Thats just my opinion.
I also of course am of the opinion of greatly reduced sentences for non-violent(thieves, fruad, and such) offenders release of all non-violent drug offenders(possession, dealing, transporting with intent and the like) and far stiffer sentences for violent offenders...no matter who their victims are.

the fact that i never said anything of the sort, genocide-boy

Worked for the Turks, didn't it?

Hate crime legislation in the US is unconstitutional.
It provides unfair and biased protection.

no it isn't and no it doesn't

Murder is Murder. If i kill you because you stepped on my shoe or because you are "Not Like Me" I have still killed you.

and yet

If I kill you out of rage and not premeditation that can be considered

make up your mind. either murder is murder, or there are morally and legally relevant distinctions between different types of murder. you can't use the first option as a premise in an argument against hate crime legislation while also accepting the truth of the second.

no it isn't and no it doesn't

Yes it does.
Because implies directly that for instance me beating a white protestant heterosexual male to death is less of a crime then me beating a Black homosexual female buddhist to death....or vice versa.

And it isnt.





make up your mind. either murder is murder, or there are morally and legally relevant distinctions between different types of murder. you can't use the first option as a premise in an argument against hate crime legislation while also accepting the truth of the second.

The first option already includes the others. The others are not based on race, sexual orientation, gender or religion. They are not based on those because basing the law on those would discriminatory. They would be providing unfair protection to a specific group.

Current and common law already considers all the factors I mention...because they are all that is relevant. Race can be a factor in sentencing, neither can sexual orientation, religion or gender.

Hate Crime Laws make that a factor. Which makes it unconsitutional.
If a Black man kills me and is screaming die you white bastard while he does it...his sentence is worse because of RACE---His and Mine. That is not constitutional. If you want to argue that he targets whites and that he is likely to offend again FINE. Because then it doesnt matter if he is Black...or simply Not my Race. It only considers the victim.
Hate Crime Laws consider the Race, religion, Sexual Orientation of the Offender...in sentencing. That is unfair bias. And...completely unneeded bias, other facets of the law can cover the issue witout regard to the offenders status in those areas.

Because implies directly that for instance me beating a white protestant heterosexual male to death is less of a crime then me beating a Black homosexual female buddhist to death....or vice versa.

no, it doesn't. not in the slightest.

i think that your issue with hate crime laws might be resolved if you knew what they actually were and what they actually do.

The first option already includes the others

"murder is murder" = "there are multiple morally distinct types of murder that should be punished differently"? really?

they are all that is relevant

justify this - what makes them relevant?

after doing so, explain what makes the fact that criminal x went out and went out and attacked person y for no reason other than y's perceived membership in group z irrelevant?

Well, I guess this at least gets rid of the argument that hate crime laws provide "special protections" to gays and blacks that no one else gets.

Yes it does.
Because implies directly that for instance me beating a white protestant heterosexual male to death is less of a crime then me beating a Black homosexual female buddhist to death....or vice versa.
Except it's still not a hate crime if you beat them to death because they scratched your car.

no, it doesn't. not in the slightest.

i think that your issue with hate crime laws might be resolved if you knew what they actually were and what they actually do.



"murder is murder" = "there are multiple morally distinct types of murder that should be punished differently"? really?



justify this - what makes them relevant?

after doing so, explain what makes the fact that criminal x went out and went out and attacked person y for no reason other than y's perceived membership in group z irrelevant?

Gimme an hour to respond I have to go get kids from school.
Not ducking just have to do the important stuff.

Ah...Surprised to see you not trolling/flaming this time. But I didnt argue that hate crime laws were biased against whites and provided privileges to minorities. Just like you are easy to be amused, it is easy for you to forget, I see. I just criticized PEOPLE who are interpreting and enforcing those laws.

In any case, the statistics dont prove anything. There may be still anti-white bias and without it, the rate of white hate crime offenders may be even lower. Or not. As I said, the statistics dont prove anything, either for or against what I've said.

If the statistics don't prove anything, why did you post this thread?

You just liked it when you thought the statistics supported a hypothesis you like. When they are shown to support a hypothesis you don't like, then they "don't prove anything."

Well, I guess this at least gets rid of the argument that hate crime laws provide "special protections" to gays and blacks that no one else gets.


Except it's still not a hate crime if you beat them to death because they scratched your car.

I would never suggest no one else gets it. That is absurd. I dont think a BLack guy should get treated worse just becuase he killed a white guy. Or vice versa...it isnt about that. but go to go ...

Yes it does.
Because implies directly that for instance me beating a white protestant heterosexual male to death is less of a crime then me beating a Black homosexual female buddhist to death....or vice versa.

And it isnt.

Of course it isn't. And hate crimes don't say any such thing.

If you beat to death a white protestant heterosexual male because of his perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, you have committed a hate crime -- in addition to murder.

If you beat a black homosexual female buddhist to death for the money in her handbag, you haven't committed a hate crime. You have committed murder.

You really need to learn what hate crime legislation actually says and how it actually works.


The first option already includes the others. The others are not based on race, sexual orientation, gender or religion. They are not based on those because basing the law on those would discriminatory. They would be providing unfair protection to a specific group.

Current and common law already considers all the factors I mention...because they are all that is relevant. Race can be a factor in sentencing, neither can sexual orientation, religion or gender.

Hate Crime Laws make that a factor. Which makes it unconsitutional.
If a Black man kills me and is screaming die you white bastard while he does it...his sentence is worse because of RACE---His and Mine. That is not constitutional. If you want to argue that he targets whites and that he is likely to offend again FINE. Because then it doesnt matter if he is Black...or simply Not my Race. It only considers the victim.
Hate Crime Laws consider the Race, religion, Sexual Orientation of the Offender...in sentencing. That is unfair bias. And...completely unneeded bias, other facets of the law can cover the issue witout regard to the offenders status in those areas.


Based on the above, you should have no problem with hate crime laws because they do not work they way you suggest.

The race, religion, sexual orientation, etc of the offender is irrelevant to hate crime laws.

The perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, etc of the victim is relevant to hate crime laws, but only if that provided motive for the crime.

Actually, the one thing that gets glossed over, especially by people like Cat-Tribe, is that 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by blacks.

Whether or not it's a hate crime seems irrelevant to me.

If whites were killing blacks at this rate, people would be up in arms, criticizing the killers.

I only see the culture of the killers celebrated in popular song, video, and movies.

And don't tell me that somehow, whites are making blacks kill other blacks.

So you'll be glad to gloss over the fact that blacks are killing each other wholesale in a way that would be called racist genocide if whites were doing it to them.

In other words, "murder is fine, as long as it's not a hate crime".


Wow. Play with strawmen much?

When have I ever said or even hinted that hate crimes were a bigger problem for the black community than murder-rates?

In fact, in my State of Black America, I set forth the likelihood of being a murder victim and of being incarcerated for a crime among the first, and top, problems of the black community.

Nor have I said or implied that the high black-on-black crime rate is due merely to racism. I have said the legacy of past racism and the effects of current racism play a part -- especially indirectly in that blacks are disadvantaged and disadvantage plays a part in the horrifying crime rate.

Go peddle your fictions somewhere else.

When have I ever said or even hinted that hate crimes were a bigger problem for the black community than murder-rates?

Then you must agree that by comparison, hate crimes are a miniscule problem next to the murder of blacks by other blacks.

Then you must agree that by comparison, hate crimes are a miniscule problem next to the murder of blacks by other blacks.

Whether or not they are, we don't need to repeal the laws if they help even a little bit, which I would posit they do.

Whether or not they are, we don't need to repeal the laws if they help even a little bit, which I would posit they do.

It's a waste of time.

Good - let's demonize people that would already be demonized ("hate crime" murderers), and let's ignore the real fucking problem. Ok?

