Discussion:
No Campus For Professors Opposed To Anti-White Racism
Add Reply
Leroy N. Soetoro
2017-05-28 17:19:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why is this not a hate crime?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/no-campus-for-professors-opposed-to-
anti-white-racism/?google_editors_picks=true

Evergreen State College biology professor Bret Weinstein learned the
severe consequences of opposing campus leftists this week.

Weinstein originally caused a ruckus on his very-liberal Washington state
university when he sensibly opposed an event that required all whites to
depart from the campus for a day. He called the idea a “show of force and
an act of oppression.”

For voicing this opinion and being white himself, Weinstein was branded a
racist and hounded by campus agitators who demanded his termination. On
Thursday, the biology professor had to conduct his class off-campus due to
police telling him it wasn’t safe for the mild academic to appear at his
place of work.

One student said that this kind of threatening behavior was “necessary”
because “it’s life or death for us.”

This incident is, of course, not an isolated affair and campuses all over
the country have suffered similar bouts of racial agitation. Several
universities have witnessed demands from students for segregated housing
so minority students can live without the terror of white
microaggressions. A few colleges, such as the California State University
at Los Angeles, have conceded to these exclusionary demands.

Other students have gotten bolder and flat out demanded free tuition for
all students of color — because of “white supremacy.”

And there’s been the very well-known displays of violence and intimidation
against any college speaker who goes against the prevailing dogma of
higher education. The activists frequently cite the danger of allowing
supposed “hate speech” (a nebulous concept used solely to shut down any
speech the wielder disagrees with) to go unchallenged on campus and how it
will somehow physically harm minorities. That argument allows for violence
and threats to be used against the opposition, as we’re currently seeing
now at Evergreen State.

No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments and
titled it, “No Campus for White Men“…

Professor Weinstein’s ordeal exemplifies the disturbing racial trends in
education. Students wanted to kick off all Caucasians for a day of
symbolic resentment and the scholar rightly thought it was a stupid idea
for enforcing oppression. That only made him appear as an evil white
racist who deserved to be crushed for expressing dissent.

Weinstein’s well-established progressive credentials were discarded in
favor of seeing him only for the color of his skin. To activists, his
whiteness is his primary attribute; everything else about him is secondary
in importance.

The contempt for all whites shown by these students is simply racism, and
that view seems to be the prevailing motivation for the demonstrations
rather than a commitment to traditional left-wing principles.

Events like this will only continue to happen as minority identity
politics continue to dominate campus life and white guilt is preached by
professors and administrators. Evergreen State is public university and
depends on taxpayers to survive. Washington is a pretty liberal state, but
I’m sure the average voter — whether Democrat or Republican — would not be
pleased that their money goes toward supporting shutting down speech and
forcing white students and faculty off campus.

The states that provide the money for this ridiculousness to occur also
have the power to curb it. Your move, Washington legislature.
--
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party has run out of gas.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of the
Obama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.

ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.

Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-28 18:25:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targeted
because he was white (rather than for what he said).
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/no-campus-for-professors-opposed-to-
anti-white-racism/?google_editors_picks=true
Evergreen State College biology professor Bret Weinstein learned the
severe consequences of opposing campus leftists this week.
Weinstein originally caused a ruckus on his very-liberal Washington state
university when he sensibly opposed an event that required all whites to
depart from the campus for a day. He called the idea a “show of force and
an act of oppression.”
For voicing this opinion and being white himself, Weinstein was branded a
racist and hounded by campus agitators who demanded his termination. On
Thursday, the biology professor had to conduct his class off-campus due to
police telling him it wasn’t safe for the mild academic to appear at his
place of work.
One student said that this kind of threatening behavior was “necessary”
because “it’s life or death for us.”
This incident is, of course, not an isolated affair and campuses all over
the country have suffered similar bouts of racial agitation. Several
universities have witnessed demands from students for segregated housing
so minority students can live without the terror of white
microaggressions. A few colleges, such as the California State University
at Los Angeles, have conceded to these exclusionary demands.
Other students have gotten bolder and flat out demanded free tuition for
all students of color — because of “white supremacy.”
And there’s been the very well-known displays of violence and intimidation
against any college speaker who goes against the prevailing dogma of
higher education. The activists frequently cite the danger of allowing
supposed “hate speech” (a nebulous concept used solely to shut down any
speech the wielder disagrees with) to go unchallenged on campus and how it
will somehow physically harm minorities. That argument allows for violence
and threats to be used against the opposition, as we’re currently seeing
now at Evergreen State.
No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments and
titled it, “No Campus for White Men“…
Professor Weinstein’s ordeal exemplifies the disturbing racial trends in
education. Students wanted to kick off all Caucasians for a day of
symbolic resentment and the scholar rightly thought it was a stupid idea
for enforcing oppression. That only made him appear as an evil white
racist who deserved to be crushed for expressing dissent.
Weinstein’s well-established progressive credentials were discarded in
favor of seeing him only for the color of his skin. To activists, his
whiteness is his primary attribute; everything else about him is secondary
in importance.
The contempt for all whites shown by these students is simply racism, and
that view seems to be the prevailing motivation for the demonstrations
rather than a commitment to traditional left-wing principles.
Events like this will only continue to happen as minority identity
politics continue to dominate campus life and white guilt is preached by
professors and administrators. Evergreen State is public university and
depends on taxpayers to survive. Washington is a pretty liberal state, but
I’m sure the average voter — whether Democrat or Republican — would not be
pleased that their money goes toward supporting shutting down speech and
forcing white students and faculty off campus.
The states that provide the money for this ridiculousness to occur also
have the power to curb it. Your move, Washington legislature.
Del Gue
2017-05-28 19:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targeted
because he was white (rather than for what he said).
Bullshit LIE, you mincing Goddamned pansy leftard!

EAT SHIT AND DIE!
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/no-campus-for-professors-opposed-to-
anti-white-racism/?google_editors_picks=true
Evergreen State College biology professor Bret Weinstein learned the
severe consequences of opposing campus leftists this week.
Weinstein originally caused a ruckus on his very-liberal Washington state
university when he sensibly opposed an event that required all whites to
depart from the campus for a day. He called the idea a “show of force and
an act of oppression.”
For voicing this opinion and being white himself, Weinstein was branded a
racist and hounded by campus agitators who demanded his termination. On
Thursday, the biology professor had to conduct his class off-campus due to
police telling him it wasn’t safe for the mild academic to appear at his
place of work.
One student said that this kind of threatening behavior was “necessary”
because “it’s life or death for us.”
This incident is, of course, not an isolated affair and campuses all over
the country have suffered similar bouts of racial agitation. Several
universities have witnessed demands from students for segregated housing
so minority students can live without the terror of white
microaggressions. A few colleges, such as the California State University
at Los Angeles, have conceded to these exclusionary demands.
Other students have gotten bolder and flat out demanded free tuition for
all students of color — because of “white supremacy.”
And there’s been the very well-known displays of violence and intimidation
against any college speaker who goes against the prevailing dogma of
higher education. The activists frequently cite the danger of allowing
supposed “hate speech” (a nebulous concept used solely to shut down any
speech the wielder disagrees with) to go unchallenged on campus and how it
will somehow physically harm minorities. That argument allows for violence
and threats to be used against the opposition, as we’re currently seeing
now at Evergreen State.
No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments and
titled it, “No Campus for White Men“…
Professor Weinstein’s ordeal exemplifies the disturbing racial trends in
education. Students wanted to kick off all Caucasians for a day of
symbolic resentment and the scholar rightly thought it was a stupid idea
for enforcing oppression. That only made him appear as an evil white
racist who deserved to be crushed for expressing dissent.
Weinstein’s well-established progressive credentials were discarded in
favor of seeing him only for the color of his skin. To activists, his
whiteness is his primary attribute; everything else about him is secondary
in importance.
The contempt for all whites shown by these students is simply racism, and
that view seems to be the prevailing motivation for the demonstrations
rather than a commitment to traditional left-wing principles.
Events like this will only continue to happen as minority identity
politics continue to dominate campus life and white guilt is preached by
professors and administrators. Evergreen State is public university and
depends on taxpayers to survive. Washington is a pretty liberal state, but
I’m sure the average voter — whether Democrat or Republican — would not be
pleased that their money goes toward supporting shutting down speech and
forcing white students and faculty off campus.
The states that provide the money for this ridiculousness to occur also
have the power to curb it. Your move, Washington legislature.
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 00:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targeted
because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-29 01:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-29 01:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-29 03:02:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one!
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 03:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-29 03:49:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the First
Amendment.
Rudy Canoza
2017-05-29 04:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se
But it does.
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 06:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate
the First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-29 15:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the
First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was the
evidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because of
their race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished
*per se*.
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 20:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the
First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was the
evidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because of
their race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished
*per se*.
The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhanced
punishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-30 01:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the
First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was the
evidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because of
their race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished
*per se*.
The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhanced
punishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, not
hate per se.
Just Wondering
2017-05-30 04:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the
First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was the
evidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because of
their race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished
*per se*.
The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhanced
punishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, not
hate per se.
That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-30 04:14:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the
First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was the
evidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because of
their race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished
*per se*.
The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhanced
punishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, not
hate per se.
That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
Just Wondering
2017-05-30 18:51:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
Hatred.
It can't be punishing hate per se, because that would violate the
First Amendment.
Yet that is exactly what hate crimes do.
Hate crimes punish a hateful thought *only* when that thought was the
evidence that demonstrated the victim of a crime was chosen because of
their race. That "only" demonstrates that hate wasn't being punished
*per se*.
The act is already punished without regard to the hate. The enhanced
punishment is imposed because of the hate, not because of the act.
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, not
hate per se.
That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But why
it should be so was not answered.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-31 01:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, not
hate per se.
That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But why
it should be so was not answered.
Repeating:

