Hate crime discussion [Split from News thread]

[Tolvo]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/415773-police-investigating-protest-at-tucker-carlsons-home-as-possible-hate-crime

It looks like the Tucker Carlson incident is being investigated as a hate crime because of the terrible definition being used by the local police. Apparently you can perform a hate crime against Republicans? Which is kind of really stupid in the face of how often marginalized groups that get targeted are defined out of hate crime statistics around the country.

[Icelandic]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/415773-police-investigating-protest-at-tucker-carlsons-home-as-possible-hate-crime

It looks like the Tucker Carlson incident is being investigated as a hate crime because of the terrible definition being used by the local police. Apparently you can perform a hate crime against Republicans? Which is kind of really stupid in the face of how often marginalized groups that get targeted are defined out of hate crime statistics around the country.

Personally, I am 100% for political bias being included in the list of what counts as a hate-crime, especially in todays climate. Regardless of how you feel about that, these 'protesters' should still be charged for an attempted home invasion, considering they literally tried to bust down the front door at some point.

[Tolvo]

I'm fine with protections for groups that are political. Like a persecuted minority group. I wouldn't say Republicans even remotely fall under that. Especially given how right wing our government is and our power structures and systems are. I'd actually not say Democrats really fall under that either. Those are two major established political parties with huge grips on the systems of power.

[Icelandic]

I'm fine with protections for groups that are political. Like a persecuted minority group. I wouldn't say Republicans even remotely fall under that. Especially given how right wing our government is and our power structures and systems are. I'd actually not say Democrats really fall under that either. Those are two major established political parties with huge grips on the systems of power.

Eh. I would prefer to not exclude any group of people from hate crime laws. Doing that comes dangerously close to thinking "Well you did have this happen to you, but do you *deserve* it?"

Excluding people from legal protections afforded by others due to their race, gender, religion or political identity is a big no for me.

[Tolvo]

It is the idea of giving extra protection to a class that needs it. When people are targeted more you have to work to protect them more. It's not really possible to protect everyone the same, because either everyone is hyper protected at all times, or people who need more protections are not protected enough. There is a classic comic about this idea of firefighters trying put out a fire that doesn't exist next to one that does claiming that they need to offer the same services and protections to everyone.

There are things like power imbalances.

[Icelandic]

It is the idea of giving extra protection to a class that needs it. When people are targeted more you have to work to protect them more. It's not really possible to protect everyone the same, because either everyone is hyper protected at all times, or people who need more protections are not protected enough. There is a classic comic about this idea of firefighters trying put out a fire that doesn't exist next to one that does claiming that they need to offer the same services and protections to everyone.

There are things like power imbalances.

Well, if someone is much less likely to have a hate crime committed to them, are they really taking resources away from others when that actually happens?

For example, hate crimes committed against males or females on the bases of gender (not counting trans people) are far less common then hate crimes committed against people based on race. Could we exclude gender-based hate crimes if that is the case?

I think that, considering how rare hate crimes are as a percentage of overall violent crime, it is quite easy to protect the entirety of the US population with those laws. By no means would law enforcement buckle under the stress of having to keep up with this.

[Tolvo]

Prosecuting crime actually does take resources. On top of it that would mean that everyone's words and views and actions are treated as having the same weight. Women are also actually not typically considered a protected class in the USA. It usually depends on the state. Also the rate at which a group is targeted is a factor. What percentage of a population are victims of hate crimes, with for instance what numbers we do have for trans people(Lots of agencies don't count them) to be upwards of 80%. And again, the point is to give extra protection to a class that needs it. Criticizing someone for being white does not contain the same power as criticizing someone for being jewish. Also typically these things are used differently. Most people who would criticize someone on their whiteness don't think they're sub human. Most who criticize someone for being jewish do.

What you are asking for also would mean you can't criticize those in power for having power or fight back against them in any way. Which is kind of against the concept of free speech in the USA.

[Icelandic]

Prosecuting crime actually does take resources. On top of it that would mean that everyone's words and views and actions are treated as having the same weight. Women are also actually not typically considered a protected class in the USA. It usually depends on the state. Also the rate at which a group is targeted is a factor. What percentage of a population are victims of hate crimes, with for instance what numbers we do have for trans people(Lots of agencies don't count them) to be upwards of 80%. And again, the point is to give extra protection to a class that needs it. Criticizing someone for being white does not contain the same power as criticizing someone for being jewish. Also typically these things are used differently. Most people who would criticize someone on their whiteness don't think they're sub human. Most who criticize someone for being jewish do.

What you are asking for also would mean you can't criticize those in power for having power or fight back against them in any way. Which is kind of against the concept of free speech in the USA.

Are you actually conflating criticism with actual crime? It's not a crime to criticize anyone. I'm talking about someone beating or killing another person because of their race, gender, ect ect. And yes, as far as federal law is concerned, sex and gender are both protected classes.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/victims

Going by what you say, you either think that criticizing someone is a crime if it's against the wrong person. Or you think that it's more ok to beat or kill someone if they are the 'right' kind of person to beat or kill.

Either way, this is not a good look for you.

[Tolvo]

Hate crimes can actually encompass a lot of different kinds of things, and many things can be considered a crime and get you in trouble legally.

And federal and state laws actually can work against each other.

Also are you then saying all murder and violence is equal? Because I strongly disagree. And the point of hate crimes is actually that crimes are not committed equally against all groups, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

A part of the hate crime laws that are federal are for federal groups to investigate and prosecute, when they feel the local level do not. Because as it turns out, on the local level(Federal too) governments and people in power can have prejudices.

The over all point is to try and protect groups by discouraging crime against them more. Now whether that always works is a different matter, and depends on the nature of that crime since a lot of violent crime is actually done by people not really worrying about how much jail time they'll have or how much they'll have to pay in fines/etc.