Then you must agree that by comparison, hate crimes are a miniscule problem next to the murder of blacks by other blacks.

Of course. I've never said otherwise.

That doesn't mean that hate crimes are not a problem.

And disparaging hate crime laws does nothing to solve the problem of black-on-black crime. How do you suggest we solve that problem?

It's a waste of time.

Good - let's demonize people that would already be demonized ("hate crime" murderers), and let's ignore the real fucking problem. Ok?

Enforcing hate crime laws and fighting black-on-black crime are not mutually exclusive enterprises.

Nor are hate crimes a problem merely for the black community. Nor are hate crimes limited to cases of murder.

Again, what do you suggest we do to solve "the real fucking problem" and why is it incompatible with enforcing hate crime laws?

Of course. I've never said otherwise.

That doesn't mean that hate crimes are not a problem.

And disparaging hate crime laws does nothing to solve the problem of black-on-black crime. How do you suggest we solve that problem?

I'm not saying hate crimes are not a problem.

But a lot of political hot air is spent on them, and little or nothing on black on black crime.

Especially when you begin to address the cause.

Bill Cosby was called a racist just for saying that the black community and black culture is the source of the problem.

Even for the same economic demographics, no other community has that level of violence and death.

In some inner cities, it's safer to be a black man in downtown Baghdad than it is to be in downtown DC or Chicago or LA.

But are we allowed to criticize the environment that causes this?

Perish forbid! The next thing you hear is "you're a fucking racist for even hinting that!"

I'm not saying hate crimes are not a problem.

But a lot of political hot air is spent on them, and little or nothing on black on black crime.

Especially when you begin to address the cause.

Bill Cosby was called a racist just for saying that the black community and black culture is the source of the problem.

Even for the same economic demographics, no other community has that level of violence and death.

In some inner cities, it's safer to be a black man in downtown Baghdad than it is to be in downtown DC or Chicago or LA.

But are we allowed to criticize the environment that causes this?

Perish forbid! The next thing you hear is "you're a fucking racist for even hinting that!"

The problem is that a lot of people use this kind of talk as an excuse for thinking "well, those good for nothing blacks are just killing themselves, and too lazy to get rich."

I'm not saying hate crimes are not a problem.

But a lot of political hot air is spent on them, and little or nothing on black on black crime.

Especially when you begin to address the cause.

Bill Cosby was called a racist just for saying that the black community and black culture is the source of the problem.

Even for the same economic demographics, no other community has that level of violence and death.

In some inner cities, it's safer to be a black man in downtown Baghdad than it is to be in downtown DC or Chicago or LA.

But are we allowed to criticize the environment that causes this?

Perish forbid! The next thing you hear is "you're a fucking racist for even hinting that!"

The last time you raised this point you claimed that it was Rev. Al Sharpton that called Cosby a racist. I challenged you to prove it. I am assuming you could not.

I also showed that Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and other black leaders echoed and supported Cosby's statements.

So, yes, we can and should criticize the environment that causes black-on-black crime. Whether you do so in a racist manner is a seperate issue.

Again, how do you suggest we solve the problem of black-on-black crime?

The problem is that a lot of people use this kind of talk as an excuse for thinking "well, those good for nothing blacks are just killing themselves, and too lazy to get rich."

Gee, I didn't think that was what Bill Cosby was saying.

And neither am I.

I'm saying that their current culture, community, and world view contribute directly to their own problems.

Again, how do you suggest we solve the problem of black-on-black crime?

"WE" cant.

Black on BLack crime is an issue of Black American culture.
We can support the positive leaders in the shift and aid them where applicable but the root of the problem is the culture of victimization that has been feed into for generations. Black dignity doesnt need someone else to come in and save them, they need to save themselves.

I believe the primary issue for BLack on BLack crime is addressing the disparagment between quality of public education in the Suburbs versus the Urban areas of the Nations. I think that single issue could go a long to progress. Mind I do not suppose this is an issue of race directly but indirectly.
It is an issue of caste. I lived in the inner urban area of largely black city(detroit) plenty of white kids(though majority black) got just as fucked out of an education and opportunity as blacks.

This single factor of leveling the public educational playing field for our most poor(in this case urban and rural) I feel could be the single driving force twoards a cultural revolution in Black America.

You really need to learn what hate crime legislation actually says and how it actually works.



What it says and how it works are two different animals. Please dont make me start quoting failed litigation where overwhelmingly white victims never receive the benfit of the legislation. I dont take hate crime unconstitutionality to be based on race. I take it to be exactly as I said unconstitutional. I keep reading people telling me to learn what it says and that it doesnt offer unequal protection...I dont see anyone citing any laws to prove that.

I think you should go learn what they say and how they work. Because they are centered around bias.

no, it doesn't. not in the slightest.

i think that your issue with hate crime laws might be resolved if you knew what they actually were and what they actually do.



"murder is murder" = "there are multiple morally distinct types of murder that should be punished differently"? really?



justify this - what makes them relevant?

after doing so, explain what makes the fact that criminal x went out and went out and attacked person y for no reason other than y's perceived membership in group z irrelevant?

I already explained why they are not relevant in the United States it is unconsitutional bias. Race, Sexual Orientation, and Religion of the offender effect sentencing. That is unconstitional. It is bias.

The fact you ignore it and want to play semantic with my poor word choice doesnt change that.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


"The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."



Dr. Ron Paul, Texas (R)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul385.html
"Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.” "

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tl04172007.html

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

...I believe the proponents of hate crimes legislation have good and honorable intentions. They would like to see less bigotry and more good will in American society. While I share that goal, I believe Congress should decline the invitation to enact hate crimes legislation for both constitutional and practical reasons.

A. Constitutional Objection
The U.S. Constitution created a federal government of limited powers. As James Madison noted in the Federalist no. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Most of the federal government's "delegated powers" are specifically set forth in article I, section 8. The Tenth Amendment was appended to the Constitution to make it clear that the powers not delegated to the federal government "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Crime is a serious problem, but under the U.S. Constitution it is a matter to be handled by state and local government. In Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat (19 U.S.) 264 (1821), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Congress had "no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States" and that it was "clear that congress cannot punish felonies generally." Unfortunately, as the years passed, Congress eventually assumed the power to enact a vast number of criminal laws pursuant to its power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." 1

In recent years, Congress has federalized the crimes of gun possession within a school zone, carjacking, wife beating, and female genital cutting. All of that and more has been rationalized under the Commerce Clause. 2 In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court finally struck down a federal criminal law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, because the connection between handgun possession and interstate commerce was simply too tenuous. 3 In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that if Congress had been given authority over matters that simply "affect" interstate commerce, much if not all of the enumerated powers set forth in article I, section 8 would be surplusage. Indeed, it is difficult to dispute Justice Thomas' conclusion that an interpretation of the commerce power that "makes the rest of §8 surplusage simply cannot be correct."

This Congress should not exacerbate the errors of past Congresses by federalizing more criminal offenses. The Commerce Clause is not a blank check for Congress to enact whatever legislation it deems to be "good and proper for America." The proposed hate crimes bill is simply beyond the powers that are delegated to Congress.

B. Policy Objections
Third, a federal law is not going to prevent anything. Any thug that is already inclined to hurt another human being is not going to lay down the gun or knife because of some new law passed by Congress. The culprits involved in the killings of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard, for example, made a conscious decision to disregard basic homicide statutes. And those murders took place in states that have the most drastic legal sanction available under the law--the death penalty. The notion that any federal hate crime law could have prevented those brutal killings is naï.