I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
mr. natural
2017-05-31 14:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
That is, bar none, the most idiotic claim you have EVER made!

Here's a cluebat for your flat and empty head, "racial injustice"
accounts for a fraction of a percent of total crime in the US:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/incidentsandoffenses_final

In 2015, 14,997 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime
Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 1,742 reported 5,850 hate crime
incidents involving 6,885 offenses.


As for "avarice":

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/property-crime/burglary

In 2012, there were an estimated 2,103,787 burglaries, a decrease of 3.7
percent when compared with 2011 data.

And I suspect "jealousy" accounts for a chunk of those too.

WTF is your major leftarded mental malfunction?
Honey Wagon
2017-06-01 02:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act,
not hate per se.
That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why
someone who commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be
punished more, or less, than someone who commits the identical
crime motivated by a different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But
why it should be so was not answered.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
Those who voted were a bunch of opportunistic politicians capitalizing on
a few days of media outrage over a supposed queer killing, and ignoring
the fact that the legislation was originally proposed in response to James
Byrd getting dragged to death.

That was one of the biggest mistakes in US legislative history. If it
came up for a vote today, it would not pass.

It should be repealed, stricken from the books.

Besides failing to vet Obama, that's another item to add to the growing
list of reasons to piss on Nancy Pelosi's grave. It happened on her watch
and he's the racist democrat who signed it.
Peter Franks
2017-06-01 03:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The enhanced punishment is only for hate that resulted in the act, not
hate per se.
That brings things to full circle. I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But why
it should be so was not answered.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
So you are saying the answer to 'why' is opinion (i.e. belief) as
opposed to consequence of action.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-06-01 04:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But why
it should be so was not answered.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
So you are saying the answer to 'why' is opinion (i.e. belief) as
opposed to consequence of action.
Yes, but it is common to have different prison sentences for exactly the
same consequence of the action.
Rudy Canoza
2017-06-01 05:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But why
it should be so was not answered.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
So you are saying the answer to 'why' is opinion (i.e. belief) as
opposed to consequence of action.
Yes, but it is common to have different prison sentences for exactly the
same consequence of the action.
But *NOT* based on the thoughts of the perpetrator regarding the group
membership of the victim - at least, not until so-called "hate" crime
enhancements came along. Motive does not change the crime that is
charged; "hate" crime enhancements do. That is wrong. It is
criminalizing thought. Motive doesn't change the basic crime with which
the perp is charged. "Hate" crime enhancements do. There are different
sentences for the *same* crime for a variety of reasons, but a "hate"
crime enhancement makes it a *DIFFERENT* crime - the underlying charge
is different. That's criminalization of thought.

