Is Hate Crime a Media Creation & Does it Discriminate against the Majority ?

  • Registration is closed without referral. This is a website about Internet drama.

Rancid Flid

Panzer vor !
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
I've always felt quite uneasy about the term hate-crime as we already had laws (in the UK) covering discrimination based on race, sex etc & it seems like these hate crime laws themselves are actually based on discrimination. As a white man, if I decided to launch an unprovoked attack on another white man, it would be treated as an assault or similar but if it was a black man, it would most likely be investigated as a hate crime, at least initially & if it made the news, the media would definitely try to spin it as one. But isn't this actually racist ? Is this not treating people differently based on their skin colour ? There's no such thing as a love crime, so why do we need so called hate crime laws ? Isn't it a crime involving hate if you violently attack someone in the street who is the same race, sexual persuasion & religion as yourself ?

This article that I've just read has made me question a few things a little deeper & I wondered what people's thoughts were on this subject ?
As a straight, white, atheist, male, I know full well that I could potentially be found guilty of a hate crime against many different groups, from blacks to trans. But if I have less protection than minorities, surely this is discrimination against people like me & a long way from the equality mantra that is constantly being pushed ? I've never heard a terror attack against white Brits be described as a hate crime but on the rare occasion it's a white Brit who is the terrorist, it's generally always called a hate crime based on racism & white supremacy. Why's that then & surely if this is actually discrimination, won't this breed more resentment towards the protected minorities, who seem to have more rights in law than the majority ?

The article is solely about the situation in the USA.


Is ‘hate-crime’ a media-creation?Do we accept the designation of ‘hate crime’ simply because state and corporate sponsored outlets ask us to, or do we interrogate beyond the proffered narrative?

As part of Remarks by President Trump on Mass Shootings in Texas and Ohio on August 5th, President Donald Trump announced that.
Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay
Normally it might have been expected that the mainstream media would run with Trump’s support of the death-penalty-for-hate-crimes as proof positive that the man is off his rocker. Instead, the statement garnered barely a flicker of public notice. Did anyone in authority bother to confirm that the shootings were indeed motivated by ‘hate?’
As the mainstream media consistently rush to judgment, speculation too often becomes fact before all the evidence is considered (ie Russiagate) as the MSM is relied on to provide factual and critical background information.
And yet since 65% of the American public believe that the MSM is peddling fake news begs the question of why should detailed reporting on these tragic events be left to a discredited media establishment or that their information on these recent shootings be considered truthful?

Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be a ‘hate’ crime without providing evidence of the hate – as the Divide and Rule Game continues undeterred sowing division and conflict among the American people.
It remains unclear exactly why either tragedy is being specifically labeled a “hate” crime instead of felony murder as if there is a larger agenda to establish ‘hate’ as a bona fide.

Obviously, such barbaric mass killings are not normal behavior as the rationale for such conduct must stem from some deep emotional depravity just as the epidemic of suicides of young white males who have lost hope in American society makes no more sense.
There is an endemic crisis throughout the country and the political class are responsible. Decades after federal government elimination of grants for community mental health programs, ‘hate’ is the favorite determinant factor as the world’s most violent nation creates a generation of emotionally or mentally unstable young men, many of whom may be on mind-numbing psychiatric drugs.

Since the MSM has failed to inform the American public of advanced mind control practices; perhaps the MSM itself and the young shooters are part of widespread experiment using MK Ultra or other state-of-the-art brain manipulation techniques. How would the American public ever know which might be true?
The 21 year old El Paso shooter was immediately identified as a right wing Trumper acting on behalf of the President’s “hate” rhetoric and that he had posted an anti-immigration racist tract entitled An Inconvenient Truth – all of which turned out to be something less than the truth.
Decrying mass immigration as an environmental plea for population control sounds more like something John Muir might have written rather than a hate-filled racist diatribe justifying the slaughter.
Perusing the alleged politically charged manifesto included such statements:
Our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country…If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
There is, however, a problematic psychiatrist father of uncertain character in the background as the shooter drove 650 miles from his home to El Paso before committing the crime and surrendering to authorities.

On the other hand, the Dayton shooter also defies the usual partisan identity and has been acknowledged as a 24-year old member of the Democratic Socialist Party, a Bernie and Elizabeth Warren supporter and was dressed and masked as an Antifa member at the time of the shooting. His weapons and ammo magazines appear to have been legally acquired, he had a high school history as a bully who kept a hit list and made violent threats.

