Hate crime discussion [Split from News thread]

[Skynet]

You believe that the FBI's numbers, gathered a year before Trump came into office, is totally fake because of some sort of conspiracy theory that has white nationalists in power yet no ethnostate even exists like what literally every genuine white nationalist actually wants.

We actually had a white supremacist as our White House Chief of Staff. I posted about this with links in another thread a while ago, but I can repeat them here.


Steve Bannon, a former White House Chief of Staff, is a closet neo-nazi or at the very least a fellow traveler. He's a huge fan of the 1973 book Camp of the Saints, which posits a mass invasion of the white Western world by hordes of literal hive-minded people of color who are simultaneously too stupid to live (Indians willingly drown themselves in the Ganges to make a corpse-bridge for others to cross and listen to the words of a shit-eating prophet) but also a major threat capable of utilizing military technology and aircraft to take over countries.

A PDF of the book (warning, is hosted on a hate site).

Bannon also had leaked e-mail chats with Milo Yiannopoulos about smuggling white nationalist ideas into mainstream conservatism.

[Tolvo]

I always forget about Bannon, not because he isn't important and not relevant now it's just, so much to keep up with and remember at times.

But yeah I don't think our government is devoid of racism and other prejudices when enforcing these laws, which still do favor certain groups anyway. And then also basing hate crimes upon those laws and expecting they will be enforced equally for everyone.

[Skynet]

PS I'd also like to point out that just because a white ethnostate does not exist anymore doesn't mean that white supremacy is well and truly dead.

Lee Atwater, George Wallace, and many segregationists after the Civil Rights Movement migrated to the Republican Party due to Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. Jesse Helms, one of North Carolina's Senators, was a very hateful figure. During his term he...

Harassed a black congresswoman talking about how great slavery was.

Said "thank you" to a caller happy that he was "keeping the n***ers down."

And many other examples of racially charged language in his campaign ads.


And North Carolinian conservatives loved him. He even has a center named after him championing "liberty."


White nationalists even post-segregation still have reach among regressives, who sadly are still numerous in the United States. Pre and post-Charlottesville.

[Vekseid]

https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

A number of you could do with reading this.

Yes, far right people use what happened in 1804, Zimbabwe, and what some are agitating for in South Africa in their propaganda.

They use them because they happened and need to be addressed in discussions like this. La Dame has a point about a response to oppression, particularly regarding the 1804 uprising. Most people look at it rather differently than what happened in Zimbabwe, and for good reason.

Trying to sweep this under the rug just agitates people towards fascism. They feel they cannot discuss their concerns without getting called racist or neonazis, and start drifting to communities where they can. The massive explosion of racism, incels, etc. are all symptoms of this isolation.

Dismissing an argument as being from the alt right or whatever is just another variant of the Hitler card fallacy. Often literally. No one is trolling here, if you cannot address facts, then the problem is with your argument.

Maybe we should contact a mod about making a new thread for the subject. Maybe about power structures, or political violence? It's kind of veered off into very complex topics and encompass a lot of different things. Or examining violence between groups and public perception of why slaves overturning their masters or communists overthrowing the ruling class are seen as more morally wrong than the American Revolution for example.

Any of you are free to make new threads at any time. Some discussions are hard to disentangle from each other.

[Tolvo]

I hope I didn't come across that way. I've been trying to be explicit in saying the conspiracy theories are Neo Nazi ones that anyone in here in particular is a Neo Nazi. I felt I already talked about the ideas themselves and disagreed with the interpretations and views towards the ones that did happen. Though I also have no qualms about pointing out when a concept or basis is racist or supporting or not fighting against racism.

[Icelandic]

I hope I didn't come across that way. I've been trying to be explicit in saying the conspiracy theories are Neo Nazi ones that anyone in here in particular is a Neo Nazi. I felt I already talked about the ideas themselves and disagreed with the interpretations and views towards the ones that did happen. Though I also have no qualms about pointing out when a concept or basis is racist or supporting or not fighting against racism.

I'm not gunna speak for Vekseid himself, but I think Vekseid's point is that you did not discuss the point I was making at all, instead brushing off the very real facts that I brought up as being 'Neo-Nazi propaganda'. It was most definitely a dog-whistle against actually confronting my claims, and a particularly disturbing one at that.

I can only imagine what other well-recorded atrocities you deem as 'propaganda'.

[Tolvo]

But I did discuss your points and why I believe them to be wrong. You also can talk about how a story is told as propaganda or that certain aspects are not quite what people think or are things we truly know. There is a lot of anti communist propaganda about things Stalin did embellishing them, but also Stalin did actual horrible things and committed or supported many atrocities. You actually see it really take hold during World War 1 with using propaganda to embellish things in ways to demonize groups even further. Or to characterize revolutions as the ultimate evil. Such as taking a massacre which did happen and was done by the Germans in World War 1, but then also claiming Germans also cut off all the hands of children of enemy nations.

The ones that we know did happen as I said earlier I addressed, I don't really consider a slave revolution for example to actually be a 100% bad thing. I think rising up against your oppressors is important, and those were people living as slaves, they had every right to fight back. Now the scale of killings sure you can talk the ethics of that, like I think even most revolutionaries would agree killing all the children of slave masters is not a really defensible thing. But I wouldn't say the slaves should have just stayed slaves because violence is wrong or some stance like that. There is a strategy element that could be argued because you hurt and killed the parents so the children might one day want revenge, but I don't think there really is a justification for murdering children that most people would find holds any moral water. They're definitely not responsible for the actions of their parents.

If you want to talk about the idea of the farmers who are there because of Apartheid and Colonialism having violence done against them, which we don't actually know any numbers about really since the government doesn't actually keep really good data on that frustratingly, which by the way we don't even know if all of them are white or even what percentage are, you can. In regards to hate crimes preventing this, it wouldn't exactly work unless you make not white people, but farmers, a protected class. But I don't know if that really works within South Africa's government?

[Icelandic]

https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

A number of you could do with reading this.

Yes, far right people use what happened in 1804, Zimbabwe, and what some are agitating for in South Africa in their propaganda.

They use them because they happened and need to be addressed in discussions like this. La Dame has a point about a response to oppression, particularly regarding the 1804 uprising. Most people look at it rather differently than what happened in Zimbabwe, and for good reason.

Trying to sweep this under the rug just agitates people towards fascism. They feel they cannot discuss their concerns without getting called racist or neonazis, and start drifting to communities where they can. The massive explosion of racism, incels, etc. are all symptoms of this isolation.

Dismissing an argument as being from the alt right or whatever is just another variant of the Hitler card fallacy. Often literally. No one is trolling here, if you cannot address facts, then the problem is with your argument.

Any of you are free to make new threads at any time. Some discussions are hard to disentangle from each other.

And thank you, by the way.

[Vekseid]

I hope I didn't come across that way. I've been trying to be explicit in saying the conspiracy theories are Neo Nazi ones that anyone in here in particular is a Neo Nazi.

Simply dismissing them as conspiracy theories is itself a violation of the Principle of Charity. These are facts, well-documented ones, one of which - the Haiti massacre - was genocide. It was used as an excuse to justify blacks needing to be in eternal bondage in the United States, and was an argument abolitionists had to tread carefully with.

Black people in general aren't blind to this and how shitty it is. Zimbabwe's neighbors took advantage of its racism during the period, and in the past couple years, after the utter obliteration of their economy, Zimbabwe is trying to make reparations. la dame didn't deny it or that it was shitty, she merely made an LBJ-style reference.



Certainly, neonazis push outright falsehoods. Some of what they discuss is true, however, and even if someone was a neonazi, truth needs to be addressed, with the reverence it deserves.

To simply dismiss it is to give strength to their lies.

[Tolvo]

Where did I say those things listed didn't happen? Because I have not?

[Tolvo]

So I thought I should full on address this, I was kind of avoiding it due to it not actually being the topic at hand and just mentioned how if these things were true they wouldn't actually factor in to the discussion of hate crimes. But I feel it is dangerous if anyone reads this without understanding context.

The above is actually a far right wing conspiracy theory about white genocide, while also citing a revolution against a ruling class of colonials and slave owners. Neo Nazi propaganda does not really belong on E and can be misleading and I'd just like to mention that in case anyone reading this thread did take things as face value or for granted. White genocide is not a real threat or thing actually going on as described above. It is just a conspiracy theory for white nationalists.

Ah is this it? I can see confusion I should have been more explicit in which one was the conspiracy theory, the one about a South African Genocide against white people. I technically didn't say there were three different assertions I only mentioned two of them.

I also don't understand why it is not alright to claim that is a conspiracy theory, something even Wikipedia and GenocideWatch even comment on being a white nationalist conspiracy theory, but saying that my claim that the US government still does not enforce its laws free of racism is ok to call a conspiracy theory?

[Icelandic]

I was not saying that Genocide in South Africa was happening. That's clearly not the case. I was saying that reputable sources list it as a possible risk in the future, given events happening now.

[Tolvo]

Hmm, I wonder if this really was a miscommunication and misunderstanding based issue. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear enough on things.

Some sort of conflict is possible, I won't say that can't happen. It doesn't sound like it would be a white genocide, but the premise is two sides that want to kill each other so if such a thing did happen it'd really go to whoever "wins." But it also might not happen, and the data doesn't really suggest it is immediate threat though also that data is really questionable because of how poorly it seems to be being kept and recorded. I don't really know if GenocideWatch is a reputable source, it's kind of a weird group in its lack of transparency and context for data it does present. I was trying to find how reputable it really is and I could find that it used to have a really reputable leader but that guy left and not really a ton else. So I don't know the validity of it as a source, and it also lists the USA as higher on the possible genocide list. Though the USA PDF is basically they didn't actually write it, it just says "Here you can write things and set up your PDF." On top of it I'm not sure when the site updates those reports? It sometimes seems to mention on the left seemingly current things but then their reports will be only as recent as six years ago.