[Blythe]

The hate crime topic, if it is going to continue in any further detail, rather needs its own thread--it's getting a little heavy for the general news thread. Folks can choose whether they'd like to make that thread themselves, or if preferable, Staff can split the relevant posts from this thread off to create such a thread so that the existing dialogue is more visible/present there.

[Tolvo]

I was just thinking that actually. Sorry about that should have mentioned it in my previous post but was thinking about that after. But I also don't know if the two of us are really agreeing much on anything so I don't know if such a thread would really be warranted or further of the discussion.

[Icelandic]

Unless it's for self defense, then yea I generally view murder and violence in general as pretty much the same.

Considering you are definitely ok with stripping some defenses against crimes away from some groups of people (by your own admission), by the FBI's own statistics I offered. Could we exclude Hispanics from hate crime protections? Anti-black hate crimes are far more common, and anti-white hate crime is twice as common even.

How about getting rid of hate crime protections for the disabled and women? As of 2016, that only made up 1.5% of all hate crimes. So clearly they are not in need of protection, yes?

By your train of thought, you should agree that this should be done, yes?

[Blythe]

Will go ahead and split the topic off into its own thread in a sec~

[Icelandic]

The hate crime topic, if it is going to continue in any further detail, rather needs its own thread--it's getting a little heavy for the general news thread. Folks can choose whether they'd like to make that thread themselves, or if preferable, Staff can split the relevant posts from this thread off to create such a thread so that the existing dialogue is more visible/present there.

Oh yea your right. My bad. :/

I'll let Tolvo make the thread is she is interested. I'm fine either way.

[Blythe]

And is now split & made into a thread~

[Icelandic]

And is now split & made into a thread~

I'm kinda curious to know how many offshoots happen in this way? I can imagine people getting into it and forgetting where they are posting quite a lot.

[Blythe]

I'm kinda curious to know how many offshoots happen in this way? I can imagine people getting into it and forgetting where they are posting quite a lot.

News thread tends to get more tangents/offshoots than any other thread in the PROC by virtue of the sheer variety of topics that pop up in that thread.

Usually Staff mentions a split or leaves a link in the News to the newly-created topic so folks can find it again (though people can also find their posts in their post history, as your post history will show the new split thread), though in this case, both people whose posts were being split knew a new thread or split was about to happen beforehand, so there was no need to post about it again in the News thread.

[Icelandic]

Yea I can get that. Sorry by the way. I can imagine that happens somewhat often.

[Blythe]

Oh, no apology needed. Splitting threads as needed is a basic moderator task. Am always happy to do my job here. :)

[Tolvo]

Yeah it happens every now and then with the general news thread, kind of the nature of discussing any one topic in it.

I'm not ok with stripping away defenses against crimes. Again, I don't suddenly think that punching someone isn't a crime because they are racist. Punching a racist is still a crime in our country. I don't think for instance violence against a racist should be prosecuted as a hate crime. Which keep in mind, hate crimes are often hard to prosecute and usually you only can when the perpetrator actively said what they hate and why they committed the crime. These people claimed the reason they did it was because they think Tucker is racist. The crimes against him they did are things he and hist network actually encourage against others, including supporting of doxxing.

And again, I talked about the rate at which hate crimes happen against a percentage of people within a group. Not overall. Crimes against trans people for instance count for a small percentage of the overall, because we are a small population. On top of that, if we are a smaller population it's actually easier to allocate resources towards prosecuting crimes against us.

And again, the idea is a harsher punishment for hate crimes, to discourage them being done more. The idea of hate crimes in the USA was created to protect black people more against the KKK, if a black person attacked a member of the KKK should we prosecute that as severely and punish them as much as a member of the KKK would be?

I'm not saying that what happened to Tucker Carlson wasn't a crime. I even mentioned that while I support antifascists tactics that these people went too far, especially in regards to even entertaining the idea of having a pipe bomb to use.

On top of it, the crime against Tucker has actually been something I've experienced when people targeted me for being left wing and queer and transgender, which included doxxing and the threats of a pipe bomb and physical presence, though they explicitly stated they wanted to kill me and my family with assault rifles. The main differences in my case was the police didn't investigate it as a hate crime(My state doesn't consider crimes against trans people to be a hate crime) and basically just gave up.

Now on top of this, hate crimes are also not the end goal. You actually want to change your culture and laws and systems as a whole. Hate crime legislation is actually a band aid, and will change even depending on demographic and power changes. If suddenly black people somehow ruled everything and it became common for black people to murder white people for being white, then they'd need hate crime protection status. But our country currently isn't like that.

[Tolvo]

Actually I should make a quick correction I did misspeak, when it happened trans people were not considered in regards to hate crimes. That law was changed after this happened to me.

[Icelandic]

I'm not ok with stripping away defenses against crimes.

Why are we even having a debate then?

On top of it, the crime against Tucker has actually been something I've experienced when people targeted me for being left wing and queer and transgender, which included doxxing and the threats of a pipe bomb and physical presence, though they explicitly stated they wanted to kill me and my family with assault rifles. The main differences in my case was the police didn't investigate it as a hate crime(My state doesn't consider crimes against trans people to be a hate crime) and basically just gave up.

It hurt, right? Feeling like you had no recourse? Could you consider that you would be doing the same for others as you had done to yourself?

and will change even depending on demographic and power changes. If suddenly black people somehow ruled everything and it became common for black people to murder white people for being white, then they'd need hate crime protection status. But our country currently isn't like that.

No offense, but I think that idea is extremely naive. When whites lost their power in Zimbabwe, they were rapidly expelled. And in Haiti, they were literally massacred. And currently, Genocide Watch lists South Africa on the 'polarization' stage for genocide, and the targets are literally just Boers. People who never had power in South Africa and were even natives verses the migrating Zulu's who came after.

