• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we're all accustomed to your delusional claims of victory and calling others liars. None of us are surprised.

Oh, so the things I said didn't happen? lol Did you forget everyone can read what you post? It's still there. lol
 
This is absolutely correct. Black people don't need a dude running around telling people that he thinks it's impossible for blacks to racist. It's factually incorrect, one, and just creates more friction than it solves, two.

The sociology department disagrees, kid.
 
I think it's silly to say that you don't want to recognize people according to "race" yet to support these kinds of laws which are based on nothing but race. It just seems to much like thought control to me. Like the government says that you are NOT allowed to hate and if you, you will be punished for feeling that emotion. Of course no one likes racism, but people should be punished for their ACTIONS and not for their thoughts. I don't have an issue with it being brought in the process of trial because it would be related to a motive, but I just don't agree with specifically punishment for and making an emotion into a crime. I don't see an actual NEED for it besides appeasement.

Who's been punished for hating black people?
 
The dictionary disagrees, son.

No it doesn't. You read it wrong.

I'm quite sure the sociology department has a dictionary too. And they say you're full of crap.
 
Sure, because there's no racism in America today!

I want what she's smoking too.

Not "institutionalized" as you would claim. :) It's pretty much an individual phenomenon, unless you are referring to a specific group such as the KKK, but I don't agree with individuals being charged with hate crimes.
 
hen you must agree that rape would be a "hate" crime against women, and child molestation would be a hate crime against children

You do realise that rape happens to men too, yes? And that child molestation is not a crime done by people who hate children? Yes? And that nobody is immune to hate crime based on crimes? Yes? Which is why we have separate guidelines for each. You molest a child? Child molestation laws apply. Not rape laws. And that if you rape a man, the same rape laws which apply to women are used. Yes? There aren't separate sentencing laws for white people who violate hate crime laws and black people who violate hate crime laws. It's pretty global.
 
Last edited:
It is only a hate crime if the reason for the attack was race. I think the reason for this attack was robbery. I would think that this group of thugs has attacked others in the past and I suspect vulnerability is a bigger factor in the choice of victims than race.

You are missing the point here. If white kids beat and robbed a disabled black vet while taunting him with racial slurs the question of whether or not it was a hate crime would be in the article for sure and possibly in the headline itself.
 
No it doesn't. You read it wrong.

I'm quite sure the sociology department has a dictionary too. And they say you're full of crap.

Says the guy who thought I said I wouldn't call people names. Here's a newsflash: you can't read.

You want to ignore that definitions 1 and 3 exist. Fine. But don't be surprised when people laugh at you:

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
 
Not "institutionalized" as you would claim. :) It's pretty much an individual phenomenon, unless you are referring to a specific group such as the KKK, but I don't agree with individuals being charged with hate crimes.

Blacks today suffer unjust discrimination in a variety of circumstances, from the judicial system to housing to employment.
 
You are missing the point here. If white kids beat and robbed a disabled black vet while taunting him with racial slurs the question of whether or not it was a hate crime would be in the article for sure and possibly in the headline itself.

You're so persecuted!
 
Who's been punished for hating black people?


Hatuey, did you ever get back to me about when it's okay to restrict and ignore some definitions or not? Sorry if I missed it. Is it generally good to do it or is it bad? Or does it depend on if it furthers your agenda or not?
 
You are missing the point here. If white kids beat and robbed a disabled black vet while taunting him with racial slurs the question of whether or not it was a hate crime would be in the article for sure and possibly in the headline itself.

Actually, hate crime laws would still be used as he was disabled and just white. This is why it is key to understand hate crime legislation.
 
Last edited:
Actually, hate crime laws would still be used as he was disabled. This is why it is key to understand hate crime legislation.

Blacks have been convicted of hate crimes against whites. There's just a lot less organized bigotry among blacks than whites, and the crime being motivated by an organization or (possessed) propaganda is an important aspect of prosecution.

That's why, in one article presented herein, blacks are being charged with hate crimes against a Hispanic. The "papi slouching" implies an organized effort to attack people of a certain race. If they have physical material (a pamphlet, website, something distributed within a gang, etc) about doing this sort of thing, I believe they are in for a conviction.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey, did you ever get back to me about when it's okay to restrict and ignore some definitions or not? Sorry if I missed it. Is it generally good to do it or is it bad? Or does it depend on if it furthers your agenda or not?

I did. I'm sure I did.

When the term is something as complex as racism? Sure. It also goes for any of the other "isms". You're not engaging in feminism by being nice to women. You're not engaging in nazism simply because you hate Jews. You're not engaging in Fordism simply by driving a Ford. Again, complex term, analysis which requires more than childish tantrums and dictionary definitions.