Meanwhile, the Democrats who consider themselves the responsible party on gun control, failed to restore the assault gun ban when they had the votes in 2010 as they prefer fanning the flames of more ‘hate’ by blaming Trump’s loose lips even though the once-revered ACLUdoes not oppose the Second Amendment.

One wonders that if the El Paso shooter can be tagged with being influenced by Trump rhetoric, did the Dayton shooter receive his inspiration from Antifa or perhaps Elizabeth Warren? It is too much to expect any rational media voice to inquire – all of which brings us back to the President’s Remarks endorsing the death penalty.
How exactly did this ‘hate’ language make its way into Trump’s remarks as “hate” has become a preoccupation of American society and the Administration as its Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism’s very life purpose is to root out hate – not hate of all kinds but only that of the Jewish variety.

Historically, the American criminal justice system, flawed as it is, requires any jury in a criminal case to consider the Defendant’s level of conscious intent to commit a criminal act as well as the illegality of the act without specificity to the psychological issues of that intent.
Originally, hate crime laws were expected to offer special protection based on an individuals’ sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability or racial identity as perceived by the perpetrator.

In a manner that does not occur in normal criminal proceedings, defining the “hate” component of a crime requires a distinct determination that the defendant’s actions were solely motivated by thoughts of ‘hate.’
In a worse case scenario, is Trump suggesting that the death penalty may be applied to what is determined to be a hate crime even if that crime has not resulted in a death?
The reality is that hate crimes may be difficult to distinguish from a run-of-the-mill felony murder, thereby increasing the hate crime penalty makes little sense since first degree murder is already subject to the death penalty. Therefore, it appears that a redundant death penalty for a crime that would already call for the death penalty is little more than…overkill.

In other words, hate crime prosecution necessarily relies on criminalizing thoughts as the NSA claims it has already developed remote neural monitoring revealing one’s most hidden private thoughts or an iphone may be bugged with implants to reduce impulse control.
Many legal scholars would respond that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment already provides all American citizens with the guaranteed right to equal protection under the law (ie Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) and therefore such hate laws are unnecessary and may be unconstitutional.
Since the Constitution already protects the rights of aggrieved parties, why would Congress initiate an entirely new category of duplicative Hate Crime laws unless they needed the extra legislative accomplishment to justify their existence or to satisfy prominent politically-connected constituencies or to create a nefarious political agenda.


 

PinstripeLuns

Oy vey!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 9, 2018
The idea of a hate crime itself isn't a media creation, obviously all crimes are done out of a degree of hatred, but we wouldn't call crimes "hate crimes" just because hate is required to commit some of them. They're just crimes. It's called a "hate crime" because you're hateful of who that person is, not because they fuckin' bumped into your car or something (and don't be a wise-ass and say "but they are a dick for bumping into my car", I mean in a race and religion sense).

Honestly, it's just the media that's discriminating against the majority, not hate crimes. You're a bit dense man.
 

Lemmingwise

Amber "Turd Alert" Heard
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
why do we need so called hate crime laws

Okay imagine this. You're a judge or maybe respected journalist or academic. You got to your position in part due to your connections to one of the wealthiest families. They want to do social engineering and/or censor certain topics. How do you propose to do that in a way that doesn't meet abject resistance from the entire population?

That's what you need them for.

Especially if are in 70's and you want to facilitate mass immigration to achieve some of the goals mentioned in Coudenhoven-Kalergi's book praktischer idealismus. How could you possibly create a completely welcoming culture without having tools to silence some of the reasonable and factual objections that people can raise, particular when pointing to such things as crime stats?

The word racist was an essential tool that Trotsky utilized to attack homogeneity.

Hate crime laws as they relate to race are a part of the legal framework to institutionalise that attack on homogeneity.

Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch01.htm
 

Rancid Flid

Panzer vor !
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
By law, a "hate crime" is a crime taken on towards a marginalized group based on their race or religion. If there is proof that the crime was racially motivated, then it would be charged as a "hate crime."