That's not even to mention economic 'retribution' against the rich whenever communist governments rolled into power.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't expect legal protections to be stripped from specific classes of people and then have it all be fine.

[Tolvo]

But the idea is not to strip certain classes from having legal protections. I'm not saying a specific group of people shouldn't have the right to vote or something.

Also yes it hurt, I wish people who are the victims of hate crimes were protected. I don't really feel sorry for Tucker Carlson though. He's a rich cis white guy who actively works towards the oppression and hatred of others. I do think the people in question went too far, but I wouldn't classify it as a hate crime. I wouldn't even classify it as a crime if they stood outside his house chanting about the horrible things he did and letting him know they hate that. But they did threaten him, they did try to break down his door, and they did wish to use explosives. Which that's definitely a crime.

Frankly I kinda of question their competency actually, that group seems like they really messed up. They didn't even know whether he was home or not and shouted at and tried to break into a house just his wife was in. They might not even have known whether his kids were home which would be worse.

[Icelandic]

Frankly I kinda of question their competency actually, that group seems like they really messed up. They didn't even know whether he was home or not and shouted at and tried to break into a house just his wife was in. They might not even have known whether his kids were home which would be worse.

I feel like they would not care one bit about children.


Either way, in the course of this conversation, you have kinda hit all the red flags in my mind to think that you are not really concerned about helping those that need help the most, but are instead motivated by some sort of hatred or animosity towards people you think don't deserve as much protection. Probably white people, men, cis. If I am wrong then please tell me.

Also, you seem to be not giving a clear answer on this, so I'll just ask you straight up: Do you support stripping hate crime protections against certain groups of people? Yes or no?

[Tolvo]

I don't really hate white people, cis people, or men in general. I do think those groups as a whole have a lot of privilege. I do hate racists which Tucker is. But even then I also think those people did commit a crime against him even if it wasn't a hate crime in my eyes.

I support giving hate crime protections to people who have less of a voice and power and who are targeted more heavily than people with lots of power who do have a voice and are targeted much less.

It also seems like you think being a part of one class means you can't be a part of others. Lots of people fit in multiple groups. There are Jewish Republican groups for example if someone killed someone for being in that group I'd consider that a hate crime definitely. There are also lots of poor people who are white, homeless people especially. I don't suddenly think "Well that homeless person was white, can't be a hate crime." On top of that many groups can actually target each other. I don't suddenly think that a hate crime against a black person is less valid because the perpetrator was hispanic for example.

Also I don't think if a genocidal group takes over that suddenly they're going to stop killing any specific group because of hate crime laws like in your example.

[Icelandic]

You're not really answering my very simple yes or no question, I see ;)



My point about genocide though (and I'm not going all 'muh white genocide') is that if laws exist to protect only a few, then it helps to encourage crime against the others. There are plenty of things that are illegal and the punishments for breaking them are harsh, but it still happens. It does not mean that we should cut down those laws. And the government does not have to commit genocide in order for it to be genocide. (Although I know that the genocide bit is quite a bit off topic, I was just trying to give an example.)

[Icelandic]

Although we don't gotta keep talking about it if you feel like we are running in circles. I kinda sorta feel like it's taking that course.

[Tolvo]

The answer then would be no if you want a very simple answer.

Also I never said anything about laws only protecting a few people. I'd rather they protect everyone.

On top of that, what you are stating then is something that the government could have seen coming and changed their laws to help discourage then. Which is what I mentioned.

We do seem to be going into circles though yeah so it might be best to just not keep going in circles about it. I don't think we're really going to convince the other to our side and we've pretty clearly laid out our views.

[Tolvo]

No offense, but I think that idea is extremely naive. When whites lost their power in Zimbabwe, they were rapidly expelled. And in Haiti, they were literally massacred. And currently, Genocide Watch lists South Africa on the 'polarization' stage for genocide, and the targets are literally just Boers. People who never had power in South Africa and were even natives verses the migrating Zulu's who came after.

That's not even to mention economic 'retribution' against the rich whenever communist governments rolled into power.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't expect legal protections to be stripped from specific classes of people and then have it all be fine.

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.

[Icelandic]

Well there it is. I thought we had a good conversation and we could end it at that, but I guess not.

No, I am not spreading nazi propaganda.

The 1804 Haiti Massacre did exist.
The Expulsion of white farmers after the creation of Zimbabwe did exist.
And the reputable 'Genocide Watch' organization does list South Africa as a concern.

I explicitly said that I'm not going all 'muh white genocide' before as well. My purpose was to point out that hate crimes can happen to those in power, even on a larger scale.


And best you are poisoning the well with this last post, and at worst you are actually denying crimes against humanity.

[Lustful Bride]

It doesn't matter who is the victim of a hate crime. If they are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc. etc. They deserve protection. To deny it to even a single one of those people, on either side of the political spectrum or of any religion or sexuality is setting a dangerous precedent. Because if it can happen to one group it can be done to many others until all are being crushed under an authoritarian boot.

That being said, if a Nazi or other similar bigot steps up to you and tries to lay hands on you, you put them six feet under.  ;D

[Lustful Bride]

It doesn't matter who is the victim of a hate crime. If they are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc. etc. They deserve protection. To deny it to even a single one of those people, on either side of the political spectrum or of any religion or sexuality is setting a dangerous precedent. Because if it can happen to one group it can be done to many others until all are being crushed under an authoritarian boot.

That being said, if a Nazi or other similar bigot steps up to you and tries to lay hands on you, you put them six feet under.  ;D

That last part sounded better in my head. I'm not calling for violence, just that hate crimes happen to every group at some point, whether large or small, and need to be stopped to all degrees. If they happen to anyone it creates a cycle that perpetuates itself and feeds into pain and future problems that continue on for generations.