When the topic is as complex as an ism? Restricting what it means is absolute nonsense as the subject requires objectivity and not preconceived bias. Are you a feminist simply because you support the women in your family? No. Are you a mysogynist simply because you beat up a girlfriend? No. Context and complexity of the term are important. Racism diluted down to simply being a dislike of people of other ethnic/racial groups is racialism. Racialism with the ability to exercise racialist beliefs within a power structure? Racism.
 
Remember: black people in the 60s weren't angry about being called niggers.

They weren't, huh? You probably never entered many Black bars. That's maybe the craziest thing I've ever read on these boards.
 
I did. I'm sure I did.

Ah, excellent.

When the topic is as complex as an ism? Restricting what it means is absolute nonsense

So it's bad. Then why are you restricting it to only definition 2?

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Why are you insisting that only one definition fits? That's restricting it. You're basically pretending 1 and 3 don't exist.

Like, you said:

Racism diluted down to simply being a dislike of people of other ethnic/racial groups is racialism.

And we can see that, by definition, that's false. Right there in the definition, as close to word-for-word as one could reasonably want. And you're just...ignoring it? lol WHY??
 
NWO, no one is impressed by your dictionary. Go to school.
 
They weren't, huh? You probably never entered many Black bars. That's maybe the craziest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Par for the course for you to take soundbytes and use them as you need. Read my post again in full context. Again, if you think the civil rights movement were about verbal aggression you simply do not understand what it was actually about. It was about institutional racism. Not some white guy who didn't like black people.
 
Ah, excellent.



So it's bad. Then why are you restricting it to only definition 2?



Why are you insisting that only one definition fits? That's restricting it. You're basically pretending 1 and 3 don't exist.

Like , you said:



And we can see that, by definition, that's false. And you're just...ignoring it? lol WHY??

I am not. If you actually read the definitions, number 2 is dependent on number 1 and vice versa. Where the first definition clearly states that racism alludes to ruling over other races, the second reinstates that same idea by showing that it is also dependent on an actual system. The last 3 of the definitions is the most commonly used soundbyte about what racism is even though it's clear from the first two definitions (let's call them academic definitions) that racism is 1) race based followed by 2) exercise of power.
 
You also said that black people can't be racist. And when that simple statement was corrected, you started ignoring definitions of words you didn't like, lying about what people said, and implying that people that disagreed with you were racist themselves. Childish.

They are talking about institutionalized racism, and you are talking about individual prejudice.
 
The black thugs used racial slurs as they beat and robbed the white man, his disability was not mentioned in the attack.

You obviously then do not understand how hate crime legislation works. If they had attacked 10 disabled vets without mentioning they were in a wheelchair would that have been a hate crime? Yes. Regardless of whether or not disability based language was used. If they had attacked 10 white people without mentioning their race, would that have been a hate crime? Yes. Your ignorance on this subject is actually really entertaining. Tell us, what is the standard of proof for a hate crime? If you say "Whether the attacker is black or not" you'll look foolish simply due to statistics on sentencing for hate crime. Why don't you do us all a favor and scuttle off.
 
I am not. If you actually read the definitions, number 2 is dependent on number 1 and vice versa.

2 is indeed dependent on 1. There is no indication that 1 is dependent on 2, however.

Where the first definition clearly states that racism alludes to ruling over other races, the second reinstates that same idea by showing that it is also dependent on an actual system.

The first alludes to a desire to rule, not the reality of rule. And even then, it's hedged with "usually".

The last 3 of the definitions is the most commonly used soundbyte about what racism is even though it's clear from the first two definitions (let's call them academic definitions) that racism is 1) race based followed by 2) exercise of power.

Well, yes. It is most commonly used. Because words have meaning.

So if someone asks "Can black people be racist?" and I didn't know what the word meant, I would first look up racism ("a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others") then I would look up racism, since that's where it points me. I would read the first one and think "I've heard of some black people believing that "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement" and whether or not it has to do with "usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" doesn't really matter.

That'd be enough on its own to answer "Yes, black people can be racist" but continuing on I'd probably find (in the US) that the second definition probably doesn't apply (although there are some cases where it conceivably could). Then I'd read the third definition, see that it applied, and it would be very clear. The only way someone can say that black people can't be racist is if they restrict the definition of the word for whatever reason, something you've already said is "nonsense".

This isn't really even a debate, although ecofarm's attempt certainly made for some great fun.
 
They are talking about institutionalized racism, and you are talking about individual prejudice.

I'm talking about the actual definition of the word "racism".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom