• 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!

These kids should go to JAIL!

Having read this thread, I wonder if people would scream racism/hate crime if it were a white man attacked by non-white people. Something tells me a different tune would be played.
 
Having read this thread, I wonder if people would scream racism/hate crime if it were a white man attacked by non-white people. Something tells me a different tune would be played.

When was the last time a white person was the focus of a hate crime? No, if a white guy would have been beaten down, it would have been an "unfortunate incident". Or, just a crime, which is what this is.
 
Having read this thread, I wonder if people would scream racism/hate crime if it were a white man attacked by non-white people. Something tells me a different tune would be played.

Those threads exist and it's happened before. So yes, it happens.
 
Would be nice to have these kids caught, show the video to an asian prison gang, and them drop these kids off for an hour or so. Just make sure to tell the prisoners no objects.

One self-trained prison fighter could take all of them together. Dudes who eat tons of peanut butter and do dips all day long to build them knockout muscles. Dudes who hit metal bars with the striking parts of their bones all day. Guys with water melon arms yet lightning quick.
 
These are the biggest ******s i have ever seen. There are two situations where one is required to fight they are if you are being attacked or if they have done something again and again to you after being asked to stop **** their **** up.
 
I haven't seen one yet, but I doubt there hasn't been at least one here.

In the mid 1990s, that argument was made by another man from Louisiana who climbed up the ranks of our political system. He went a step further, and created the NAAWP as the white equivalent to the NAACP. Perhaps you should consider enrollment:

NAAWP.ORG
 
Would be nice to have these kids caught, show the video to an asian prison gang, and them drop these kids off for an hour or so. Just make sure to tell the prisoners no objects.

I totally disagree with prison violence against prisoners. It is a disgusting giggle thing.
 
I happen to be Irish-Jewish American, and I'm proud of it.

Then it is a good thing that you weren't born to African-American and Latino parents, isn't it?
 
In the mid 1990s, that argument was made by another man from Louisiana who climbed up the ranks of our political system. He went a step further, and created the NAAWP as the white equivalent to the NAACP. Perhaps you should consider enrollment:

NAAWP.ORG

Wake is black though, so I doubt it'd help him.
 
Anyone bother to mention yet how physically weak these kids all must have been compared to the one that was getting beaten? The victim was able to run away after how many minutes of punches and kicks to the head?

I mean yeah, set an example on the 7 kids, but wow, what a bunch of little limpdicks. 6 of you going at it can't knock a single guy out? Christ, go to the gym and take some classes or something, cuz you're sure not ready to physically defend yourself in ***rape jail. Good luck ****ers!!

I guess they're probably not members of debatepolitics.com. But that's what I'd say to em!!!! :-D
 
Last edited:
Wake is black though, so I doubt it'd help him.

I'm colorblind to the ethnic background of posters, but his words and that of MarineTpartier explicitly stated contempt for those who denounced violence on racial grounds that are unequal to that of other races. It is identical to Duke's remarks as Louisiana's state rep. Again, if these individuals want to get serious and take to their cause, there is a organization for them.
 
I'm colorblind to the ethnic background of posters, but his words and that of MarineTpartier explicitly stated contempt for those who denounced violence on racial grounds that are unequal to that of other races. It is identical to Duke's remarks as Louisiana's state rep. Again, if these individuals want to get serious and take to their cause, there is a organization for them.

I don't see how that's adding up.

Violence against anyone shouldn't be tolerated, and making a bigger deal when a certain race is attacked is wrong.
 
I don't see how that's adding up.

Violence against anyone shouldn't be tolerated, and making a bigger deal when a certain race is attacked is wrong.

Granted. But nowhere in this thread have posters condoned or trivialized attacks on "white people." Instead, the matter is regarding a group of young "white" men pounding the **** out of one young man of Asian descent while they yell racist remarks. Though it may or may not be initially an act of a hate crime is irrelevant. It is logical to assume that, at least at first glance, race may have played a role. So, your sudden statement of contempt for a supposed unequal treatment of race attacks isn't really warranted. If we post your exact statement as you made it and then compare it to Duke, you will see how utterly similar the two statements can be.

If you're one of those people who whines that the whites don't have their own entertainment channel or that racial attacks against whites go unnoticed, then do something about it. Join the organization intended to reverse this "unequal treatment." Join the NAAWP.
 
Granted. But nowhere in this thread have posters condoned or trivialized attacks on "white people." Instead, the matter is regarding a group of young "white" men pounding the **** out of one young man of Asian descent while they yell racist remarks. Though it may or may not be initially an act of a hate crime is irrelevant. It is logical to assume that, at least at first glance, race may have played a role. So, your sudden statement of contempt for a supposed unequal treatment of race attacks isn't really warranted. If we post your exact statement as you made it and then compare it to Duke, you will see how utterly similar the two statements can be.