Fourth, it is important to note that the whole concept of "hate crimes" is fraught with definitional difficulties. Hate crimes generally refer to criminal conduct motivated by prejudice. 6 Should all prejudices be included in the hate crime definition--or only a select few? The Columbine school shooting illustrates this problem. According to news reports, one of the groups targeted by the deceased teenage culprits was athletes. If the athletes had been the sole targets of the school shooting, such a crime would not have been considered a hate crime in any jurisdiction (federal or state). And yet we can be fairly certain that the perpetrators of the Colorado rampage were filled with hatred toward "jocks." For the proponents of hate crime laws, the dilemma is this: if some groups (women, gays, environmental political activists, whatever) are left out of the "hate crime" definition, they will resent the selective depreciation of their victimization. On the other hand, if all victim groups are included, the hate crime category will be no different than "ordinary" criminal law. 7

Fifth, proponents of hate crime legislation believe that such laws will increase tolerance in our society and reduce intergroup conflict. I believe hate crime laws may well have the opposite effect. That's because the men and women who will be administering the hate crime laws (e.g. police, prosecutors) will likely encounter a never-ending series of complaints with respect to their official decisions. When a U.S. Attorney declines to prosecute a certain offense as a hate crime, some will complain that he is favoring the groups to which the accused belongs (e.g. hispanic males). And when a U.S. Attorney does prosecute an offense as a hate crime, some will complain that the decision was based upon politics and that the government is favoring the groups to which the victim belongs (e.g. Asian Americans). This has happened in some of the jurisdictions that have enacted hate crime laws at the local level. For example, when then New York City Mayor David Dinkins characterized the beating of a black man by white Jewish men as a hate crime in 1992, the Jewish community was outraged. 8 Jewish community leaders said the black man was a burglar and that some men were attempting to hold him until the police could take him into custody. The black man did not want to go to jail, so he resisted--and the Jewish men fought back. Incidents such as that illustrate that actual and perceived bias in the enforcement of hate crime laws can exacerbate intergroup relations.

But once hate crime laws are on the books, the law enforcement apparatus of the state will be delving into the accused's life and thoughts in order to show that he or she was motivated by bigotry. What kind of books and magazines were found in the home? What internet sites were bookmarked in the computer? Friends and co-workers will be interviewed to discern the accused's politics and worldview. The point here is that such chilling examples of state intrusion are avoidable because, as noted above, hate crime laws are unnecessary in the first place.


The claim will doubtless be made that such problems can be avoided by "sound prosecutorial discretion" with respect to the application of hate crimes legislation. Congress should not accept that bland assurance. Consider, for example, a hate crime prosecution from Ohio. The case involved an interracial altercation at a campground and here is how the prosecutor questioned the white person accused of a hate crime:

Q. And you lived next door ... for nine years and you don't even know her first name?

A. No

Q. Never had dinner with her?

A. No

Q. Never gone out and had a beer with her?

A. No. ...

Q. You don't even associate with her, do you?

A. I talk to her when I can, whenever I see her out.

Q. All these black people that you have described as your friends, I want you to give me one person, just one who was a really good friend of yours. 9
This passage highlights the sort of inquisitorial cross-examination that may soon become common whenever an accused person takes the witness stand to deny a bias or hate charge that has been lodged against him or her.

In People v. Lampkin, 457 N.E.2d 50 (1983), the prosecution presented as evidence racist statements that the defendant had uttered six years before the crime for which he was on trial. This case raises the question of whether there is going to be statute of limitations for such behavior? For example, it is not uncommon for teenagers to entertain various prejudices for brief periods and then discard them as they mature into adulthood. Is a stupid remark uttered by a 16 year-old on an athletic field going to follow that person around the rest of his or her life? Shouldn't our law make room for the possibility that people can exhibit some variation of bigotry in life--but then change?

The good news for Congress is this: all of the problems outlined above are avoidable because hate crime legislation is unnecessary in the first place.

Nicely written article...though primarily an editorial.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Time-to-Declare-Hate-Crimes-Laws-Unconstitutional&id=251144


SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--

(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
This is clearly unequal protection, because additional resources will be devoted to a crime if it is a "Hate Crime" so a violent act commited between like people is not treated equally under the law.
Neither is a violent act against anyone not cited under the Law.
Mind, if I beat you death...It is a fairly good bet I dont exactly like you.

Hate Crime Laws are Unconstitutional, federally and locally.
Federally because of the 10th and 14th, and Locally because of the 14th. They provide unequal protection.

Most people attempt to address Hate Crime by citing the First Amendment, however that is not where question lies.
Threats and Intimidation are already crimes so adding bigotry to them doesnt make them free speach.

However making the bigotry part of the mitigating factors in the allocation of resources in the investigation and in the sentencing violates the 14th amendment. It strips others of equal protection under the law where they may not granted additional resource because they werent lucky enough to have the crime committed against them to have been perpetrated by the "Other" and it strips the offenders rights to equally sentencing...and sentencing bias in this country is already a fucking problem.
If one examines the arguements for the constitutionality of hate crimes one finds the overwhelming majority center the justification around not violating the 1st Amendment. No shit, the supreme court has cited many times that indeed not all words are protected under the 1st Amendment. But since reconstruction equal protection is issue...Hate Crime Laws violate the 14th clearly and distinctly.

I already explained why they are not relevant in the United States it is unconsitutional bias. Race, Sexual Orientation, and Religion of the offender effect sentencing. That is unconstitional. It is bias.

The fact you ignore it and want to play semantic with my poor word choice doesnt change that.

your explanation is factually untrue. try a different one?

Dr. Ron Paul, Texas (R)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul385.html
"Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.” "

you mean dr. ron "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" paul, (R)acist fucktard/survivalist 'patriot movement' jackass, texas

"The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."

-snip-

This is clearly unequal protection, because additional resources will be devoted to a crime if it is a "Hate Crime" so a violent act commited between like people is not treated equally under the law.
Neither is a violent act against anyone not cited under the Law.
Mind, if I beat you death...It is a fairly good bet I dont exactly like you.

Hate Crime Laws are Unconstitutional, federally and locally.
Federally because of the 10th and 14th, and Locally because of the 14th. They provide unequal protection.

However making the bigotry part of the mitigating factors in the allocation of resources in the investigation and in the sentencing violates the 14th amendment. It strips others of equal protection under the law where they may not granted additional resource because they werent lucky enough to have the crime committed against them to have been perpetrated by the "Other" and it strips the offenders rights to equally sentencing...and sentencing bias in this country is already a fucking problem.
If one examines the arguements for the constitutionality of hate crimes one finds the overwhelming majority center the justification around not violating the 1st Amendment. No shit, the supreme court has cited many times that indeed not all words are protected under the 1st Amendment. But since reconstruction equal protection is issue...Hate Crime Laws violate the 14th clearly and distinctly.

Read the definition of hate crime from your own post. Now read it again. One more time, just so we both know what the discussion is about.

Nowhere, in any of the legislation you presented, was the race of the perpetrator a factor. Nowhere in hate crimes law is it specified that only perpetrators of a different race can commit a hate crime. If a white guy commits a crime motivated by hatred of white people against another white person, it can still be a hate crime. As such, the law applies equally to all people because it only considers motive of the perpetrator and the race of the victim, not the race of the perpetrator.

"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

The Republicans have a nice batch of potential nominees this time, don't they?

The Republicans have a nice batch of potential nominees this time, don't they?

indeed. i finally looked into ron paul after hearing libertarians go on about him for years. and what do you know, it turns out he used to run a survivalist newsletter. amusing how frequently shit like that happens with these alleged 'libertarians'

indeed. i finally looked into ron paul after hearing libertarians go on about him for years. and what do you know, it turns out he used to run a survivalist newsletter. amusing how frequently shit like that happens with these alleged 'libertarians'

Hmm, it fits in well with his anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-immigrant stances.

Hmm, it fits in well with his anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-immigrant stances.

I thought he wanted to leave abortion up to the states, even though he was personally anti-choice.

I thought he wanted to leave abortion up to the states

Yes, which would empower anti-choicers like him to ban it.

