Washington rids itself of sexist language

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Fairness doctrine, isn't that what is always pushed by one side.  If we're going to talk about race in this country and make an entire episode for a year about white (Hispanic) on black crime, why aren't we talking about black on white crime?  Or black on black crime?  Or black on Hispanic crime, or Hispanic on black crime. 

I just see it and think of it as crime.  Period.  All of these crimes are disgusting. 

[GGGG]

Seriously?  For about 3 minutes they ask him to leave.  He stays.  Once the police arrive, one guy tries to steal the sign from him.  In the process of trying to get the sign, he is pinned to the ground.  Another guy sees that part an runs in and takes out the guy on top, should he have done that, no.

Far from a brawl.  And definitely not " a group of gays selectively targeting a christian"  As I referred to. 

Frankly, watching that video, no charges should be filed at all, nonetheless hate crimes.

Furthermore, the incident didn't occur *because* he was heterosexual.  (Which would be the standard for a hate crime.)

That would be like some random white guy walking around an NAACP rally holding a sign saying "Black people are the spawn of Satan," and that the response, if criminal, is classified as a hate-crime.  Complete lack of logic.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Nope, absolutely not suggesting that.  Some, maybe most are random acts of violence.  What I find interesting are comments like MLKIII's yesterday that being black is a license to be killed, because apparently being black and murdered is the reason for one's murder.  No racism existed in the GZ case, but people won't let that go. 

I just find those arguments ridiculous, but seldom go checked by the media or the sheep that follow them.  I find it interesting that racism charges almost always come out in white on black murder, but almost never come out when the reverse happens...and that includes hate crime punishment. Why do you think that is the case?  Is there a different standard?  If a white person had racist tweets and then with his buddy went and killed a black kid jogging, would it be considered a hate crime?  If it wasn't considered as such, would the media EXPLODE along with certain individuals because it WASN'T categorized as such?  Of course, but when someone on the opposite side raises this distinction it doesn't count?

So what's good for the goose....

Do you feel like white, christian, males are a persecuted group?

I feel like that is at the root of everything you are saying. Do you feel like the deck is somehow stacked against you/us?

I have to be honest, I'm white, Catholic, middle class. I've traveled all over the country. I've been apart of service groups and projects in bad neighborhoods. In my previous marketing position, I had a lot of interaction with a WIDE variety of consumers. I've met and talked to people from every economic category, every sexual orientation, every religious affiliation (from Evangelical, to Mormon), etc.

At no point, did I ever feel like being white, middle class, and Catholic was somehow a disadvantage. I've never felt like the rules were stacked against me. I never felt like I was treated unfairly because of my race or religion. Not once. Ever.

[Coleman]

Do you feel like white, christian, males are a persecuted group?

I feel like that is at the root of everything you are saying. Do you feel like the deck is somehow stacked against you/us?

I have to be honest, I'm white, Catholic, middle class. I've traveled all over the country. I've been apart of service groups and projects in bad neighborhoods. In my previous marketing position, I had a lot of interaction with a WIDE variety of consumers. I've met and talked to people from every economic category, every sexual orientation, every religious affiliation (from Evangelical, to Mormon), etc.

At no point, did I ever feel like being white, middle class, and Catholic was somehow a disadvantage. I've never felt like the rules were stacked against me. I never felt like I was treated unfairly because of my race or religion. Not once. Ever.

+1. To everything you've said. I have the balls to admit that things from my white, male, middle-class Christian perch are pretty damn good. We are a lucky bunch.

Much is to be expected from those who have been given much.

[Lennys Tap]

Furthermore, the incident didn't occur *because* he was heterosexual.  (Which would be the standard for a hate crime.)

That would be like some random white guy walking around an NAACP rally holding a sign saying "Black people are the spawn of Satan," and that the response, if criminal, is classified as a hate-crime.  Complete lack of logic.

I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean,  is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".

[GGGG]

I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean,  is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".

I actually agree with you.  I can stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at him, and it isn't a crime.  But if I yell that at him and murder him, it is a "bigger" crime than if I had just murdered him to begin with.  That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Coleman]

I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean,  is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".

That's a whole different discussion. Don't give Chicos that easy of an out. He has argued himself into an unwinnable position. I'd like to see where he goes from here, rather than changing the subject.

In any case, all hate crime statutes do is drive sentencing guidelines. Sentences are more severe for those who are clearly motivated by hate against people of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. It has nothing to do with convictions, as you imply. And I'd argue that in determining sentences, it is very relevant.  

[Coleman]

I actually agree with you.  I can stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at him, and it isn't a crime.  But if I yell that at him and murder him, it is a "bigger" crime than if I had just murdered him to begin with.  That doesn't make much sense to me.

That's faulty logic. Aggravating factors do not need to be crimes! Carrying a weapon may not be a crime but possession of a weapon during a robbery is certainly an aggravating factor!

Being racist is not a crime but it can certainly be an aggravating factor and most definitely relevant (i.e. hate crime sentencing guidelines)

[GGGG]

That's faulty logic. Aggravating factors do not need to be crimes! Carrying a weapon may not be a crime but possession of a weapon during a robbery is certainly an aggravating factor!

Being racist is not a crime but it can certainly be an aggravating factor and most definitely relevant (i.e. hate crime sentencing guidelines)

OK, I understand the fault in my logic.  But I am not sure that it *should* be an aggravating factor.  I certainly do not feel strong about it either way.

[Coleman]

OK, I understand the fault in my logic.  But I am not sure that it *should* be an aggravating factor. 

Fair enough. I disagree with you, but I suppose that's a reasonable opinion.

[Jay Bee]

I actually agree with you.  I can stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at him, and it isn't a crime.  But if I yell that at him and murder him, it is a "bigger" crime than if I had just murdered him to begin with.  That doesn't make much sense to me.

You can't necessarily stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at a gay dude. There are laws that may* be against "that". (i.e, discon, etc.)

Personally I mostly hate hate crimes. Punish the crimes. If hating someone and having an awful opinion of a person or group of people is completely OK in this country, then why add on to punishment for it?

But.. once you start going after that.. I wonder where you stop. DUI... you can do zero direct harm to anyone, yet be punished. Hit/injure/kill someone and things get a lot worse for you. Even though the same "crime" was committed - driving under the influence.

a) You're driving, someone runs a red, hits you and they die. If you're sober, no problemo criminally.
b) You're driving, are at a .09, someone runs a red, hits you and they die. Might be up for manslaughter or worse. Enhanced punishment, yes?

You can also get into the fact that specific BAC levels affect different people in much different ways. So maybe it's good to punish partly based on what harm is actually done. But maybe it's not fair to punish based on an arbitrary figure that everyone is equally subjected to, even though their actions "driving impaired" may be different.

Then again... there are lesser crimes charged for those who fail to carry out their intent. Attempted murder. You shoot someone with the idea of killing them.. you miss and or they don't die. In many cases, you're far better off than if the person died. Maybe you should be treated as a bad murderer vs. a non-murderer.

What are we really prosecuting? Crimes or the outcome or the reason for them? Answer is all of the above and "depends", right or wrong.

I tend to say look at the crime. Aggravating factors like having a kid in the car while driving hammered or pulling a drive by seem reasonable... but aggravating factors for what might* amount to exercising freedom
of speech and opinion? Ehhh..

[Lennys Tap]

That's a whole different discussion. Don't give Chicos that easy of an out. He has argued himself into an unwinnable position. I'd like to see where he goes from here, rather than changing the subject.

In any case, all hate crime statutes do is drive sentencing guidelines. Sentences are more severe for those who are clearly motivated by hate against people of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. It has nothing to do with convictions, as you imply. And I'd argue that in determining sentences, it is very relevant.  