The last part was just me trying to say that while protection for others and their rights is important, and even those we disagree with and don't like should have some level of protection and speech, if they step out of line the law should come down on them, and if they threaten you, you do what you have to to protect yourself and your loved ones.

[Tolvo]

Lustful Bride I'd say the authoritarian thing doesn't really make sense in this context. While I am very anti-authoritarian, asking for further power for the government to prosecute people is actually giving the government more power, so claiming doing so prevents authoritarianism doesn't really make sense. Especially when that idea would include then considering people who are authoritarian like Tucker Carlson to then be a protected class. In the instance they are calling it a hate crime based on his political beliefs which include never questioning the state when his people are in power.

So I could see the argument that what you are asking for is authoritarian. I don't think that is actually your intent but your concept would be supporting it more even if you disagree with it.

[Icelandic]

It doesn't matter who is the victim of a hate crime. If they are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc. etc. They deserve protection. To deny it to even a single one of those people, on either side of the political spectrum or of any religion or sexuality is setting a dangerous precedent. Because if it can happen to one group it can be done to many others until all are being crushed under an authoritarian boot.

That being said, if a Nazi or other similar bigot steps up to you and tries to lay hands on you, you put them six feet under.  ;D

Thank you. I have no idea if I worded it as well as you, but that was pretty much my entire point.

[Lustful Bride]

Lustful Bride I'd say the authoritarian thing doesn't really make sense in this context. While I am very anti-authoritarian, asking for further power for the government to prosecute people is actually giving the government more power, so claiming doing so prevents authoritarianism doesn't really make sense. Especially when that idea would include then considering people who are authoritarian like Tucker Carlson to then be a protected class. In the instance they are calling it a hate crime based on his political beliefs which include never questioning the state when his people are in power.

So I could see the argument that what you are asking for is authoritarian. I don't think that is actually your intent but your concept would be supporting it more even if you disagree with it.

I think my problem is I know what I sort of want to say, but I don't know how to say it :/ and make it clear for others to get it. Sometimes I look back at posts and I have trouble making myself clearer, and I tend to ruin my own arguments because I am internally arguing both sides with myself alot.

But yeah, Tucker Carlson deserves some of the anger and criticism tossed at him, but not destruction of property or physical harm. That leads down a road of becoming just like those we hate.  What happened to him isn't that much a Hate Crime more an angry populace upset with him. But that's just how I see it.

Now if he was full on marching in lockstep or making a Nazi salute i'd have a harder time arguing against the people's reaction, just as I would for the Westboro Baptist Church, or radical extremists of whatever flavor of the day (Never a shortage of those from anywhere these days). Because then any ambiguity and is thrown out the door and they are actively bad people and not just leeching off of other bad people for fame and other stuff.....*ran out of smart words*

Thank you. I have no idea if I worded it as well as you, but that was pretty much my entire point.

*Still out of smart words*

I get where the both of you are coming from though. And I agree with you both, just to different degrees and it depends on just what we are talking about.

[Tolvo]

It happens especially with how much people can muddy terms with how they loosely throw them around.

[la dame en noir]

Well there it is. I thought we had a good conversation and we could end it at that, but I guess not.

No, I am not spreading nazi propaganda.

The 1804 Haiti Massacre did exist.
The Expulsion of white farmers after the creation of Zimbabwe did exist.
And the reputable 'Genocide Watch' organization does list South Africa as a concern.

I explicitly said that I'm not going all 'muh white genocide' before as well. My purpose was to point out that hate crimes can happen to those in power, even on a larger scale.


And best you are poisoning the well with this last post, and at worst you are actually denying crimes against humanity.

Not saying it's for good reason - but when the oppressed rise up against the oppressor >.>

Not to mention, all of the white nationalist groups in South Africa too. I've always found it confusing that they could be so entitled and it's not even their ancestral grounds.

[Tolvo]

I don't think we should dwell on that too much here. Really this thread is about hate crimes. I did feel a moral obligation to challenge an idea put forth and refute it in relation to hate crimes, but it'd be better really discussed in its own thread rather than one about hate crimes.

[la dame en noir]

It's definitely hate crimes. But I can stop. I was just putting in my two cents. This is a very interesting thread.

[Lustful Bride]

Not saying it's for good reason - but when the oppressed rise up against the oppressor >.>

Not to mention, all of the white nationalist groups in South Africa too. I've always found it confusing that they could be so entitled and it's not even their ancestral grounds.

That is a very touchy issue and can go into "Whataboutism" very quickly, as people use anything to justify their moves. :/ They may be justified in harming their Oppressors, but only them, harming anyone not involved or too young/removed to understand whats going on is a separate crime.

But again, this is very  After WW2 there were Jewish people who tried to commit terrorist acts by poisoning prisoners of war, and once tried to poison Berlin's water supply. I can understand their feelings but that would kill off countless civilians who had already lost everything and some just went along with the party to not end up in the camps themselves. Again, I can 100% understand their motives and why they wanted blood for blood. I would have been for it honestly if it was targeting only members of the SS and other such people but when Civilians and those already defeated and surrendering might be killed, I lose sympathy for them :/

Then you have groups like the IRA where I can understand them wanting independence and having issue with the English government and the long mess that was The Troubles. But the IRA did so by targeting civilians in terror attacks, such as hiding a bomb near a school playground, or killing a bunch of old men who were preaching for peace between both sides.

Soldiers deserve soldiers. If you are going to attack someone, let it only be against combatants. When you actively go out of your way to kill or harm civilians you lose legitimacy and become a terrorist and a murderer.

[la dame en noir]

That is a very touchy issue and can go into "Whataboutism" very quickly, as people use anything to justify their moves. :/ They may be justified in harming their Oppressors, but only them, harming anyone not involved or too young/removed to understand whats going on is a separate crime.

