Teenager Gets 25-Year Sentence in Hate Crime Killing on Long Island

[Marilyn. 340]

this one is more recent...

http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2010/04/cops_eye_port_richmond_attacks.html

[twowls 217]

It's being asserted repeatedly that hate crimes are no more heinous than random acts of violence. The reasoning behind the greater impact of crimes that target an entire group rather than a specific individual has been described. If in the face of that reasoning it still makes no sense to people, I guess it won't.

Since it's out there and perfectly logical, it seems the resistance to the disparity in classification comes from somewhere else. Perhaps the resistance lies with the old chestnut that minorities are being given "special treatment" "again."

And again, if it remains unclear why minorities and historically persecuted and disadvantaged groups are more vulnerable that the majority, I don't know what can be said to clarify.

When people cry "reverse racism" and call out the injustice of a "double standard," they are basing this seemingly egalitarian position from the notion that all people enjoy the same status and advantages throughout society. This isn't so. To argue from a reality that doesn't exist is baffling to me. There is an extension to this stance that seems to assert that by treating everyone as if they enjoy the same benefits and powers, that reality will more readily come into being. I think this may work when you get up and you don't feel so great, but do your best to put on a happy face and hope your psyche catches up. I think it's a rather naive and ineffective way to address deeply ingrained forces extant in an entire society.

No, minorities who target whites don't have the same power and impact as whites who target minorities. To argue that they do betrays a fundamental ignorance of the social and historical fabric of America.

There are more powerful groups and less powerful groups. Groups that tend to be richer and enjoy the benefits of generations of economic and social dominance. Other groups that are still working toward a tenuous equality after starting with an unequivocally disadvantaged hand. These disparities are still alive and well. No, you can no longer lynch a black person just because he whistled at your woman.

But the influence of our history still permeates. It would be comforting to believe that this all happened so long ago that its effects are no longer felt, and that we can let go of any awareness, acknowledgment, and proactive efforts designed to mitigate this. But it's actually very recent. It's only been a few decades since blacks won the right to share space with whites, for instance.

It's a shameful history, and the desire to forget about it and "get on with it" is somewhat understandable. What I don't understand is the shrill and aggressive outcry over legislation that acknowledges imbalance of power. Maybe someone can explain it to me better, but from over here it sounds a lot like white people claiming discrimination and playing the victim when white victimhood is simply not a phenomenon that stands shoulder to shoulder with the victimhood of less advantaged groups. White people have the vast majority of the resources, positions of power, access, influence, etc. What is so scary/objectionable about making room for those who don't? What does it cost white people? Nothing much. And yet...up in arms over marginalized folks getting special protections! How dare they!! I just don't understand it at all. There's a tone of actual resentment. Why? We white people are doing just fine. If you disagree; if you actually believe that white people get the short end of the stick, there's no bridging this gap in comprehension and opinion.

What's with the personal sense of injustice when marginalized groups are given specific consideration based on thriving systemic imbalance of power? What is the source of that anger?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually that doesn't prove much.

My initial argument is that crimes committed against Caucasians do not get the equivalent status of hate crime, as when committed against a minority. If anything those stats illustrate that point exactly. Or are you going to expect me to believe that even though minorities have higher-crimes per capita in America, they are just not as hateful. Total blocks, as they have a greater incentive to be hateful, considering historical treatment.

5 minutes on Google, BY - is how I found that.

Face it, you and Paul waded into this topic with a bunch of preconceived ideas that hate crimes are a "white on XYZ" thing. Demonstrably this is not the case.

[Heracles 417]

5 minutes on Google, BY - is how I found that.

Face it, you and Paul waded into this topic with a bunch of preconceived ideas that hate crimes are a "white on XYZ" thing. Demonstrably this is not the case.

No that is not what I argued at all. What I did argue is that a greater portion of crimes against black Americans is considered hate yet not the other way around.

this one is more recent...

http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2010/04/cops_eye_port_richmond_attacks.html

What does that prove? I can post 100 articles of illegals murdering let alone attacking others and you will shun it, as you have many times before. Yet when ####### occurs the other way around, you are up in arms. AKA being hypocritical.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Marilyn. 340]

No that is not what I argued at all. What I did argue is that a greater portion of crimes against black Americans is considered hate yet not the other way around.