It's federalized now, and legal.

Yes, which would empower anti-choicers like him to ban it.

I know. But I thought it might be better to be optimistic.

Read the definition of hate crime from your own post. Now read it again. One more time, just so we both know what the discussion is about.

Nowhere, in any of the legislation you presented, was the race of the perpetrator a factor. Nowhere in hate crimes law is it specified that only perpetrators of a different race can commit a hate crime. If a white guy commits a crime motivated by hatred of white people against another white person, it can still be a hate crime. As such, the law applies equally to all people because it only considers motive of the perpetrator and the race of the victim, not the race of the perpetrator.

You keep saying "Race" yes if a white heterosexual kills a white homosexual it is still a hate crime. No shit.
It is also still unequal protection. Race has nothing to do with it.

Race, religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation, these things are factors and the offenders Race, religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation, National Origin, are directly related they dont need to be written. If the Hate Crime is commited against a Vietnamese for being Vietnamese then it is therefore the offender is guilty of being non-vietnamese and attacking a vietnamese...if its gay on striaght its a matter of sexual preference.

Why do people always try to make this a race issue?

The legislation is unconstitutional for every reason I said.

Unequal protection.

I dont see you attacking my point I see you playing semantics with my word choices.

It violates the 14th amendement, with extra resources, and unequal sentencing based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference.

*snip challenge to another poster*

So, yes, we can and should criticize the environment that causes black-on-black crime. Whether you do so in a racist manner is a seperate issue.

Again, how do you suggest we solve the problem of black-on-black crime?

I'm thinking that citizens as a whole entrusting the Presidency to a black man would have to help. "Look, you really can become President, and not just in theory."

And the raving socialist solution of course: alleviate poverty somehow. Because that's a colorblind solution which would disproportionately benefit blacks (and latinos I'm guessing) it wouldn't be as divisive as trying to legislate equal opportunity.
How about federal wage subsidies to bring all employees up to the minimum wage + conditions? Instead of the opposite which seems to have currency now, legislating even lower wages without conditions for non-citizens. Madness.

I'm thinking that citizens as a whole entrusting the Presidency to a black man would have to help. "Look, you really can become President, and not just in theory."

And the raving socialist solution of course: alleviate poverty somehow. Because that's a colorblind solution which would disproportionately benefit blacks (and latinos I'm guessing) it wouldn't be as divisive as trying to legislate equal opportunity.
How about federal wage subsidies to bring all employees up to the minimum wage + conditions? Instead of the opposite which seems to have currency now, legislating even lower wages without conditions for non-citizens. Madness.

Some solution to the economic problems faced by minorities is obviously necessary, although it's not obvious that it has to come from the government. Even among government-oriented solutions, however, direct wage subsidies are the worst possible way to reduce poverty. Look at the so-called Speenhamland System in early nineteenth-century Britain. What happens with wage subsidies is, essentially, that the employer loses all incentive to offer a decent wage because, whatever wage is offered, the government will top it up anyway. The result is that so-called wage subsidies invariably turn into a subsidy for employers, not employees.

A better poverty-reduction solution might be a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). The beauty of negative income tax is that it offers an incentive to work more at all levels, while still ensuring a basic standard of living even for the poorest.

In general, though, in spite of all the bad news, we should also bear in mind that America's minority population does continue to become wealthier. In twenty years' time, with luck, this issue will be relevant only to historians.

You keep saying "Race" yes if a white heterosexual kills a white homosexual it is still a hate crime. No shit.
It is also still unequal protection. Race has nothing to do with it.

Race, religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation, these things are factors and the offenders Race, religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation, National Origin, are directly related they dont need to be written. If the Hate Crime is commited against a Vietnamese for being Vietnamese then it is therefore the offender is guilty of being non-vietnamese and attacking a vietnamese...if its gay on striaght its a matter of sexual preference.

It violates the 14th amendement, with extra resources, and unequal sentencing based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference.
I use race as an example, not to make it the issue. My point was attempting to show you that equal protection is given by hate laws, but that seems to have blown right past you, so I'll try again.

You seem to be claiming that hate crime laws are unequal because they take into account the offender's race, nationality, etc. My point is simple: Hate crime laws are blind as to the race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. of an offender accused of a hate crime. Once again, using the definition you provided:

"The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."

Nowhere is the race, religion, etc. of the offender mentioned because it is immaterial to the commission of a hate crime. In the bolded quote, you seem to be saying that it is implicit in hate crimes that the offender's race religion, etc. is important, but that is where you are wrong. The material factor in any hate crime is the motivation of the offender in the commission of the crime, as outlined in the definition above. As such, every person is capable of a hate crime against any other person and the law affects everyone equally.

Some solution to the economic problems faced by minorities is obviously necessary, although it's not obvious that it has to come from the government. Even among government-oriented solutions, however, direct wage subsidies are the worst possible way to reduce poverty. Look at the so-called Speenhamland System in early nineteenth-century Britain. What happens with wage subsidies is, essentially, that the employer loses all incentive to offer a decent wage because, whatever wage is offered, the government will top it up anyway. The result is that so-called wage subsidies invariably turn into a subsidy for employers, not employees.

A better poverty-reduction solution might be a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). The beauty of negative income tax is that it offers an incentive to work more at all levels, while still ensuring a basic standard of living even for the poorest.

In general, though, in spite of all the bad news, we should also bear in mind that America's minority population does continue to become wealthier. In twenty years' time, with luck, this issue will be relevant only to historians.

Cross fingers on that one. You could have said the same thing twenty years ago.

I don't live there, but I've heard that there's plenty of very low-paid work, and it's done by illegals. Citizen minorities doing OK in twenty years time doesn't sound that great when you consider who will be doing the low-paid work then. People living in the US, without the full protection of the law because they are not citizens. Sounds like an even worse problem to me.

Negative income tax, according to the article you linked, is a flat tax with universal welfare. It has the benefit of simplicity, I guess, and there aren't those stinking brackets which have an entirely corrupting effect on employees, introducing tax-minimization across all but the poorest.

Actually, there is one bracket, and it's the threshold at which you set the grant. That would have to be very, very low to prevent people simply living on it ... so what you get is a flat tax.

Sure, I can see problems with a wage-subsidy system. In extremis, the government could be paying someone to come clean my house, when all I've done for that is to sign a piece of paper saying I employ the cleaner. But a "subsidy" surely implies it's going to be pro rata with what the employer pays?

Yeah, but they probably deserve it. It's pretty clear from these statistics that blacks are racist.

Yes, and I wish the news media would stop shutting their eyes (and ours by their biased reporting) to it. Blacks are just as capable of racism as whites are, and in fact even more so considering they are brainwashed (by the news media, society in general, and the public (MIS-)educational systems) into believing that the 'white man' is responsible for their plight.

the op glosses over this and insinuates that blacks hate whites ,and fundamentally that argument is flawed.

So you are saying that blacks are automatically NOT racists? Or if they are, that they either:
A. Should not be held accountable for it because they can't help being racist because the white man 'oppresses' them, or
B. Have the 'right' to hate white people in the name of 'social justice'

This statement of yours is little more than POLITICALLY CORRECT RACISM, which, by the way, is NOT an oxymoron, no matter what the news media say.

i would argue that there is still rascism and fear of blacks in the white community,and vice versa,but predominantly...when together one on one..we all get on pretty good.

Whites have a good reason to be afraid of blacks, after all the favors the government has done for the blacks, the special (race-based) privileges they get in our judicial system, and on top of those things MISeducating them into blaming white people, now blacks (not all, but many), because of these things, are spoiled brats who will riot if they don't get their way.

I don't care who are more or less likely to be the perpetrators/victims. Hate crimes are bad whoever's doing them.

I agree.