But again, this is very  After WW2 there were Jewish people who tried to commit terrorist acts by poisoning prisoners of war, and once tried to poison Berlin's water supply. I can understand their feelings but that would kill off countless civilians who had already lost everything and some just went along with the party to not end up in the camps themselves. Again, I can 100% understand their motives and why they wanted blood for blood. I would have been for it honestly if it was targeting only members of the SS and other such people but when Civilians and those already defeated and surrendering might be killed, I lose sympathy for them :/

Then you have groups like the IRA where I can understand them wanting independence and having issue with the English government and the long mess that was The Troubles. But the IRA did so by targeting civilians in terror attacks, such as hiding a bomb near a school playground, or killing a bunch of old men who were preaching for peace between both sides.

Soldiers deserve soldiers. If you are going to attack someone, let it only be against combatants. When you actively go out of your way to kill or harm civilians you lose legitimacy and become a terrorist and a murderer.

oh goodness. I never said it was okay. Just like bombing civilian cities in Japan wasn't necessary.

IM SAYING that when the oppressed rise up, they're going to take drastic measures. Like, holy moly - it never came out that I said it was okay.

White genocide isn't happening. It's the same as them saying having mixed children is white genocide.

What is happening is that there are white nationalist groups in SA committing crimes and groups that run drills in case black folks come knocking down their doors.

But as I said, I'm not going to talk about t anymore because Tolvo asked.

[Lustful Bride]

oh goodness. I never said it was okay. Just like bombing civilian cities in Japan wasn't necessary.

IM SAYING that when the oppressed rise up, they're going to take drastic measures. Like, holy moly - it never came out that I said it was okay.

White genocide isn't happening. It's the same as them saying having mixed children is white genocide.

What is happening is that there are white nationalist groups in SA committing crimes and groups that run drills in case black folks come knocking down their doors.

But as I said, I'm not going to talk about t anymore because Tolvo asked.

I was half in agreement with you. When people rise up against oppressors its going to happen and in many cases should happen. But is only justified so long as its done to those that hurt them.

But I will leave it there since i'm just making myself look dumb and I don't want to derail the thread.

[Tolvo]

Yeah, like I'm not saying ya'll can't talk about this I might even but it really would require it's own thread.

[Lustful Bride]

Yeah, like I'm not saying ya'll can't talk about this I might even but it really would require it's own thread.

No its fine, its mostly failure in communication from my part.

[Scribbles]

I know this is off topic and apologise, but I couldn't hold this in...

While I agree that the perception of white genocide in South Africa is utter nonsense and I really wish that Trump had done his research before tweeting about it, it has to be said that talk of the supposed threat of white nationalists is just as bad. The AWB is probably the largest white nationalist group in South Africa, holding around five thousand members, out of four million and five hundred whites. That's 0.1% of the population of whites and whites in general only make up about 8% of the entire population. The last documented crime by the AWB that I could find was in 2016, for owning illegal weapons.

Painting whites in South Africa as criminals and nationalists is just as silly as painting blacks in South Africa as savages on a genocidal streak. The current president, Cyril Ramaphosa, is black and not looking to take revenge for the past. He's actually extremely forward thinking and doing everything he can to eliminate corruption so that South Africa can focus on rebuilding. Honestly, with that in mind, it's easy to see how tweets from the likes of Trump aren't helping. No disrespect to Americans but it actually is a blow to developing country when the leader of a developed nation decides to spout off on matters he knows little about, hurting their currency, investor confidence, ratings, etc.

I won't deny Africa overall had a rough past but if you visit many of the countries within, you'll find very little antagonism towards whites. Visit South Africa, Ghana, Botswana, and so on and you'll generally be greeted quite well, no matter your colour. Granted, you’ll find your idiots if you search hard enough but those calling for blood are generally the minority, on both sides.

Just to stay on topic, I agree with Icelandic and Lustful Bride, mostly because I prefer the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law. If someone is the target of a hate crime and you start adding caveats such as whether they're part of the majority and so on, then you have to ask to what extent you're going to push it and how much more difficult it's going to be to enforce such laws. I can see such a route spiralling into more bureaucracy and less help for those who the law was meant to benefit. Anyway, I know little of this situation so I won't add anything beyond that admittedly simplistic opinion...

[la dame en noir]

Yikes

[Icelandic]

Yikes

Good addition to the conversation. High quality stuff right there.

[Lustful Bride]

Good addition to the conversation. High quality stuff right there.

That's not fair, there's no need for the attitude. Sometimes people just don't have a lot to say per post.

[Scribbles]

Yikes

“Yikes” is pretty much my reaction when you implied white nationalism has any relevance in South Africa today and, like the supposed “white genocide,” it’s a dangerous narrative to spread. Countries like South Africa end up hurting overall when such exaggerations start trending internationally.

[Icelandic]

That's not fair, there's no need for the attitude. Sometimes people just don't have a lot to say per post.

If someone doesn't have a lot to say, why decide to give a 'yikes' instead of just nothing?

[la dame en noir]

“Yikes” is pretty much my reaction when you implied white nationalism has any relevance in South Africa today and, like the supposed “white genocide,” it’s a dangerous narrative to spread. Countries like South Africa end up hurting overall when such exaggerations start trending internationally.

Yikes is my reaction to assumptions.

[Scribbles]

Yikes is my reaction to assumptions.

No assumptions here. Here's a direct quote from your earlier post.

White genocide isn't happening. It's the same as them saying having mixed children is white genocide.

What is happening is that there are white nationalist groups in SA committing crimes and groups that run drills in case black folks come knocking down their doors.

White genocide isn't happening but white nationalism is. That's not exactly open to multiple interpretations.

[la dame en noir]

No assumptions here. Here's a direct quote from your earlier post.