[Icelandic]

I generally don't talk about 'muh white genocide' too much, but I find Genocidewatch good for those resources, as they list quite well what's happening without putting much of a spin on it one way or another. And I think considering it's partnerships, Genocidewatch is a pretty decent source. (If you have any other though please do share.)

Let me ask, is the US listed at 9/10 or so? Because that is the denial stage. Genocidewatch lists countries at that stage if they refuse to recognize genocides that they committed in the past. That's why Japan and the US are listed, for lack of recognition in their genocides throughout Asia in WWII (Japan) and the lack of federal recognition to various genocides of Native Americans (USA).

By contrast, Germany is not on that post-genocide stage due to the fact that the government fully recognizes the holocaust.

[Icelandic]

Oh also are you using the new site? Because they migrated sites a while back.

[Tolvo]

Yeah the USA does have the denial aspect. Perhaps they should redo those stages and how severe they are, but I also wouldn't say a full on genocide is impossible in America.

I think it's their current site, I also found a Dot Org but it seems much more dated and has articles about Nelson Mandela being a Marxist and Political Correctness means its ok to kill white people? I hope that one is unrelated.

[Icelandic]

Yeah the USA does have the denial aspect. Perhaps they should redo those stages and how severe they are, but I also wouldn't say a full on genocide is impossible in America.

I believe the 10 stages that they use comes from a UN source, or something similar to that? I am not sure though. They do have a more detailed explanation as to what the stages mean and what's likely to be seen in each one of those stages. They also suggest advice about what the international community should do at each stage. Either way, the '10 Stages of Genocide' explains it in a lot better detail.

I think it's their current site, I also found a Dot Org but it seems much more dated and has articles about Nelson Mandela being a Marxist and Political Correctness means its ok to kill white people? I hope that one is unrelated.

Yea that definitely does not sound like the official site.

Here is the site: http://genocidewatch.net/

[Tolvo]

http://www.genocidewatch.com/united-states-of-america

Ah, I was looking at this one. Ok that does clear up the aged look, though that one was still in the news section posting current articles so I dunno what's up with that.

[Icelandic]

http://www.genocidewatch.com/united-states-of-america

Ah, I was looking at this one. Ok that does clear up the aged look, though that one was still in the news section posting current articles so I dunno what's up with that.

Huh... That is odd.

[Icelandic]

Actually wait the link you gave is posting more new articles then mine... This is getting weird.

[Icelandic]

I FIGURED IT OUT!

http://www.genocidewatch.com/archives


The link you posted is their current one from 2016 onwards.

The link I posted was from 2013-16,

And the really old looking .org one was from 1999 to 2013.

[Tolvo]

Well mystery solved, though someone should probably let them know about just some weird design stuff for the site or maybe missing information like the USA report.

Thinking more about the use of hate crimes, I actually do wonder how they work when the person is targeted because of a perception of what they are rather than what they actually are. Like if someone claims "I attacked them because they're Jewish" but then the target isn't Jewish and doesn't even identify as such, is that a hate crime? Or what if it is really unclear what exactly was a single hatred or a more broader one? Like the pipe bomb sent to George Soros, the bomber did hate Jewish people, but also all Democrats, anyone he thought was a Communist, like he hated so many different groups and painted so many broad brushes, which specific one was the reason he sent that specific bomb or was it just more broad? And does it being so broad make it less of a hate crime? It also gets messy with the misunderstanding most Americans have of "Muslim Identifiers" that are actually Sikh customs and culture(Turbans are more of a Sikh thing)? Those incidents are pretty common so is that hatred of Sikhs, of Muslims, both?

[Icelandic]

As far as the law is concerned, I believe the hate crime still sticks.

Think about it like this.

Hate = The motivation

Crime = The action

Even if the motivation was based off of faulty information, I do believe that can still be successfully prosecuted as a hate crime so long as the motivation was still there.

Although with that bomber guy, are you talking about if hate crimes can be stacked? If so, I'm not sure.

[Tolvo]

Yeah I don't know if its clear if it can be stacked.

Or if in the other sense like how does it get listed then? Like if you look at how it fits into over all numbers will it say "This was an Anti Semitic Hate Crime, the victim was not Jewish" which makes sense but must look a bit weird when studying broader records.

[Icelandic]

Oh ok, so like, on the FBI listings kinda?

I know that the FBI has listings for both perpetrators and victims. I assume that the perpetrators get listed for who they are, but that is a good question.

Actually, the FBI source I linked to you a while back also lists 'incidences and offenses', which lists what motivations were behind the various crimes. So that might be an answer to that question.