Hate crimes are a farce. Crime is crime and the outcome of a crime doesn't make it's modivating factors any less relevant. If I murder someone, it shouldn't matter WHY I did it; the fact people should be looking at is that I murdered someone. The person is just as dead as if I had murdered them for money, spite or racism.

I also find it comical how some people called the OP racist and a nazi simply because of his post. I forgot that only White people can be racist. Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and everyone else can NEVER be racist pricks. You'll have to excuse that Strawman right there but it boggles the mind that the minute someone is critical of a minority he/she is a racist. Do you all hate your own race that much? Does it really matter anyways?

I tend to agree with the OP. I live in the south where all white people are apparently "redneck inbreed hicks who are racist as hell" except the majority of the racism I've seen has been started by blacks against whites, hispanics against whites, hispanics against blacks and blacks against hispanics. Rarely have I ever witnessed Asians, Arabs or Whites actually starting it.

Ditto here. It's about time we started hearing politically INcorrect opinios for a change.

I forgot that only White people can be racist. Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and everyone else can NEVER be racist pricks. You'll have to excuse that Strawman right there but it boggles the mind that the minute someone is critical of a minority he/she is a racist.

You're right; it's BIAS in the government and the news media. They are of a mindset that all whites (and only whites and Jews) are racists, but no black, hispanic, Arab, asian, or anyone else who is not a WASP or Jew is either:

A. NEVER racist, or
B. if they are, they should, for social justice sake, not be held accountable for it, or that
C. they have a 'right' to hate whites and Jews because whites and Jews supposedly 'oppressed' them, or their ancestors, or whatever.

It's time we heard something un-PC to help counterbalance the crap we get from the news media and the government.

Yeah, but they probably deserve it. It's pretty clear from these statistics that blacks are racist.

Yes, and I wish the news media would stop shutting their eyes (and ours by their biased reporting) to it. Blacks are just as capable of racism as whites are, and in fact even more so considering they are brainwashed (by the news media, society in general, and the public (MIS-)educational systems) into believing that the 'white man' is responsible for their plight, while the white man, as a general rule, is not 'out to get' the black man, but just wants to protect his things from being stolen by the black man, which he will try to steal because he FEELS (notice that - nobody THINKS anymore; they just 'FEEL') he is entitled to it because he was taught so in school.

the op glosses over this and insinuates that blacks hate whites ,and fundamentally that argument is flawed.

So you are saying that blacks are automatically NOT racists? Or if they are, that they either:
A. Should not be held accountable for it because they can't help being racist because the white man 'oppresses' them, or
B. Have the 'right' to hate white people in the name of 'social justice'

This statement of yours is little more than POLITICALLY CORRECT RACISM, which, by the way, is NOT an oxymoron, no matter what the news media say.

i would argue that there is still rascism and fear of blacks in the white community,and vice versa,but predominantly...when together one on one..we all get on pretty good.

Whites have a good reason to be afraid of blacks, after all the favors the government has done for the blacks, the special (race-based) privileges they get in our judicial system, and on top of those things MISeducating them into blaming white people, now blacks (not all, but many), because of these things, are spoiled brats who will riot if they don't get their way.

I don't care who are more or less likely to be the perpetrators/victims. Hate crimes are bad whoever's doing them.

I agree.

Hate crimes are a farce. Crime is crime and the outcome of a crime doesn't make it's modivating factors any less relevant. If I murder someone, it shouldn't matter WHY I did it; the fact people should be looking at is that I murdered someone. The person is just as dead as if I had murdered them for money, spite or racism.

I also find it comical how some people called the OP racist and a nazi simply because of his post. I forgot that only White people can be racist. Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and everyone else can NEVER be racist pricks. You'll have to excuse that Strawman right there but it boggles the mind that the minute someone is critical of a minority he/she is a racist. Do you all hate your own race that much? Does it really matter anyways?

I tend to agree with the OP. I live in the south where all white people are apparently "redneck inbreed hicks who are racist as hell" except the majority of the racism I've seen has been started by blacks against whites, hispanics against whites, hispanics against blacks and blacks against hispanics. Rarely have I ever witnessed Asians, Arabs or Whites actually starting it.

Ditto here. It's about time we started hearing politically INcorrect opinios for a change.

I forgot that only White people can be racist. Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and everyone else can NEVER be racist pricks. You'll have to excuse that Strawman right there but it boggles the mind that the minute someone is critical of a minority he/she is a racist.

You're right; it's BIAS in the government and the news media. They are of a mindset that all whites (and only whites and Jews) are racists, but any black, hispanic, Arab, asian, or anyone else who is not a WASP or Jew is either:

A. NEVER racist, or
B. if they are, they should, for social justice sake, not be held accountable for it, or that
C. they have a 'right' to hate whites and Jews because whites and Jews supposedly 'oppressed' them, or their ancestors, or whatever.

It's time we heard something un-PC to help counterbalance the crap we get from the news media and the government. That's why I like Fox News, it gives you a refreshing difference from the hogslop on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, and the rest of them.

Some solution to the economic problems faced by minorities is obviously necessary, although it's not obvious that it has to come from the government. Even among government-oriented solutions, however, direct wage subsidies are the worst possible way to reduce poverty. Look at the so-called Speenhamland System in early nineteenth-century Britain. What happens with wage subsidies is, essentially, that the employer loses all incentive to offer a decent wage because, whatever wage is offered, the government will top it up anyway. The result is that so-called wage subsidies invariably turn into a subsidy for employers, not employees.

A better poverty-reduction solution might be a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). The beauty of negative income tax is that it offers an incentive to work more at all levels, while still ensuring a basic standard of living even for the poorest.

In general, though, in spite of all the bad news, we should also bear in mind that America's minority population does continue to become wealthier. In twenty years' time, with luck, this issue will be relevant only to historians.

Yes, but a negative income tax will never happen, at least not in the United States, because:
1. It is too equitable and fair to the working taxpayer
2. The US Government is money-hungry and simply will not tolerate the idea of giving money back to taxpayers, or even allowing them to keep any money they (the taxpayers) still have.

I use race as an example, not to make it the issue. My point was attempting to show you that equal protection is given by hate laws, but that seems to have blown right past you, so I'll try again.

You seem to be claiming that hate crime laws are unequal because they take into account the offender's race, nationality, etc. My point is simple: Hate crime laws are blind as to the race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. of an offender accused of a hate crime. Once again, using the definition you provided:



Nowhere is the race, religion, etc. of the offender mentioned because it is immaterial to the commission of a hate crime. In the bolded quote, you seem to be saying that it is implicit in hate crimes that the offender's race religion, etc. is important, but that is where you are wrong. The material factor in any hate crime is the motivation of the offender in the commission of the crime, as outlined in the definition above. As such, every person is capable of a hate crime against any other person and the law affects everyone equally.

Yes, but the NEWS MEDIA take into account the offender's (and the offended's) race, gender, etc. in their reporting.

THAT is why Mary Winkler has not served any jail time after her conviction: because the judge and jury were afraid of being vilified by the news media for punshing a WOMAN for murdering her HUSBAND.

The same is true of OJ Simpson: he was found not guilty because judge Lance Ito and the jurors were afraid the news media would demonize them for convicting a BLACK INTERRACIALLY-MARRIED HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITY of killing WHITE PEOPLE, and that Los Angeles blacks would riot (and they actually threatened to do so).

Yes, but a negative income tax will never happen, at least not in the United States, because:
1. It is too equitable and fair to the working taxpayer
2. The US Government is money-hungry and simply will not tolerate the idea of giving money back to taxpayers, or even allowing them to keep any money they (the taxpayers) still have.

Are you in favour of this NIT? Friedman's version, or some variation?