First of all, I'm extremely familiar with Chicos arguing himself into an unwinnable (sic) position and I'm not known as one who gives him an easy out. That said, don't hold your breath waiting for him to admit he's mistaken.

Regarding hate crimes, you may be technically correct that the statute drives sentencing but motive absolutely does and always has had a lot to do with convictions - as it should.

My point is this:if an 18 year old Asian man bludgeons my 91 year old Grandmother to death because he hates women, old people, white people or Catholics I want that or those facts exposed to help convict him and put him away for life, but I'm not impressed with a DA cementing his status with aggrieved groups by grandstanding for a greater sentence than befits the crime.

[mu-rara]

Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED.  LOL

Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.

Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight.  The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law.  Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion. 

Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.

[Hards Alumni]

Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight.  The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law.  Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion. 

Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.

Says one conservative supporting another conservative's point of view..l AM SHOCKED.  LOL

Do you run around all day with your fingers in your ears?

[Pakuni]

Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight.  The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law.  Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion. 

Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.

Posting pictures of a murdered 88-year-old man and suggesting we hold a moment of silence in his memory is totes logical and not in the least bit an appeal to emotion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Seriously?  For about 3 minutes they ask him to leave.  He stays.  Once the police arrive, one guy tries to steal the sign from him.  In the process of trying to get the sign, he is pinned to the ground.  Another guy sees that part an runs in and takes out the guy on top, should he have done that, no.

Far from a brawl.  And definitely not " a group of gays selectively targeting a christian"  As I referred to.  

Frankly, watching that video, no charges should be filed at all, nonetheless hate crimes.

No charges should be filed for pushing and assaulting a guy?  Interesting.

Again, I ask what would happen if things were flipped.  Let's say at a rally pushing traditional marriage.  Someone shows up with a gay marriage sign and the person with the gay marriage sign is attacked, signs destroyed and assaulted.  What would the media do?  Would there be a call for a hate crime charge (you bet your arse there would be....warranted or not, that would be the cry).

He has every right to be there under the constitution as anyone else.  He was holding a sign, nothing more.  This is what upsets so many people when they see one treatment from one side and when the flip happens, the media is silent, the politicians nowhere to be found.  Double standards

[ChicosBailBonds]

My god it is hard to take you seriously.  Anybody that suggests this is a hate crime shows a total lack of understanding of what a hate crime is.  

If you had your way virtually any violent crime could be construed as a hate crime.  That would do wonders for our law enforcement and criminal justice systems.  

I think you AGAIN miss the point.  If the roles were reversed, and a gay person was attacked holding a sign promoting gay marriage at a pro traditional marriage rally, what would the reaction be?  Would there be a call for a hate crime?  How would the media react?

This isn't hard folks.  Double standards. We all know what the media would do, we all know what the cry would be.

Do I think this is necessarily a hate crime?  Depends....the man is allowed to be there under the constitution.  People don't like what he stands for, too bad, he does not get to be assaulted for that.  Why are they assaulting him?  Listen to her words...now try to put those exact same words into the scenario I describe above and what would the reaction be?   We all know what it would be.

That's the hypocrisy here.  What's good for the goose....

[ChicosBailBonds]

I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean,  is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".

BINGO

Exactly right.  There is lies most of the problem, not only with enforcement but with interpretation of what a hate crime even is. We already have people here saying it's not really hate, "just a crime."    I ask again, if the roles were reversed, would the hate standard be used....you bet your arse it would.  And that's the very problem with hate crimes.  When you have people out there like Spike Lee or MLKIII or whomever saying certain people can't be racist, then they also believe it is impossible for a hate crime to exist for those groups by the very definition.  It is absurd, but that is what people think.  No different than what I am pointing out here.  If a young black man is killed an one of the killers has racist tweets, are we really going to sit here and believe that isn't going to be used to charge not only a hate crime but also be top line of the story?  Of course it is.