What does that prove? I can post 100 articles of illegals murdering let alone attacking others and you will shun it, as you have many times before. Yet when ####### occurs the other way around, you are up in arms. AKA being hypocritical.

huh? I have never done that

[Heracles 417]

Once again you guys illustrate you have double standards; furthermore, while you preach equality, you endorse two sets of rules. It's why you have no qualms with Affirmative Action or groups calling themselves La Raza (the race) or NAACP, yet would kick and screen like a spoiled bratty child if some Caucasian did the same themselves.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No that is not what I argued at all. What I did argue is that a greater portion of crimes against black Americans is considered hate yet not the other way around.

What does that prove? I can post 100 articles of illegals murdering let alone attacking others and you will shun it, as you have many times before. Yet when ####### occurs the other way around, you are up in arms. AKA being hypocritical.

Actually it's not dissimilar to what you do. You post an article that supports your preconceived opinion and then claim that it's absolute truth.

5 minutes of research proves that blacks are convicted of hate crimes; and you trying to mitigate that by focusing on the fact that the numbers are not uniform across all ethnic groups is just pathetic.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Heracles 417]

huh? I have never done that

You are joking right? Are you seriously going to sit here and claim you have never downplayed incident after incident involving illegals and crime posted?

Actually it's not dissimilar to what you do. You post an article that supports your opinion and then claim that it's wholesale proof.

5 minutes of research proves that blacks are convicted of hate crimes; and you trying to mitigate that by focusing on the fact that the numbers are not uniform across all ethnic groups is just pathetic.

Who ever said they were not convicted of such crime? Certainly not me. However, the rate of conviction of such crimes versus the number of homicides committed in total is disproportionate. In other words, it doesn't add up.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who ever said they were not convicted of such crime? Certainly not me. However, the rate of conviction of such crimes versus the number of homicides committed in total is disproportionate. In other words, it doesn't add up.

It adds up if you accept the fact that the term "minority" refers to a numerical minority within a majority population.

You have no shame BY, none at all.

When proved demonstrably wrong, you still cling to your prejudices!

[Heracles 417]

It adds up if you accept the fact that the term "minority" refers to a numerical minority within a majority population.

You have no shame BY, none at all.

When proved demonstrably wrong, you still cling to your prejudices!

I am not the one preaching equality (daily), yet endorsing two sets of rules; which are applied accordingly, depending on race.

While I will be the first to say I can be biased, it seems I am more about equality than you. Equality to you seems to mean punish and bring down the Caucasians - and at any cost. For me, equality means you treat everyone equally and do not factor race.

[GabiandVi 34]

No, minorities who target whites don't have the same power and impact as whites who target minorities. To argue that they do betrays a fundamental ignorance of the social and historical fabric of America.

Normally, I would agree that the majority cannot claim systematic racism. However the whole point of "hate crimes" as you have said is that it targets a portion of society and creates fear in that section. Are you suggesting that an Asian man targeting White women for "hate crimes" would not cause fear among that section of the population? And couldn't we make an argument that the damage is even greater because it harms both Whites, who are afraid to move in society where Asian men my be living as a result, and Asians because of the backlash?

I do not agree with harsher sentences for "hate crimes" over "non hate crimes" of equal violence and devastation. It's the real fallacy here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am not the one preaching equality (daily), yet endorsing two sets of rules; which are applied accordingly, depending on race.

While I will be the first to say I can be biased, it seems I am more about equality than you. Equality to you seems to mean punish and bring down the Caucasians - and at any cost. For me, equality means you treat everyone equally and do not factor race.

I believe I only illustrated to you that blacks and people of other racial/ethnic minorities are convicted of hate crimes. Your contention was that it is always whites, based on the fact that you haven't seen any stories to the opposite effect in your evening news broadcast.

[Heracles 417]

Why? We white people are doing just fine. If you disagree; if you actually believe that white people get the short end of the stick, there's no bridging this gap in comprehension and opinion.

What's with the personal sense of injustice when marginalized groups are given specific consideration based on thriving systemic imbalance of power? What is the source of that anger?

You clearly have not been to the Appalachian or seen trailer park after trailer park. It's a fallacy to assume white people are born with some sort of golden spoon up their azz.

The problem I have is that the US is turning a blind-eye to the actions of various communities just because of history. This is not the 1800's, nor even the 50s. Someone who is poor and black has the same opportunity as someone who is poor and White. Actually, the minority has grater access and more resources spent on them than the equivalent poor white - hello affirmative action.