You double-posted that whopper above, btw. EDIT: This one: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12695362&postcount=87

I already explained why they are not relevant in the United States it is unconsitutional bias. Race, Sexual Orientation, and Religion of the offender effect sentencing. That is unconstitional. It is bias.

Yeah, but in the minds of the NEWS MEDIA they ARE relevant. Good luck trying to get that through their thick heads!


Dr. Ron Paul, Texas (R)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul385.html
"Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.” "

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tl04172007.html

Hate Crime Laws are Unconstitutional, federally and locally.
Federally because of the 10th and 14th, and Locally because of the 14th. They provide unequal protection.

However making the bigotry part of the mitigating factors in the allocation of resources in the investigation and in the sentencing violates the 14th amendment. It strips others of equal protection under the law where they may not granted additional resource because they werent lucky enough to have the crime committed against them to have been perpetrated by the "Other" and it strips the offenders rights to equally sentencing...and sentencing bias in this country is already a fucking problem.
If one examines the arguements for the constitutionality of hate crimes one finds the overwhelming majority center the justification around not violating the 1st Amendment. No shit, the supreme court has cited many times that indeed not all words are protected under the 1st Amendment. But since reconstruction equal protection is issue...Hate Crime Laws violate the 14th clearly and distinctly.

Ditto 100% all the way! I agree; hate crime laws ARE unconstitutional and should be repealed and disregarded immediately, if not sooner!

Are you in favour of this NIT? Friedman's version, or some variation?

Well, I really don't know that much about it, but it SOUNDS like it means the government gives YOU money, instead of the other way around. And I just think it's time that the gov't stop trying to tax us out of house and home and start letting us keep our money for a change.

THAT is what I was trying to say.

*starts singing "Taxman" to self*

You double-posted that whopper above, btw.

Double posted? Where's the other one?

A question:
Who determines whether or not the crime is a hate crime?

A statement:
There are more whites in the U.S.A; so proportionally, more crime will be done to them.

Expect Al Sharpton to be on the scene immediately, denouncing statistics as racist.

Well, I really don't know that much about it, but it SOUNDS like it means the government gives YOU money, instead of the other way around. And I just think it's time that the gov't stop trying to tax us out of house and home and start letting us keep our money for a change.

THAT is what I was trying to say.


Well, tax cuts always sound good to people who pay tax. Money in their pockets, and we know how money talks.

A democratic government represents all citizens, though, not just taxpayers. So it will always be biased towards taking money from those who earned it (however fairly or unfairly -- not the point) and spending it with more or less wisdom on behalf of people who didn't earn it.

All I can suggest for those who don't like that is to go buy their own country.

you mean dr. ron "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" paul, (R)acist fucktard/survivalist 'patriot movement' jackass, texas
I am guessing you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Controversial_racial_remarks)?

Expect Al Sharpton to be on the scene immediately, denouncing statistics as racist.

Why should he?

By the way, how does the OP explain away these statistics from the FBI?

2005 Hate crime statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm):

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

I am guessing you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Controversial_racial_remarks)?

oh, poor baby. the mean people working for the ron paul survival report were racist jackasses in ron paul's name and it took him like 9 years to claim that it wasn't actually him, despite being billed as written by him.

not fucking buying it. i mean, seriously, "survival report"? fucking nutjobs.

the mean people working for the ron paul survival report were racist jackasses in ron paul's name.

Yeah... even if he didn't write it, why the fuck was he associating with racist jackasses in the first place?

Of course, much of the popular base for US "libertarianism" is from old-school white racists and Christian fundamentalists angry over the federal government's anti-racist and secular policies - thus the emphasis people like Ron Paul put on codewords like "states' rights" - so this should not really be a surprise.

But are we allowed to criticize the environment that causes this?We are, but we get called socialists for doing so.

"WE" cant.

I believe the primary issue for BLack on BLack crime is addressing the disparagment between quality of public education in the Suburbs versus the Urban areas of the Nations. This single factor of leveling the public educational playing field for our most poor(in this case urban and rural) I feel could be the single driving force twoards a cultural revolution in Black America.And how would blacks alone be able to level the education system?

Whites have a good reason to be afraid of blacks, after all the favors the government has done for the blacks, Like slavery and Jim Crow laws?

Yes, but the NEWS MEDIA take into account the offender's (and the offended's) race, gender, etc. in their reporting.

THAT is why Mary Winkler has not served any jail time after her conviction: because the judge and jury were afraid of being vilified by the news media for punshing a WOMAN for murdering her HUSBAND.

The same is true of OJ Simpson: he was found not guilty because judge Lance Ito and the jurors were afraid the news media would demonize them for convicting a BLACK INTERRACIALLY-MARRIED HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITY of killing WHITE PEOPLE, and that Los Angeles blacks would riot (and they actually threatened to do so).Wow, you're a mindreader? Tell me what I'm thinking now.

If the statistics don't prove anything, why did you post this thread?

You just liked it when you thought the statistics supported a hypothesis you like. When they are shown to support a hypothesis you don't like, then they "don't prove anything."

Ummm. I was answering to your post (obviously) so I was answering in the context of your post. But let me simplify for you...

[context of your post which I was answering to. If you dont get it, this is it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12690827&postcount=28 ]


The statistics dont prove if there is no bias against whites. "There may be still an anti-white bias and without it, the rate of white hate crime offenders may be even lower. Or not." As I said, the statistics dont prove anything about if there is any bias against whites in hate crime legislation applications. You are just assuming this correlation without any proof.

[/context of your post]

Now, the statistics do prove that blacks are more likely to be hate crime offenders. Simply because it is not my interpretation but it is simply numbers. And elementary math. And I suggest you to look up "hypothesis" in dictionary. Because I didnt propose a hypothesis. It is not a hypothesis when you say 0.7 per 1,000 blacks is a rate less than about 0.9 per 1,000 whites. When offenders of hate crimes are 43.5% White and 38.8% Black, it is not a hypothesis to say that Blacks are over-represented (because normally, they comprimise 12% of the US population) and whites are under-represented (because normally, they comprimise 70% of the US population). As I said these are elementary math, which you should be comfortable with by the end of secondary school. I hope you get it now...

Why should he?

By the way, how does the OP explain away these statistics from the FBI?

2005 Hate crime statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm):

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

There is no contradiction between statistics or this and what I've written if that's what you imply. And:



Ethnicity/National Origin Bias

Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,228 victims. Of these victims:

58.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.


Given the black-hispanic conflict in USA,

for ex: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0610F73B540C748DDDA80894DF404482


Racial Hate Feeds a Gang War's Senseless Killing

January 17, 2007, Wednesday
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 2, 1403 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Latino gang's killing of 14-year-old Cheryl Green because she was black is particularly senseless crime in wave of bias attacks in Los Angeles, where black and Latino gangs are battling, often in black neighborhoods where Latino population is surging; violence grew at alarming rate last year and 14 percent increase in gang crime is linked to interracial conflict; hate crimes overall rose 34 percent; Rabbi Allen Freehling blames failure of political leaders to prepare people for socioeconomic and demographic changes; other particularly violent attacks on blacks by Latinos and by black youths against young white women also cited; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Comr William Bratton promise crackdowns; Green killing in Harbor Gateway, where blacks and Latinos have set up dividing line, particularly alarms officials; two Latinos are charged with murder


the majority of anti black and anti hispanic crimes may be due to hispanics and blacks themselves. But that's a speculation.

What we know is that Blacks are less likely to be victims of hate crimes and more likely to commit hate crimes. And now, your link says they are more likely to be victims of racially motivated single-bias hate crimes. But we still dont know about multiple bias hate crimes in which racial motivation is one of the reasons.

There is no contradiction between statistics or this and what I've written if that's what you imply.

No, there isn't.

But there is between those statistics and the implication you drew from them: that bias against whites is a more prominent cause of hate crimes than bias against blacks.