White genocide isn't happening but white nationalism is. That's not exactly open to multiple interpretations.

You made assumptions.

White genocide is a fear tactic white nationalists use to scare them into think POC are going to be their downfall. It's that same fear that a very small percentage(that you've mentioned) have used in places were white is either the minority or is the majority - but fear losing power. There are black extremist groups that do the same thing. Hell - there are nationalists and extremists in every culture and ethnic group.

I'm not agreeing with this at all. I'm simply saying what is and has happened.

Just when I thought it was baffling that black kids in South Africa were being expelled for having braids or natural hair.

[la dame en noir]

You made assumptions.

White genocide is a fear tactic white nationalists use to scare them into think POC will be their downfall. It's that same fear that a very small percentage(that you've mentioned) have used in places were white is either the minority or is the majority - but fear losing power. There are black extremist groups that do the same thing. Hell - there are nationalists and extremists in every culture and ethnic group.

I'm not agreeing with this at all. I'm simply saying what is and has happened.

Just when I thought it was baffling that black kids in South Africa were being expelled for having braids or natural hair.

[la dame en noir]

whoops!! I was trying to make a correction to my terrible grammar.

[Lustful Bride]

Come on everyone lets not argue. I think part of the issue is that while there is no white genocide , there have actually been more attacks that look specifically at targetting white farmers and a few politicians who use a more violent rhetoric in regards to whites. It was to the point i remember hearing about it on an Israeli English language News station. (Family bought a pack to get international news on our cable and it came with the Israel Today, Al JAzheera and Russia today).

While that's not the majority of people and its not a real genocide, White Supremacists take hold of those stories and hold them up to go "You see? You thought we were wrong, but its happening!". They make a dozen scattered events look like a hundred and as part of some evil antiwhite plan to scare people into following their line of thinking.

[Tolvo]

Just to stay on topic, I agree with Icelandic and Lustful Bride, mostly because I prefer the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law. If someone is the target of a hate crime and you start adding caveats such as whether they're part of the majority and so on, then you have to ask to what extent you're going to push it and how much more difficult it's going to be to enforce such laws. I can see such a route spiralling into more bureaucracy and less help for those who the law was meant to benefit. Anyway, I know little of this situation so I won't add anything beyond that admittedly simplistic opinion...

A problem is everyone already isn't treated equally by others or even by the law. And there are definitely limits. You usually use umbrellas for the groups that are marginalized. Not comparing the rates at which violence against schizophrenic people happens compared to autistic people. Applying the resources required to everyone and including every group ever will add more bureaucracy and make them harder to prosecute while also likely privileging those with power. Reminder that it was very recent that a white gunman killed two black people in public. The white witness he spared claimed that the gunman told him he spared him because "Whites don't kill whites." This was not considered a hate crime by the police. Depending on where you live in the country you may live in a Blue Lives Matter bill state, these bills in reference to their animosity towards black people. They include the police as well as firefighters as protected class in regards to hate crimes. And use them like a bludgeon. Not to say there is never violence against the police, but these laws are then enforced by the police that these laws give added protections to. People with a ton of power who are known for abusing it. It's very worrying.

[la dame en noir]

Come on everyone lets not argue. I think part of the issue is that while there is no white genocide , there have actually been more attacks that look specifically at targetting white farmers and a few politicians who use a more violent rhetoric in regards to whites. It was to the point i remember hearing about it on an Israeli English language News station. (Family bought a pack to get international news on our cable and it came with the Israel Today, Al JAzheera and Russia today).

While that's not the majority of people and its not a real genocide, White Supremacists take hold of those stories and hold them up to go "You see? You thought we were wrong, but its happening!". They make a dozen scattered events look like a hundred and as part of some evil antiwhite plan to scare people into following their line of thinking.

Good ol fear tactics. Just let over here (America), whenever there is a case of a mass shooting - they immediately try to frame a middle eastern individual or lose it when it is and want to scare everyone.

[Scribbles]

You made assumptions.

I did not. You stated that white nationalism is a thing. You specifically said that white genocide isn't happening but white nationalism is. It isn't, I showed it isn't and you countered with "Yikes". It doesn't matter how small the white population is, they aren't all running to the nationalists, it's just as much a myth as white genocide. If it's a tactic against POC, then it's obviously not working.

I'm not agreeing with this at all. I'm simply saying what is and has happened.

You said it's "happening", present tense. Anyway, you can't exactly edit for mistakes so I'll take your word for it that this isn't what you meant and apologise.

This is getting way off topic, sorry everyone.

[la dame en noir]

A problem is everyone already isn't treated equally by others or even by the law. And there are definitely limits. You usually use umbrellas for the groups that are marginalized. Not comparing the rates at which violence against schizophrenic people happens compared to autistic people. Applying the resources required to everyone and including every group ever will add more bureaucracy and make them harder to prosecute while also likely privileging those with power. Reminder that it was very recent that a white gunman killed two black people in public. The white witness he spared claimed that the gunman told him he spared him because "Whites don't kill whites." This was not considered a hate crime by the police. Depending on where you live in the country you may live in a Blue Lives Matter bill state, these bills in reference to their animosity towards black people. They include the police as well as firefighters as protected class in regards to hate crimes. And use them like a bludgeon. Not to say there is never violence against the police, but these laws are then enforced by the police that these laws give added protections to. People with a ton of power who are known for abusing it. It's very worrying.

Oh wow - I did not know this. D:

[la dame en noir]

I did not. You stated that white nationalism is a thing. You specifically said that white genocide isn't happening but white nationalism is. It isn't, I showed it isn't and you countered with "Yikes". It doesn't matter how small the white population is, they aren't all running to the nationalists, it's just as much a myth as white genocide. If it's a tactic against POC, then it's obviously not working.

It's not "working" on a lot of people - because fortunately, there are humans out there that see the bigger picture.