I am sick and tired of seeing city after community destroyed, yet the actual perpetrators get a free pass. A pat on the back because it's the fault of others that teenagers, for example, decide to do a drive-by and shoot up a neighborhood.

I believe I only illustrated to you that blacks and people of other racial/ethnic minorities are convicted of hate crimes. Your contention was that it is always whites, based on the fact that you haven't seen any stories to the opposite effect in your evening news broadcast.

Once again, not all all. My contention is that in proportion to the rate of homicides they commit, which is an awful lot, I have never heard the term hate crime reported. Rather, only when it's the other way around.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am sick and tired of seeing city after community destroyed, yet the actual perpetrators get a free pass. A pat on the back because it's the fault of others that teenagers, for example, decide to do a drive-by and shoot up a neighborhood.

When a minority murders a Caucasian, it's classed as murder.

When a Caucasians murders a minority, it's classed as a hate crime.

Rather, it's how and why so many Caucasians in America (not the case in other countries) are accused of hate crimes yet seldom the other way round.

See that above, BY. That are what we call "prejudice".

Furthermore you followed up by saying that the truth of the matter is....

Based on being here for five years, living in a metro area of 5 million and not hearing about it once - ever.

This is ignorance. You simply don't have the evidence to form a conclusion and so have formed one out of your own prejudices.

I have shown you that your prejudices are wrong, demonstrably. But this is not enough for you. Apparently in order to prove to you that blacks are convicted of hate crimes, it's only important to you if the numbers of incidents across the different racial groups are proportional.

That is just whack.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's being asserted repeatedly that hate crimes are no more heinous than random acts of violence. The reasoning behind the greater impact of crimes that target an entire group rather than a specific individual has been described. If in the face of that reasoning it still makes no sense to people, I guess it won't.

Since it's out there and perfectly logical, it seems the resistance to the disparity in classification comes from somewhere else. Perhaps the resistance lies with the old chestnut that minorities are being given "special treatment" "again."

And again, if it remains unclear why minorities and historically persecuted and disadvantaged groups are more vulnerable that the majority, I don't know what can be said to clarify.

When people cry "reverse racism" and call out the injustice of a "double standard," they are basing this seemingly egalitarian position from the notion that all people enjoy the same status and advantages throughout society. This isn't so. To argue from a reality that doesn't exist is baffling to me. There is an extension to this stance that seems to assert that by treating everyone as if they enjoy the same benefits and powers, that reality will more readily come into being. I think this may work when you get up and you don't feel so great, but do your best to put on a happy face and hope your psyche catches up. I think it's a rather naive and ineffective way to address deeply ingrained forces extant in an entire society.

No, minorities who target whites don't have the same power and impact as whites who target minorities. To argue that they do betrays a fundamental ignorance of the social and historical fabric of America.

There are more powerful groups and less powerful groups. Groups that tend to be richer and enjoy the benefits of generations of economic and social dominance. Other groups that are still working toward a tenuous equality after starting with an unequivocally disadvantaged hand. These disparities are still alive and well. No, you can no longer lynch a black person just because he whistled at your woman.

But the influence of our history still permeates. It would be comforting to believe that this all happened so long ago that its effects are no longer felt, and that we can let go of any awareness, acknowledgment, and proactive efforts designed to mitigate this. But it's actually very recent. It's only been a few decades since blacks won the right to share space with whites, for instance.

It's a shameful history, and the desire to forget about it and "get on with it" is somewhat understandable. What I don't understand is the shrill and aggressive outcry over legislation that acknowledges imbalance of power. Maybe someone can explain it to me better, but from over here it sounds a lot like white people claiming discrimination and playing the victim when white victimhood is simply not a phenomenon that stands shoulder to shoulder with the victimhood of less advantaged groups. White people have the vast majority of the resources, positions of power, access, influence, etc. What is so scary/objectionable about making room for those who don't? What does it cost white people? Nothing much. And yet...up in arms over marginalized folks getting special protections! How dare they!! I just don't understand it at all. There's a tone of actual resentment. Why? We white people are doing just fine. If you disagree; if you actually believe that white people get the short end of the stick, there's no bridging this gap in comprehension and opinion.

What's with the personal sense of injustice when marginalized groups are given specific consideration based on thriving systemic imbalance of power? What is the source of that anger?

Outstanding post.