What we know is that Blacks are less likely to be victims of hate crimes and more likely to commit hate crimes.

Yes, and there are many kinds of hate crimes. Not all of them are racially motivated.

No, there isn't.

But there is between those statistics and the implication you drew from them: that bias against whites is a more prominent cause of hate crimes than bias against blacks.

Yes, and there are many kinds of hate crimes. Not all of them are racially motivated.

I was making a point about "evil white men". Now, if the racial bias against blacks is primarily caused by hispanics (who are mostly non-white), how come this is the fault of white society? So still there is no contradiction between statistics and my interpretations.

And bias against blacks is a more prominent cause of hate crimes than bias against whites only in single motivation hate crimes whose motivation is racial.

Of course, much of the popular base for US "libertarianism" is from old-school white racists and Christian fundamentalists angry over the federal government's anti-racist and secular policies - thus the emphasis people like Ron Paul put on codewords like "states' rights" - so this should not really be a surprise.

also explains why they put so much emphasis on the evils of the welfare state

I was making a point about "evil white men".

So, a big strawman? No one here talks about "evil white men." Seems like this thread was nothing more than an excuse for you to partially demonize black people - which is no surprise to me, as I and anyone else who's read your tripe on this forum know you're a fucking racist.

And bias against blacks is a more prominent cause of hate crimes than bias against whites only in single motivation hate crimes whose motivation is racial....based upon the incomplete statistics that you provided.

The statistics dont prove if there is no bias against whites. "There may be still an anti-white bias and without it, the rate of white hate crime offenders may be even lower. Or not." As I said, the statistics dont prove anything about if there is any bias against whites in hate crime legislation applications. You are just assuming this correlation without any proof.

It could be that white hate crime is overreported. It may also be that white hate crime is underreported.

Once you are going to suggest something not supported by the numbers, anything is possible.

You have no evidence of anti-white bias in the application of hate laws. To the contrary, your own statistics suggest there is no such bias. Live with it.

BTW, Free Soviets pointed out early on in this thread that the DOJ numbers were suspicious. You've conveniently ignored it:

small problem - hate crime reporting is notoriously variable, with many locations not keeping track at all, failing to report, or flat out lying

for example:

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/remote-page.jsp?itemID=28991009

Care to address this flaw in the only study that supports you?

Now, the statistics do prove that blacks are more likely to be hate crime offenders. Simply because it is not my interpretation but it is simply numbers. And elementary math. And I suggest you to look up "hypothesis" in dictionary. Because I didnt propose a hypothesis. It is not a hypothesis when you say 0.7 per 1,000 blacks is a rate less than about 0.9 per 1,000 whites. When offenders of hate crimes are 43.5% White and 38.8% Black, it is not a hypothesis to say that Blacks are over-represented (because normally, they comprimise 12% of the US population) and whites are under-represented (because normally, they comprimise 70% of the US population). As I said these are elementary math, which you should be comfortable with by the end of secondary school. I hope you get it now...

LOL. OK, you asked for it.

Look at your own source. It says that the difference in hate crime victimization measured by the study (0.7 vs. 0.9) is not statistically significant.

Look more closely at your source again. The 43.5% and 38.8% numbers that you are throwing around are not representative of offenders of hate crimes. Look at Table 9 again. It is for violent hate crimes only, not all hate crimes.

You've taken one study (which has flaws you haven't addressed) and taken numbers from it out of context. You've dismissed conclusions from your own numbers that you don't like and you've ignored evidence from other sources that tends to contradict your argument.

But that brings us back to the point, what is your argument exactly?



So what I'm trying to say here? The state of black America may be bad parly/mostly/fully due to discrimination but it's a two way street (isnt it usually?) here. This may be a "no shit" thing for many of you but believe me, I've encountered some people who hold "evil white men" responsible for everything so the statistics are interesting. Of course they may be wrong and race/ethnicity are not the only motivation for hate crimes (tho those reasons are in majority), but still, interesting...

Oh, right, you were rebutting an inane strawman. Well done.

I've already cited the 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data for the fact that among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime:

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

link (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm)

Now let me add the FBI's numbers about offenders, which paint a very different picture than your erroneous 43.5% and 38.8%>

An analysis of available race data for the 6,804 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

60.5 percent were white.
19.9 percent were black.
12.3 percent were unknown.
5.2 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
1.1 percent of known offenders were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
0.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.

Link (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/offenders.htm)

Of course, much of the popular base for US "libertarianism" is from old-school white racists and Christian fundamentalists angry over the federal government's anti-racist and secular policies - thus the emphasis people like Ron Paul put on codewords like "states' rights" - so this should not really be a surprise.

Why would libertarians be opposed to secularism? In fact, I've seen a lot of agnostic/atheist libertarians...

Why would libertarians be opposed to secularism? In fact, I've seen a lot of agnostic/atheist libertarians...
What he meant was the habit of certain fundamentalist types to masquerade as libertarians.

What he meant was the habit of certain fundamentalist types to masquerade as libertarians.

Ah, I see.

...based upon the incomplete statistics that you provided.

Actually, The Cat-Tribe provided those...Duh...

It could be that white hate crime is overreported. It may also be that white hate crime is underreported.


Yes. I already said in my OP that the statistics may be incorrect.


Once you are going to suggest something not supported by the numbers, anything is possible.


I just said statistics were interesting. And again statistics do support that Blacks are less likely to be victims of hate crimes in USA. Are you still claiming statistics dont support this? The only part that needs to be corrected is that blacks are more likely to be offenders in violent hate crimes instead of all hate crimes.


You have no evidence of anti-white bias in the application of hate laws. To the contrary, your own statistics suggest there is no such bias. Live with it.



For the third time,

"The statistics dont prove if there is no bias against whites. "There may be still an anti-white bias and without it, the rate of white hate crime offenders may be even lower. Or not." As I said, the statistics dont prove anything about if there is any bias against whites in hate crime legislation applications. You are just assuming this correlation without any proof."

There is neither proof nor suggestion. There is only an assumption that just because blacks are more likely to be offenders, there should not be any bias agianst whites. Another assumption would be that the system is biased against blacks because they are more likely to be offenders. But these are only assumptions.

On the other hand I based my arguments on numbers (such as 0.9 is greater than 0.7). Now that is a suggestion or a conclusion if the data is valid. It certainly is a conclusion based on the statistics.


BTW, Free Soviets pointed out early on in this thread that the DOJ numbers were suspicious. You've conveniently ignored it:

Care to address this flaw in the only study that supports you?


Again, I already said in the OP that the statistics may be incorrect.



LOL. OK, you asked for it.

Look at your own source. It says that the difference in hate crime victimization measured by the study (0.7 vs. 0.9) is not statistically significant.


0.2 per 1000 population in a country of 300 million is mathematically important.


Look more closely at your source again. The 43.5% and 38.8% numbers that you are throwing around are not representative of offenders of hate crimes. Look at Table 9 again. It is for violent hate crimes only, not all hate crimes.


Yes, I just noticed that. Should I ask mods to change the title to " USA: Blacks less likely to be victims of hate crimes and more likely to be offenders in violent ones." ?



You've taken one study (which has flaws you haven't addressed) and taken numbers from it out of context. You've dismissed conclusions from your own numbers that you don't like....


Again, I'll suggest you to look up the difference between conclusion and assumption in dictionary.


and you've ignored evidence from other sources that tends to contradict your argument.


You were the only one to present other sources. Have I ignored them? May I also suggest you to look up "ignore" in dictionary again? Is English not your native tongue? Are these ignoring:


By the way, how does the OP explain away these statistics from the FBI?

2005 Hate crime statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm):

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

There is no contradiction between statistics or this and what I've written if that's what you imply. And:



Ethnicity/National Origin Bias

Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,228 victims. Of these victims:

58.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.