That is the crux of the problem.  Rodeo clown uses an Obama mask, charged with racism.  Rodeo clowns have used presidential masks for a long time....get the drift?  Different standards.  Same with Lane, Delburt, etc.  It's as much as the reaction then anything else.  The standards by the media and people in general are crazily transparent and ridiculously unequal.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-belton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america

[Pakuni]

That's the hypocrisy here.  What's good for the goose....

Of course there's hypocrisy amongst the fringes. So what?
You keep talking about the Zimmerman case, but the fact is Zimmerman never was charged with a hate crime. Just like the kids who killed Christopher Lane and Delbert Belton won't be charged with hate crimes.
Because they didn't commit hate crimes.

Yes, some loons on the left wanted Zimmerman charged with a hate crime.
But some loons on the right are calling for the same in the other cases. I fear you may be one of them.
We ought to ignore these people. Because they're loons.

[forgetful]

No charges should be filed for pushing and assaulting a guy?  Interesting.

Again, I ask what would happen if things were flipped.  Let's say at a rally pushing traditional marriage.  Someone shows up with a gay marriage sign and the person with the gay marriage sign is attacked, signs destroyed and assaulted.  What would the media do?  Would there be a call for a hate crime charge (you bet your arse there would be....warranted or not, that would be the cry).

He has every right to be there under the constitution as anyone else.  He was holding a sign, nothing more.  This is what upsets so many people when they see one treatment from one side and when the flip happens, the media is silent, the politicians nowhere to be found.  Double standards

In my opinion no.  No charges should be filed.  But you will be happy to know, both the guy without a shirt and the man who stole the sign were arrested and charged with assault.

For your hypothetical, absolutely no hate crimes would be charged, unless it was clear that the motivating factor was hatred towards the group being gay.  You seem to ignore that critical aspect of the law.

The crime has to be motivated and about the victim solely being a member of a specific race, sex or religion.  Being anti-gay is not and never has been a religion.  If I go to a badger game wearing MU gear and get into the student section and chant "the badgers suck" and "rodents are nasty" repeatedly and am beaten to a pulp for it, I am also not the victim of a hate crime.  The anger is directed at my comments not my association with a particular group.

[Jay Bee]

Is the driver really white? Honestly doesn't look white to me at all.

I haven't been following this thread or the story much in the past few days - are people discussing this (that none of the three appear to be white) nationally or has it been generally accepted he's white?

I do see that in "negative stories" if someone can be called white (even if they're clearly not) then the media will do so without regard to the facts. Conversely, if there is a positive story a half-white person will usually be referred to by the non-white race.

If the kid who doesn't look white, but who everyone says is white isn't truly white and the mainstream media knows this, it may not matter. They'd rather continue to call him white. There are probably those who are saying, "they charged 2 with murder, but didn't charge the white kid with murder even though all 3 were together! RACISM!"

Racism is very real and prevalent and it's sick. But so is making crap up and having double standards. If mainstream America could better understand what many blacks go through in a typical day (i.e., simple every day things like being pulled over, people on their back at local store, discriminated against or treated different in various every day settings)... that might go a lot further to improve race relations as opposed to making up stories related to sensational and unusual cases.

Right now more than anything this country could really use some jobs. 40 hour a week jobs.

Of course there's hypocrisy amongst the fringes....We ought to ignore these people. Because they're loons.

Much of the media and folks like Eric Holder are indeed loons. But, they're not on the fringes and a large chunk of this nation garbles their nonsense up.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do you feel like white, christian, males are a persecuted group?

I feel like that is at the root of everything you are saying. Do you feel like the deck is somehow stacked against you/us?

I have to be honest, I'm white, Catholic, middle class. I've traveled all over the country. I've been apart of service groups and projects in bad neighborhoods. In my previous marketing position, I had a lot of interaction with a WIDE variety of consumers. I've met and talked to people from every economic category, every sexual orientation, every religious affiliation (from Evangelical, to Mormon), etc.