Face the facts, little sophomore: "Hate" crime charges change the
fundamental crime that is being charged. That's criminalization of
thought, and that is fundamentally wrong. You agree that it's wrong,
but you're a lying sophist and shitbag, so you're contorting yourself
into knots to try to say it's something other than what it plainly is.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-06-01 14:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
I don not understand why someone who
commits a crime motivated by one kind of hate should be punished more,
or less, than someone who commits the identical crime motivated by a
different kind of hate.
Asked and answered.
No, "what" was answered. Perhaps even why it is was answered. But why
it should be so was not answered.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
So you are saying the answer to 'why' is opinion (i.e. belief) as
opposed to consequence of action.
Yes, but it is common to have different prison sentences for exactly
the same consequence of the action.
But *NOT* based on the thoughts of the perpetrator regarding the group
membership of the victim - at least, not until so-called "hate" crime
enhancements came along. Motive does not change the crime that is
charged; "hate" crime enhancements do. That is wrong. It is
criminalizing thought. Motive doesn't change the basic crime with which
the perp is charged. "Hate" crime enhancements do. There are different
sentences for the *same* crime for a variety of reasons,
... including motive.
Post by Rudy Canoza
but a "hate"
crime enhancement makes it a *DIFFERENT* crime - the underlying charge
is different. That's criminalization of thought.
If in the end the sentence is the same - and in both cases, is greater
because of the same motive - why should it matter to you whether there
was one crime or two crimes to reach that sentence?

Del Gue
2017-05-29 04:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
WTF is your major mental malfunction, libitard?
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-30 14:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
We've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then he
is punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he was
punched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-30 14:54:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought. It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
We've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then he
is punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he was
punched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.
Using motive as an element of a crime or as a factor in the sentencing
by a judge is common practice.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-30 15:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
We've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then he
is punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he was
punched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.
Using motive as an element of a crime or as a factor in the sentencing
by a judge is common practice.
It doesn't change the elements of the crime.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-30 18:02:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
We've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then he
is punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he was
punched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.
Using motive as an element of a crime or as a factor in the sentencing
by a judge is common practice.
It doesn't change the elements of the crime.
It can. Many states add aggravating factor to be considered by the
jury. One of the common factors is whether the crime was committed for
financial gain.

See for example,

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00701.htm
Terron Musgrave
2017-05-31 15:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
It doesn't change the elements of the crime.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Just Wondering
2017-05-30 18:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
He shouldn't be. "Hate crime" enhancements are punishing thought.
It's
the criminalization of "disapproved" thought.
What "disapproved thought" do they punish?
We've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then he
is punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he was
punched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.
Using motive as an element of a crime or as a factor in the sentencing
by a judge is common practice.
But considering factors during sentencing that are not elements of the
crime itself is altogether different from defining the elements of the
crime itself to include those factors.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-31 01:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Preston Hamblin
We've been over this before. If someone is punched in the face, then he
is punched in the face - the motive should be irrelevant. If he was
punched in the face because of his race, that is immaterial.
Using motive as an element of a crime or as a factor in the sentencing
by a judge is common practice.
But considering factors during sentencing that are not elements of the
crime itself is altogether different from defining the elements of the
crime itself to include those factors.
I think it has the same effect when it is the jury that determines if
aggravating factors justify a greater sentence.

Nonetheless, anti-discrimination laws are defined by the motive. If you
refuse to serve a black person, you have only committed a crime if your
motivation was because the person was black.
mr. natural
2017-05-31 14:12:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you refuse to serve a black person, you have only committed a crime
if your motivation was because the person was black.
Someone needs to refuse Maxine Waters entry to the Capitol, soon.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-29 01:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is a
bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice or
jealousy.
Rudy Canoza
2017-05-29 03:01:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is a
bigger societal problem
In other words, those who support a thought-police state.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-29 03:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem
In other words, those who support a thought-police state.
Racial injustice isn't a thought.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-29 04:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem
In other words, those who support a thought-police state.
Racial injustice isn't a thought.
There is no such thing as "racial injustice". What you mean is people
thinking "incorrect thoughts" on the basis of race. That's what you mean.
Terron Musgrave
2017-05-29 14:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Racial injustice isn't a thought.
There is no such thing as "racial injustice". What you mean is people
thinking "incorrect thoughts" on the basis of race. That's what you mean.
You really need your face mashed in.