Given the black-hispanic conflict in USA,

for ex: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0610F73B540C748DDDA80894DF404482


Racial Hate Feeds a Gang War's Senseless Killing

January 17, 2007, Wednesday
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 2, 1403 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Latino gang's killing of 14-year-old Cheryl Green because she was black is particularly senseless crime in wave of bias attacks in Los Angeles, where black and Latino gangs are battling, often in black neighborhoods where Latino population is surging; violence grew at alarming rate last year and 14 percent increase in gang crime is linked to interracial conflict; hate crimes overall rose 34 percent; Rabbi Allen Freehling blames failure of political leaders to prepare people for socioeconomic and demographic changes; other particularly violent attacks on blacks by Latinos and by black youths against young white women also cited; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Comr William Bratton promise crackdowns; Green killing in Harbor Gateway, where blacks and Latinos have set up dividing line, particularly alarms officials; two Latinos are charged with murder


the majority of anti black and anti hispanic crimes may be due to hispanics and blacks themselves. But that's a speculation.

What we know is that Blacks are less likely to be victims of hate crimes and more likely to commit hate crimes. And now, your link says they are more likely to be victims of racially motivated single-bias hate crimes. But we still dont know about multiple bias hate crimes in which racial motivation is one of the reasons.




But that brings us back to the point, what is your argument exactly?



Oh, right, you were rebutting an inane strawman. Well done.

Thx...

Actually, The Cat-Tribe provided those...Duh...No, you provided statistics, and your statistics, as others have said, are incomplete. You even acknowledge that they might be incorrect.

I've already cited the 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data for the fact that among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime:

67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

link (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm)

Now let me add the FBI's numbers about offenders, which paint a very different picture than your erroneous 43.5% and 38.8%>


You should use dictionary way more often. Again, look up "erroneous". My statistics were about VIOLENT hate crimes while yours is about OVERALL hate crimes. Those are different categories. Hence, your statistics does not refute mine and make it "erroneous".


An analysis of available race data for the 6,804 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

60.5 percent were white.
19.9 percent were black.
12.3 percent were unknown.
5.2 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
1.1 percent of known offenders were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
0.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.

Link (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/offenders.htm)

USA is 81.7% white and 12.9% black, officially.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

While official definitions may differ from popular definitions (such as the fact that census claims all middle easterns as white), I'm gonna use official definitions because these are the same stats FBI uses.

Anyway, as you can see blacks are still over-represented as offenders while whites are under-represented in OVERALL hate crimes, tho, the discordancy is not as greas as in VIOLENT hate crimes in which 43% of offenders is white and 38% is black.

So again, it is interesting to note that Blacks tend to get more violent in hate crimes...


And again, there are statistical problems with your sources too. For ex:

"Reporting agencies identified 6,804 known offenders in 7,163 bias-motivated incidents in 2005. In the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the term known offender does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known. The term indicates that some aspect of the suspect was identified, thus distinguishing the suspect from an unknown offender."

No, you provided statistics, and your statistics, as others have said, are incomplete. You even acknowledge that they might be incorrect.



And bias against blacks is a more prominent cause of hate crimes than bias against whites only in single motivation hate crimes whose motivation is racial.


...based upon the incomplete statistics that you provided.

No. Data about single bias hate crimes whose motivation is racial were provided by The Cat Tribes, here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12690896&postcount=30

Amazing that you made a second post, insisting, when you are blatantly wrong.

I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and deny the facts. But so what? Whats your point?

I was making a point about "evil white men". Now, if the racial bias against blacks is primarily caused by hispanics (who are mostly non-white), how come this is the fault of white society? So still there is no contradiction between statistics and my interpretations.

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses a hoppin'.

And bias against blacks is a more prominent cause of hate crimes than bias against whites only in single motivation hate crimes whose motivation is racial.

On what basis do you add the word "only" to that statistic?

No. Data about single bias hate crimes whose motivation is racial were provided by The Cat Tribes, here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12690896&postcount=30

Amazing that you made a second post, insisting, when you are blatantly wrong.

No. Although the data was provided by me regarding single bias hate crime motivations, you are the one that drew an unsupported conclusion.

Yes. I already said in my OP that the statistics may be incorrect.

Gee, so your entire argument may be shit. Nice of you to admit it.

I just said statistics were interesting. And again statistics do support that Blacks are less likely to be victims of hate crimes in USA. Are you still claiming statistics dont support this? The only part that needs to be corrected is that blacks are more likely to be offenders in violent hate crimes instead of all hate crimes.

Um. Let's see. You claimed to present two statistics. You were wrong as to both of them. 'Nuff said.


For the third time,

"The statistics dont prove if there is no bias against whites. "There may be still an anti-white bias and without it, the rate of white hate crime offenders may be even lower. Or not." As I said, the statistics dont prove anything about if there is any bias against whites in hate crime legislation applications. You are just assuming this correlation without any proof."

There is neither proof nor suggestion. There is only an assumption that just because blacks are more likely to be offenders, there should not be any bias agianst whites. Another assumption would be that the system is biased against blacks because they are more likely to be offenders. But these are only assumptions.

LOL. You should hear the wheels in your head grind together as you try to call your assumptions conclusions but my assumptions only assumptions.

On the other hand I based my arguments on numbers (such as 0.9 is greater than 0.7). Now that is a suggestion or a conclusion if the data is valid. It certainly is a conclusion based on the statistics.

1. The data is flawed. You don't deny it. Therefore, you admit your argument is invalid.

2. Actually, the study you cite specifically rebuts that conclusion on the ground that the difference .9 in 1,000 versus .7 in 1,000 is not significant.

Again, I already said in the OP that the statistics may be incorrect.

Again, thanks for admitting you are full of shit.

0.2 per 1000 population in a country of 300 million is mathematically important.

Um. Did you actually read your study? Because it isn't drawing from a sample of 300 million. Based on the sample, there is no significant difference between the rates of victimization based on race.

Yes, I just noticed that. Should I ask mods to change the title to " USA: Blacks less likely to be victims of hate crimes and more likely to be offenders in violent ones." ?

So. One of your two premises was entirely at error.

As I've shown above, your other premise was also at error.

What was your point again?

You should use dictionary way more often. Again, look up "erroneous". My statistics were about VIOLENT hate crimes while yours is about OVERALL hate crimes. Those are different categories. Hence, your statistics does not refute mine and make it "erroneous".

ROTFLASTC. Now, your error is suddenly my error?

You erroneously tried to pass of statistics about violent hate crimes as being about overall hate crimes. You were wrong.

I'm the only one in the thread to present statistics specifically on the overall race of hate crime offenders.

USA is 81.7% white and 12.9% black, officially.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

While official definitions may differ from popular definitions (such as the fact that census claims all middle easterns as white), I'm gonna use official definitions because these are the same stats FBI uses.

Anyway, as you can see blacks are still over-represented as offenders while whites are under-represented in OVERALL hate crimes, tho, the discordancy is not as greas as in VIOLENT hate crimes in which 43% of offenders is white and 38% is black.

So instead of a huge discrepency, you try to salvage a minor one.

Given the flaws in your stats to begin with, a minor disproportionality is hardly significant.

So again, it is interesting to note that Blacks tend to get more violent in hate crimes...

Another unsupported assumption.

And again, there are statistical problems with your sources too. For ex:

"Reporting agencies identified 6,804 known offenders in 7,163 bias-motivated incidents in 2005. In the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the term known offender does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known. The term indicates that some aspect of the suspect was identified, thus distinguishing the suspect from an unknown offender."

God, you are killling me. My sides ache.

Do you not realize that your source uses my source? So any alleged flaw in my source is probably an admitted flaw in your source.

Moreover, your alleged "flaw" is pretty weak compared to the gaping flaw in the NCVS for hate crimes that Free Soviets has documented.