-D-
Banned
In the Southern US, you are not...you is an I--talian aka I-tie
|
|
|
Hate Crime?
- Thread starter RockerGuy
- Start date
In the Southern US, you are not...you is an I--talian aka I-tie
Racisim? Hate crime?
http://www.680news.com/2016/07/05/b...shirt-because-shes-not-black-identified-folk/
http://www.680news.com/2016/07/05/b...shirt-because-shes-not-black-identified-folk/
Paper evidence would suffice. They still print stuff ya know.
In any case, a real reporter would quote the people he is ascribing statements to, rather than just vaguely accuse whole groups of professionals of prejudice, in a conspiratorial manner!
They either called it a hate crime or they didn't. And if they wrote something deliberately misleading then it's strange that those who see through the deception (you, The Rebel) portray it as though it was explicitly stated!
Riceburner
Well-known member
Riceburner
Well-known member
Racism against white isn't considered racism I guess....
Every report I read, and all those that have been linked here, have been factual, relevant, and based on the most current available information at the time. Do you have an example of one that isn't?
Yeah? You could die on a bike too. What's next?
Not really, firstly a. 22 hardly makes a sound. That's why girls love shooting that gun.
Secondly, the cartridge explodes in the gun, only 1 noise is made. When the bullet itself travels through the air it bearly makes a noise except a whizzing. The only person who might be deaf might be the shooter if he's not wearing ear protection
Do they? Have not personally picked one up in a decade. Save the trees my friend. I kid clearly
fastar1 said:
Did I really though?
Besides, I think the biggest point is the lack of follow up. For most this will be remembered as a muslim attacked by a non-muslim for no apparent reason... pretty easy to see how that line of reporting, and the lack of follow up, will resonate general population.
Human rights violation.
Good Q why the media didn't run with it. I mean if BLM denied it that would be understandable (unsubstantiated accusation), but they very clearly defended the practice in their reply the the tweet, so it's substantiated!
Last edited:
That's the only one that I could find too. Yet he claimed that police, politicians, and media "officials" (all plural) were saying it. This is The Rebel so I don't expect much but still, if he's going to point fingers it's only fair to point back.
I mean the alternative is all this outrage is based on one mis-stated tweet. But that hardly makes the story any more justified!
I mean the alternative is all this outrage is based on one mis-stated tweet. But that hardly makes the story any more justified!
Last edited:
Okay maybe you didn't portray the media as explicitly saying it was a hate crime, but you're coming up with excuses for the one who did, so...
But why no follow up.. a small piece that simply states this crime may have simply been over a packet of peanuts; I think that is the overriding theme of all this.
Or let the alternative of all the implied racially motivated crime outrage steep.. Why is one worse than the other? I can see where you're coming from, can you set aside whatever defense mechanism this tripped and see why this was a problem
Three reasons come to mind:
One, we don't know that it WASN'T a hate crime either yet. (So much for not jumping to conclusions!)
Two, the story has no life left in it. People's attention span and so on.
Three, the media almost never keep reporting on stories until their resolution (probably due to reason two above).
EDIT:
Make that four. Hate crime is a bigger story than simple assault, because we see it as a more severe crime.
Last edited:
If it was indeed a hate crime she would have been charged with Public Incitement of Hatred on top of the Assault charge. So yes, we do know it wasn't a hate crime. One and Four can be thrown straight out on that basis alone. As for Two and Three; I get it, but if the reporting is so unbiased and fact based as you purport it to be, those things shouldn't happen. But as they do, I'll refer you back to this
This story launched on speculation and fear mongering; to let it lay dead after the fact is irresponsible on all fronts
I understand hate crimes are judged at sentencing, we don't have distinct charges for it. I googled Public Incitement of Hatred and it has to do with limits on free speech to guard against hate propaganda that may lead to violence, not violent acts themselves.
As for the media being biased, non-factual, and poorly researched because they choose not to run stories that public largely wouldn't be interested in, that's a pretty strange standard for what constitutes 'quality' journalism. It means no journalism can ever be good enough unless they report every little thing that ever happens.
I have a hard time understanding where you're coming from on this. The media, in general and in this case, jump at hot button topics with little to no evidence to back it up. Because they added a few quotes stating they're not sure why the attack happened doesn't negate the fact the the headline read Muslin Woman Attacked with "this is the x number of violent crimes against visible minorities this month" right below.
They then went out of their way to interview a muslim activist who said all the predictable things.... yet you see none of this as poor journalistic practice? And where do you think the story originated? The media, it seems, were given the story by police in an effort to find this angry "white woman" who attacked for "no reason whatsoever".. what do you think the police were leaning towards? And at least one politician out right called it a racially motivated attack. Poll 100 random people and I bet most will recall a hate crime. All of this didn't just happen by itself.
You said it yourself last page I think... If it wasn't a hate crime it wouldn't be news worthy; I agree, particularly not nationally. Yet there it was based on what? A presumption as best I can tell. Youre good with that? What if the original story came from the rebel or any other alt media source.. still feel the same?
If this lady is convicted of a hate crime it should pop up; but I'm not holding my breath. Speaking of, outta steam on this and won't be posting back until there's actual news to be discussed.
Edit: I'm going to ask a cop on the charge stuff as I know a couple; or maybe one of the residents can reply
They then went out of their way to interview a muslim activist who said all the predictable things.... yet you see none of this as poor journalistic practice? And where do you think the story originated? The media, it seems, were given the story by police in an effort to find this angry "white woman" who attacked for "no reason whatsoever".. what do you think the police were leaning towards? And at least one politician out right called it a racially motivated attack. Poll 100 random people and I bet most will recall a hate crime. All of this didn't just happen by itself.
You said it yourself last page I think... If it wasn't a hate crime it wouldn't be news worthy; I agree, particularly not nationally. Yet there it was based on what? A presumption as best I can tell. Youre good with that? What if the original story came from the rebel or any other alt media source.. still feel the same?
If this lady is convicted of a hate crime it should pop up; but I'm not holding my breath. Speaking of, outta steam on this and won't be posting back until there's actual news to be discussed.
Edit: I'm going to ask a cop on the charge stuff as I know a couple; or maybe one of the residents can reply
Thanks for the discussion anyways. Always enjoy our back-and-forth, you're very respectful and you've taught me a thing or two before.
Just to reply to this last bit, I agree the cops and media were more strongly motivated to pursue this matter because of the seemingly hate-motivated nature of the aggression. And rightly so. Yet neither of them jumped the gun and labeled it a hate crime (contrary to The Rebel's claims). Also good on them. But it had those undertones, which gave the story context, which is relevant to report. If the media doesn't mention the broader context they get criticized for that too (depending on who's prejudicial view is being ignored).
The fact that it may not have been hate-motivated in the end isn't relevant, it doesn't devalue in any way the efforts made by cops or media to pursue the story. And it doesn't warrant a follow-up story just because people may have been 'misled' into thinking racism exists in London!
So yeah, I'm 100% good with the way the pros handled it.
I'd still like to know (from anyone here) why it's such a big concern that The Rebel had to go and flatly lie about what happened, and that those lies are somehow justified but the factual truth reported by mainstream media is somehow dishonest!?!
I mean if we're going to say everything MSM = wrong and everything from an official = corrupt, then there's just no hope for any of us!
|
|
|
|
|