At no point, did I ever feel like being white, middle class, and Catholic was somehow a disadvantage. I've never felt like the rules were stacked against me. I never felt like I was treated unfairly because of my race or religion. Not once. Ever.

I'm happy for you.  Have some suffered for it?  Of course.  How many US Presidents have we had that are Catholic?  One...and likely blatant cheating in Texas and Illinois for that to happen.  Why has only one Catholic become a US President?  Tons of history on this.

Now, are Catholics or Christians out getting murdered these days in this country because of it?  No.  Have there been assaults, property crimes, etc because of beliefs...you bet.  Both in the way past with the Klan and as recently as this past year.  Some are major incidents, some are minor.  Some of our dearest friends are African American Catholics.  Our two families have gone to Hawaii, Orlando, etc in three of the last four Spring Breaks.  The grief they took by going to the Catholic schools growing up in Compton..you should hear the stories.  The assaults, the condemnations, etc....all because they were wearing a Catholic school uniform.

But look at your answer, just like Holder's answer...you believe this stuff is dependent upon HISTORICAL persecution.  This is where we fundamentally differ.  No one is disputing that some groups have suffered.  To the point some suffer so much white guilt that policies going the extreme opposite are now in place and are discriminatory in their own way (nothing like fighting discrimination with more discrimination...always a really good idea    ).   This isn't about me, so when you say is the deck stacked against me I don't even know where you are going with this, but that's the mindset many people have. "You're white, you've had it easy".  "You're a male, the world has been handed to you".  "You're a heterosexual, etc, etc". 

I believe in equality.  Period.  Laws should be applied to people EQUALLY.  If one group commits a crime and the media gets all ginned up, demands hate crime status, etc, then when the shoe is on the other foot, I expect equal treatment.  I expect the hypocrisy to end.  Somehow this is where equality goes out the door and the typical response is "well, such and such group has suffered atrocities in the past so "it's different"".    As long as we have that viewpoint, the racial divide will continue I'm afraid to say.  People see the double standard and that is why so many are upset with the media and certain folks that stand to make money, etc from the exploitation. 

[Coleman]

Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight.  The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law.  Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion. 

Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.

LOL.

Chico's entire argument here is an appeal to emotions! Posting links of a fight and a story about an old WWII vet?

[Coleman]

I believe in equality.  Period.  Laws should be applied to people EQUALLY.  If one group commits a crime and the media gets all ginned up, demands hate crime status, etc, then when the shoe is on the other foot, I expect equal treatment.  I expect the hypocrisy to end.

Look at how many blacks end up on death row. You will see it is not being applied equally. And its definitely not in a way that is unfavorable to whites.


There has never been an easier existence in the history of the world than being a white, heterosexual Christian male in the United States of America at this very moment. I don't think your sob stories are going to convince anyone else otherwise. Arguing to the contrary is not brave or prophetic. Its whiny. Get over it. We've all got it good.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good discussion gents, we'll agree to disagree. 

I enjoy this quote from MLK more than any others.  We share a birthday, I've been doing reports on him since I was in first grade.  Great man, flawed man, but I like the cut of his jib.  He was smart enough to recognize racism exists everywhere, not just by one group. The faster we understand that as a country and address it, the faster we address these issues. Today, we don't because we view things through a lens that refuses to recognize that reality.  As long as we have people screaming racism whenever someone disagrees with the POTUS, we can't move ahead.  As long as we use different standards to address the issues in our communities, we will not move ahead.


"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."  This is a quote several of my African American friends have expressed to me on occasion.  They are as concerned as anyone that there is outward focus, but seldom inward focus.  Or as my good buddy says to me (he is African American), "our own house is not in order but we publicly condemn everyone else because we can and it only harms everyone". 

Good discussion.