11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 03:31:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is a
bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice or
jealousy.
I think it is self-evident that greed and jealousy are more universal
than race-based hate.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-29 03:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
I think it is self-evident that greed and jealousy are more universal
than race-based hate.
Quantity isn't the only consideration.
Rudy Canoza
2017-05-29 04:35:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is
a bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice
or jealousy.
I think it is self-evident that greed and jealousy are more universal
than race-based hate.
Quantity isn't the only consideration.
Thoughts about race are not any kind of legitimately actionable
consideration at all.
Peter Franks
2017-06-01 04:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is a
bigger societal problem - beyond any particular crime - than avarice or
jealousy.
What percentage of crime is racially motivated?
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-01 05:33:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
I suppose those that voted these laws believe that racial injustice is a
bigger societal problem
Their beliefs are irrelevant. "Racial injustice" is a bullshit
catch-all. It isn't the problem that proggies claim it to be, in large
part because most of what proggies - you - claim to be "social
injustice" is nothing more than what you consider to be "wrong thought",
and no one cares about that.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-05-29 04:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
it's illegal for the government to consider race.... Justice is blind.
--
That's Karma
None of the Above
2017-05-29 04:55:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 28 May 2017 18:50:01 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was targeted
because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
Because the fascist left would be tickled pink to be able to make the
short step from 'hate crime' to 'hate think' - allowing them to
imprison anyone they claim to merely hold forbidden opinions.

Just like they are effectively doing on campuses across the nation.

I remember when Evergreen was just a nutcase asylum, famous only for
producing bulldozer-wrestling silver medallist Rachel Corrie...
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-05-29 22:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Why is this not a hate crime?
For there to be a hate crime, you need a crime where the victim was
targeted because of his race (or other protected factors). It isn't
clear in this case, no mater how deplorable the actions against the
professor were, that there was a crime committed or that he was
targeted because he was white (rather than for what he said).
I do not understand why someone who commits a crime out of avarice,
or because of jealousy, should be punished less than someone who
commits the same crime where race is a factor.
it's illegal for the government to consider race.... Justice is blind.


That would violate the 14th amendment.
--
That's Karma
Byker
2017-05-30 17:19:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
No wonder somebody even wrote a whole book about these developments and
titled it, “No Campus for White Men“…
"No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education Into
Hateful Indoctrination", by Scott Greer

"No Campus for White Men shines a bright light on the growing obsession with
diversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses,
and shows how it is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere
that can only lead, ultimately, to ever greater polarization in American
society.

"Across the country, ugly campus protests over speakers with dissenting
viewpoints, as well as a preoccupation with 'micro-aggressions,' 'trigger
warnings,' 'safe spaces' and brand-new 'gender identities,' make it obvious
that something has gone terribly wrong with higher education. For years,
colleges have pursued policies favoring students based not on their merit,
but on their race, gender, and sexual orientation. The disturbingly negative
effects of this culture are now impossible to deny.

"Scott Greer's investigative work links such seemingly unrelated trends as
"rape culture" hysteria and Black Lives Matter to an overall campus mindset
intent on elevating and celebrating leftist-designated 'protected classes'
above everyone else - while intimidating, censoring, and punishing those who
disagree with this perversely un-American agenda.

"In No Campus for White Men, Greer broadens the usual media focus well
beyond coverage of demonstrations by easily offended college students, to
spotlight the darker forces at work behind the scenes that are feeding
higher education's metastasizing crisis - and how all this results in
sustained animosity, first and foremost, toward white men. Greer also
documents how this starkly totalitarian culture is not isolated to higher
education, but is rather a result of trends already operating in society.
Thus, he shows, today's campus madness may eventually dominate much more of
America if it is not addressed and reversed soon."

http://www.5z8.info/girlsgonewildpart1.wmv_i4e2im_boobs

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31326/

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/01/23/no-campus-for-white-men/

https://www.amren.com/features/2017/02/no-campus-for-white-men-scott-greer/

https://www.amazon.com/Campus-White-Men-Transformation-Indoctrination/dp/1944229620
Loading...