But White nationalism is a thing. But maybe we're not understanding eachother and I will let that be. I think, like many, see words that mean "all" and assume I really am talking about every living breathing white person on this planet.

[Skynet]

The South African farm murders seems most persuasive to people outside the country, aka picture who will have less understanding of what's really going on.

There's a pretty good YouTube video regarding this issue. It's rather long, but really gets into the nitty-gritty of how it's being exploited by foreign far-right figures, from Canadian Lauren Southern to American Tucker Carlson.

[Tolvo]

https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the-protest-outside-tucker-carlsons-house-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/

Just thought I'd mention new evidence that apparently most of the things Tucker Carlson claimed happened did not. Unless you consider a tambourine to be a deadly weapon. So it is kind of silly we got into a serious discussion over this when the "Hate crime" was a peaceful protest.

[HannibalBarca]

Just to get this off my chest--the Haitian massacre of 1804 is what you expect from a population degraded and oppressed for centuries, after being kidnapped, tortured, and raised, generation after generation, in abject slavery:

Henri Christophe's personal secretary, who was a slave for much of his life, said about the treatment of slaves in Saint-Domingue:

Have they not hung up men with heads downward, drowned them in sacks, crucified them on planks, buried them alive, crushed them in mortars? Have they not forced them to consume faeces? And, having flayed them with the lash, have they not cast them alive to be devoured by worms, or onto anthills, or lashed them to stakes in the swamp to be devoured by mosquitoes? Have they not thrown them into boiling cauldrons of cane syrup? Have they not put men and women inside barrels studded with spikes and rolled them down mountainsides into the abyss? Have they not consigned these miserable blacks to man eating-dogs until the latter, sated by human flesh, left the mangled victims to be finished off with bayonet and poniard?

Much like the atrocities committed in the wake of the French Revolution (aptly named the Reign of Terror), an oppressed population, prevented from being educated and humanized, will react in a backlash of equivalent or greater violence on their oppressors.  This is not a condoning of the actions, but a mere recognition of human nature.  You hold someone down long enough and hard enough, and they're going to build up a resentment fierce enough to strip away any consideration of human empathy when they finally get free.  If you don't want to see massacres like those in Haiti in 1804, you have to not enslave, torture, and oppress a population for a couple hundred years prior to it.

I often can easily recognize the tacit admission of horrible behavior by white nationalists, in their fear of people of color rising up and committing atrocities against them--an 'eye for an eye' expectation, as it were.  I've read books composed of the writings of Southern slave owners, admitting they felt they were destined for Hell, because of their actions towards slaves...and yet, they would not give up those horrific actions, because they wouldn't give up their economic position--not for anything, not even their own consciences.

Hate begets hate.  Expect that, if the oppressor pushes it too far.  It's human nature.

[Tolvo]

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.

[Icelandic]

Just to get this off my chest--the Haitian massacre of 1804 is what you expect from a population degraded and oppressed for centuries, after being kidnapped, tortured, and raised, generation after generation, in abject slavery:

Much like the atrocities committed in the wake of the French Revolution (aptly named the Reign of Terror), an oppressed population, prevented from being educated and humanized, will react in a backlash of equivalent or greater violence on their oppressors.  This is not a condoning of the actions, but a mere recognition of human nature.  You hold someone down long enough and hard enough, and they're going to build up a resentment fierce enough to strip away any consideration of human empathy when they finally get free.  If you don't want to see massacres like those in Haiti in 1804, you have to not enslave, torture, and oppress a population for a couple hundred years prior to it.

I often can easily recognize the tacit admission of horrible behavior by white nationalists, in their fear of people of color rising up and committing atrocities against them--an 'eye for an eye' expectation, as it were.  I've read books composed of the writings of Southern slave owners, admitting they felt they were destined for Hell, because of their actions towards slaves...and yet, they would not give up those horrific actions, because they wouldn't give up their economic position--not for anything, not even their own consciences.

Hate begets hate.  Expect that, if the oppressor pushes it too far.  It's human nature.

Yea no. I have no problem admitting that hate begets hate, and while you do claim that you are not justifying those kinds of actions. Keep in mind that even the white allies to the slaves in Haiti were slaughtered, along with their children. The slave uprising in Haiti also poisoned the waters in regards to the conversation on slaves in the US, as many were now afraid that the same would happen to them, even white allies.

This entire thing reads as a "Yea I'm not justifying it, but here is why it's justified". Also, that quote you mentioned recounted what the revolting slaves did to the remaining white population in Haiti, not the other way around. I really hope you are just not aware of that, rather then it being for some other purpose.

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.

I'm legit curious as to how many offshoots of offshoots these kinda threads have produced? Like this one is from the news thread, but is there threads that are like, 'this one is from here, which is from here, which is from here, which is from here' kinda deal? (Definitely up for talking about that last point of yours too to be honest.)

[Tolvo]

Well it kind of makes sense when people decide to talk about another subject. We don't have a general political discussion thread, which I could see why not because that could be even messier than this and be harder to follow if you have people talking past each other while multiple conversations about different topics are happening.

[Icelandic]

Oh, correction to HannibalBarca. That quote was indeed a recount of the actions of Charles Leclerc, a French general sent to put down the slave revolt. My bad. The rest of my point still stands though.

Well it kind of makes sense when people decide to talk about another subject. We don't have a general political discussion thread, which I could see why not because that could be even messier than this and be harder to follow if you have people talking past each other while multiple conversations about different topics are happening.

I really wanna ask a mod of this section about that offshoot inception thing.

[Tolvo]

So back on hate crimes, I'd actually like to bring up the whole concept of everyone being equal in the eyes of the law and people being protected based on what constitutes as crimes.

So I ask you, if someone who is cis found out another person was trans and murdered them for it, is this a hate crime?