If you're one of those people who whines that the whites don't have their own entertainment channel or that racial attacks against whites go unnoticed, then do something about it. Join the organization intended to reverse this "unequal treatment." Join the NAAWP.

I think you misunderstand me.

It's true that the hate crime in this video was wrong, but I also have noticed instances in the past based on knowledge that attacks by non-whites against whites are often played down.

Do you agree with that?

If a group attacks one race and results in a certain level of outrage, then to be equal the outrage should be the same if a different group attacks a different race.

I don't have to join the NAAWP to point out how hypocritical our society can be. That only backs my point when you say I'm "whining for the plight of the white man and I should join the NAAWP" simply because I notice the discrepancies.
 
I think you misunderstand me.

It's true that the hate crime in this video was wrong, but I also have noticed instances in the past based on knowledge that attacks by non-whites against whites are often played down.

Do you agree with that?

If a group attacks one race and results in a certain level of outrage, then to be equal the outrage should be the same if a different group attacks a different race.

I don't have to join the NAAWP to point out how hypocritical our society can be. That only backs my point when you say I'm "whining for the plight of the white man and I should join the NAAWP" simply because I notice the discrepancies.

First, I'm not aware of any "played down" instances of racial attacks against "whites." Second, I do see a movement to represent minorities in entertainment, arts, and culture with significant success, and I see this as positive. As for hate crime laws, I can't say I particularly support them because I'm concerned such legislation would come with unintended consequences and won't deter racial attacks.

As for the discrepancies, I don't see it. When the LA riots broke out in the 1990s, a major outcry was made over the beating of a white trucker who was pulled out of his truck by a black rioter (and subsequently had his face smashed in). When there's a brutal attack based genuinely on race, it is met with public outrage regardless of who did to who.
 
First, I'm not aware of any "played down" instances of racial attacks against "whites." Second, I do see a movement to represent minorities in entertainment, arts, and culture with significant success, and I see this as positive. As for hate crime laws, I can't say I particularly support them because I'm concerned such legislation would come with unintended consequences and won't deter racial attacks.

As for the discrepancies, I don't see it. When the LA riots broke out in the 1990s, a major outcry was made over the beating of a white trucker who was pulled out of his truck by a black rioter (and subsequently had his face smashed in). When there's a brutal attack based genuinely on race, it is met with public outrage regardless of who did to who.

Well, I don't really see the equality of outrage. As an example, if a crowd sees a white man attack/insult a black man, what do you think the reaction would be? Conversely, if a black man were to attack/insult a white man, do you think the outrage/charges of racism would be equal?

I doubt it.

There have been too many experiences where I see outrage over racial attacks/scenarios be disproportionate if the races were different. For an example, there were the black Panther members who were filmed holding billy clubs in front of a voter-registration area. Do you think the outrage would be different if there were, say, two Ku Klux Klan members/Skinhead neo-Nazis with billy clubs doing the same thing?

There may be public outrage, but there is typically an element of hypocrisy/ignorance that either stifles or heightens the outrage.
 
Well, I don't really see the equality of outrage. As an example, if a crowd sees a white man attack/insult a black man, what do you think the reaction would be? Conversely, if a black man were to attack/insult a white man, do you think the outrage/charges of racism would be equal?

Hypothetically, yes. Though there are so many instances of racial violence, you don't need to choose a hypothetical scenario. Pick a real one.

I doubt it.

There have been too many experiences where I see outrage over racial attacks/scenarios be disproportionate if the races were different. For an example, there were the black Panther members who were filmed holding billy clubs in front of a voter-registration area. Do you think the outrage would be different if there were, say, two Ku Klux Klan members/Skinhead neo-Nazis with billy clubs doing the same thing?

Those are two extremely different scenarios, and you know it. African-Americans were denied their right to vote in places as progressive as California and as late as the early 1970s (some would claim you still have pockets of civil rights violation at the polls today). The Black Panther movement was created not out of a desire to beat the **** out of white people, but to protect their own communities from the police who routinely beat and killed African-American citizens without due process. The Ku Klux Klan was designed to silence freed slaves and later, proponents of civil rights/desegregation.

The BPs would not use force unless you tried to prevent blacks from voting. The KKK would use force if you were black and tried to vote. See the difference? Heck, I can't think of many instances (though maybe one or two existed) of BPs going on sadistic rampages to burn down houses and lynch white people.
 
Hypothetically, yes. Though there are so many instances of racial violence, you don't need to choose a hypothetical scenario. Pick a real one.