The answer in the USA is, in two states it might be considered it.

See only in two states is that actually considered murder, California and Illinois. They have laws against the Trans Panic Defense. But the other states don't have this. In fact it is commonly considered that said killing is actually a form of self defense.

In those states the legislation actually doesn't consider us to have the same fundamental rights as others and that the bigotry against us is so ingrained that people who act on it can't be blamed.

And even in those two states where that is considered a murder, that doesn't mean the person will be prosecuted for having done a hate crime. Because that can actually be hard to prove unless the person outright states that. And while Trans Panic can't defend against a murder charge it can still defend against it as a hate crime. This is on top of the police across the country's long history of oppressing and hating trans people and mistreating them very openly, still to this day, and that even the FBI doesn't really care about us. Is the idea of hate crime laws applying to us giving us rights that the "Poor cis folk" don't have then?

[Icelandic]

Are you asking me?

I would definitely consider violence against trans people to be a hate crime.

I'm not sure what the 'poor cis folk' comment is about. I'm not saying Cis people are 'oppressed' by any means. I'm simply saying that it's unreasonable to strip hate crime defenses for people who society has deemed as 'not needing it'.

I used my examples about Cis women and Hispanics, who experience relatively little compared to other forms of hate crime. Just because it's more rare, does not mean that they do not deserve equal protection under the law.

I want to see hate crime protections expanded for everyone, not reduced for anyone. I'm genuinely not sure why this is contentious.

[Tolvo]

The point is again which one has the power.

So legally we extend these hate crime protections to cis people as well. If they are killed for being cis and it is considered murder then it can be considered a hate crime.

So you then legally recognize hate crimes happen to trans women, but then can't prosecute because murder of them doesn't count in much of the country.

That would mean cis people are protected, while trans people are actually not.

I also would not really say that crimes against women for being women are rare in the slightest. Nor would I say that for Hispanics either. On top of that again, they are marginalized.

In essence I don't believe we should privilege groups further over those that are marginalized in a system and society that is already incredibly unfair towards those groups.

[Icelandic]

So legally we extend these hate crime protections to cis people as well. If they are killed for being cis and it is considered murder then it can be considered a hate crime.

Gender Identity is recognized as something that hate crimes can be committed against, so in theory, cis people already have as much protections as trans. (This is going only going by FBI crime stats so it only counts as reports for as far as I can tell.) So currently, cis people are as protected as trans people, which is likely not much. And again, I'm not going all "muh poor cis" like you seem to enjoy accusing me of.

I also would not really say that crimes against women for being women are rare in the slightest. Nor would I say that for Hispanics either. On top of that again, they are marginalized.

7,615 hate crimes were reported and collected by the FBI in 2016 (per like I provided earlier). Of which, only 26 anti-female hate crimes were reported and for Latinos, they only amount to 10% of the ethnic/racial/ancestry motivated hate crimes, compared for 20% whites and 50% blacks.

I'm not debating this topic because it is an object fact, unless you believe in 'Muh white supremacist deep state'.

In essence I don't believe we should privilege groups further over those that are marginalized in a system and society that is already incredibly unfair towards those groups.

I agree. Fortunately I am not advocating for that.

[Tolvo]

Except, cis people in the country actually are protected more by said idea. Because if you murder them it is definitely a crime that will be reported, which isn't true of murdering a trans person.

So your numbers make absolutely no sense. You believe that in that year, there were 26 crimes in the whole country against women on the basis of them being women? You actually believe that?

And the amount of hate crimes against Hispanic people yet again is obfuscating the idea. The concept is how many of them within their own group are being harmed in hate crimes, not compared to a larger population or the general populace. Because otherwise that means that just the largest group of people always are who need more protecting, because there's more of them, which is the opposite of how this works.

Also are you seriously debating the idea of white supremacists existing within our government, when Donald Trump is president?! You're being quite ludicrous and seem to want to avoid any idea even of minorities and marginalized groups having the same rights and value as the majority and the powerful.

When you stop advocating for privileging those with power already I will believe you on that statement.

[Icelandic]

Ooooooooooooooooook yea this is gunna be a big nope for me.

You believe that equal protection under the law is not equal protection under the law.

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.

You think that me explicitly wanting equality for all is not wanting that.

And as a side note, you blatantly deny historical fact as propaganda.



I've been trying to be nice to you, but literally every other word out of your mouth has been doublespeak. I'm fine with you simply disagreeing, but even in me being as clear as I possibly can, you simply are not comprehending what I am saying. I dunno how you got to this point of refusing any and all new information. But this whole 'War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength' thing is honestly very depressing to see first-hand.

Also, don't go off and complain about me being harsh with you. You said I was spreading Nazi propaganda.

[Tolvo]

So I bring up Trump because that is currently who is in power. I think racism was still a problem when Obama was president, but it is more so now.

There are a lot of white nationalists who don't want ethnostates, though that is the ultimate goal of many of them to create white only states and purge who they don't like.

I question the numbers of a group that has actively been hostile to these groups in the past, in very recent memory, and to this day. You think it is a conspiracy theory to claim that there are racist systemic issues in a government that is yet again with Trump at the head and many people supporting him and his ideas.

You don't actually want equality for all it seems, you appear more to want to defend the system and those in power.

I can't think of any historical facts I've claimed was propaganda either?

Yes, you did use a Neo Nazi conspiracy theory so I pointed it out. I'm not trying to be harsh on you, but your views really do concern me because they seem to come from a place as valuing the lives of those in power over those they marginalize and oppress while using the talking points and conspiracy theories of white nationalists. It deeply concerns me.

[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.

[Tolvo]

Ah that would explain that, I was kinda wondering how those differences might effect data collected and what it actually states, though I imagine those instances aren't as common and causing skewing of numbers largely.