Those are two extremely different scenarios, and you know it. African-Americans were denied their right to vote in places as progressive as California and as late as the early 1970s (some would claim you still have pockets of civil rights violation at the polls today). The Black Panther movement was created not out of a desire to beat the **** out of white people, but to protect their own communities from the police who routinely beat and killed African-American citizens without due process. The Ku Klux Klan was designed to silence freed slaves and later, proponents of civil rights/desegregation.

The BPs would not use force unless you tried to prevent blacks from voting. The KKK would use force if you were black and tried to vote. See the difference? Heck, I can't think of many instances (though maybe one or two existed) of BPs going on sadistic rampages to burn down houses and lynch white people.

I prefer hypothetical scenarios because they're to the point.

We're in the year 2012. We don't need Black Panthers threatening violence by brandishing their billy clubs. They only make black people look bad. Times change; we aren't in the situation we were in in the past. The KKK was wrong, and so are the BP for their intimidation of voters, among other things. Just because—in their radical paranoia—they think white people are out to stop black people from voting, that doesn't give them the right to plant themselves at the entrance with billy clubs that can crush your skull in. Being black, I'm more intimidated by these radicals who brandish weapons, who also don't seem to be stopped by the police. No, they are not justified in intimidating voters; them standing their with weapons at the ready reminds me of vigilantism.
 
I prefer hypothetical scenarios because they're to the point.

We're in the year 2012. We don't need Black Panthers threatening violence by brandishing their billy clubs. They only make black people look bad. Times change; we aren't in the situation we were in in the past. The KKK was wrong, and so are the BP for their intimidation of voters, among other things. Just because—in their radical paranoia—they think white people are out to stop black people from voting, that doesn't give them the right to plant themselves at the entrance with billy clubs that can crush your skull in. Being black, I'm more intimidated by these radicals who brandish weapons, who also don't seem to be stopped by the police. No, they are not justified in intimidating voters; them standing their with weapons at the ready reminds me of vigilantism.

I thought you were referring to the 1960s and 1970s. I'm unaware of any event where BPs were intimidating voters in recent elections. Provide the evidence.

In the past, I would say the BP vigilantism was justified. Today, it is not. And hypothetically, I do believe the police would remove them if they were intimidating voters, say in 2010 or 2008.
 
I just found the single case in Philadelphia. The police escorted the man with a nightstick out. And charges were filed.
 
I thought you were referring to the 1960s and 1970s. I'm unaware of any event where BPs were intimidating voters in recent elections. Provide the evidence.

In the past, I would say the BP vigilantism was justified. Today, it is not. And hypothetically, I do believe the police would remove them if they were intimidating voters, say in 2010 or 2008.

I meant the present. This example was from the 2008 election, and Holder's decision, and hypocrisy, has stirred outrage from people of various parties:

The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, sometimes known simply as the Black Panther Case, is a political controversy in the United States concerning an incident that occurred during the 2008 election. The New Black Panther Party and two of its members, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, were charged with voter intimidation for their conduct outside a polling station in Philadelphia. The Department of Justice later narrowed the charges against Minister King Shabazz and dismissed the charges against the New Black Panther Party and Jerry Jackson. The decision to dismiss the charges has led to accusations that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration is biased against white victims and unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. These charges have been most notably made by J. Christian Adams, who in May 2010 resigned his post in the Department of Justice in protest over the Obama Administration's perceived mishandling of the case, and by his former supervisor Christopher Coates.

Counter-accusations have also been made, including claims that the actual incident was relatively minor, but its importance had been blown out of proportion by individuals and groups with political motives. Attorney General Eric Holder has also rejected claims that his Justice Department considers the race of an alleged victim when deciding which cases to pursue. The case and its handling by the Department of Justice is currently being investigated by the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Justice Department is also carrying out its own internal investigation into the handling of the case.

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were also filmed on tape and the video found itself on YouTube.



They totally got away with it, when it was clear from the video what they were doing.
 
I meant the present. This example was from the 2008 election, and Holder's decision, and hypocrisy, has stirred outrage from people of various parties:



New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were also filmed on tape and the video found itself on YouTube.



They totally got away with it, when it was clear from the video what they were doing.


This was clearly an isolated incident. According to wikipedia, the case and its handling by the DOJ is still under investigation by the Civil Rights Commission. Finally, the one man with the billy club did receive an injunction for his role in intimidating voters. The other man was a certified poll watcher and was not wielding a weapon.

Voter Intimidation

As you can see from this website, voter intimidation occurs most frequently against minority groups. It's not always as cut and dry as wielding a weapon at the polls, but neither were the literacy tests or poll tax administered first in the late 1800s.
 
Back
Top Bottom