But don't you think it actually discriminates against whites ? I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but here in the UK, I never hear non-whites being accused of hate crime against white people. Which in my book, is actually racist & not based on "equality."
Just today, someone was stabbed by a group of gypsies, or travelers to use the PC term. Now if a gypo had been stabbed by a non-gypsy, it would be classed as a hate crime but not when it's the other way round. Don't you think this is actually racial discrimination ? The very thing that is constantly pushed as being wrong.
 

BoingoTango

Sabat on a gayops
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 6, 2019
Ah you're from the UK, perhaps you remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Tommy Robinson who used to constantly spout "Anti-racist is codeword for Anti-white"

I don't think for anyone with half a brain it's news that all this "anti-racist" shit is just a way to get revenge and fuck over white people, while all the while having dumbass white fucks go along with it. It's a really good scheme and it's embarrassing watching my people for it.
 

Rancid Flid

Panzer vor !
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
The idea of a hate crime itself isn't a media creation, obviously all crimes are done out of a degree of hatred, but we wouldn't call crimes "hate crimes" just because hate is required to commit some of them. They're just crimes. It's called a "hate crime" because you're hateful of who that person is, not because they fuckin' bumped into your car or something (and don't be a wise-ass and say "but they are a dick for bumping into my car", I mean in a race and religion sense).

Honestly, it's just the media that's discriminating against the majority, not hate crimes. You're a bit dense man.

It's not me asking if it's a media creation, it's the journo that wrote the piece. But yeah, even though I might be a bit dense, I still think that made up words & terms that are mainly used to discriminate against people like me are actually wrong & go against mainstream thinking.

Ah you're from the UK, perhaps you remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Tommy Robinson who used to constantly spout "Anti-racist is codeword for Anti-white"

I don't think for anyone with half a brain it's news that all this "anti-racist" shit is just a way to get revenge and fuck over white people, while all the while having dumbass white fucks go along with it. It's a really good scheme and it's embarrassing watching my people for it.

It sounds like something Tommy might say, yes, but it's also been said by many others. And to be honest, I think it's a true statement for some so called anti-racists, particularly whites suffering from white guilt. And it would be fair to accuse several black, UK politicians of being anti-white racists due to their OTT anti-racist statements. Saying that though, on the whole, I agree with you.
 
E

ES 195

Guest
kiwifarms.net
Media creation? No. Tool of the media for sensationalism? Yes.
It also helps the courts and prisons by making crimes more sensational and adding onto prison times and sentences. It's just another stupid term used to manipulate the emotions of the courts and the people into getting them to react a certain way; definitely discriminates against the majority. A crime motivated by racism is disappointing and stupid. A hate crime is evil and infuriating. It's simply just another propaganda term.
 

Slowpoke Sonic

psychic water hedgehog pokemon
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
A "hate crime" for example would be a white person burning down a mosque, but if it were a person of color, it wouldn't be considered one, and wouldn't recieve any attention. Well yes it pretty much does discriminate the majority, but I don't really think that it was invented by modern media. If it was created by the media, it wouldn't be mainstream. Probably created by some bored woke liberal who probably saw a black guy getting killed on the news.

Hate crimes are just crimes but they made it sound fancier just so they could make braindead liberals woke af
 

PinstripeLuns

Oy vey!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 9, 2018
It's not me asking if it's a media creation, it's the journo that wrote the piece. But yeah, even though I might be a bit dense, I still think that made up words & terms that are mainly used to discriminate against people like me are actually wrong & go against mainstream thinking.

It isn't a made-up word you knobgnosher it's literally something you can get prosecuted for. What do you want then? People to stop calling them "hate crimes"? What's gonna resolve this ever so destructive discrimination?
 

Rancid Flid

Panzer vor !
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
It isn't a made-up word you knobmucher it's literally something you can get prosecuted for. What do you want then? People to stop calling them "hate crimes"? What's gonna resolve this ever so destructive discrimination?

It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently. Like I said earlier, we already had laws covering racial motivations in a crime & should have left it at that but no, someone had to move the goal posts in an attempt to make it seem that whites committing crime against non-whites is somehow more important & worse than if it was the other way round. So yes, I would like to see people stop calling them hate crimes & go back to calling them racially motivated, you ugly spastic.
 

PinstripeLuns

Oy vey!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 9, 2018
It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently. Like I said earlier, we already had laws covering racial motivations in a crime & should have left it at that but no, someone had to move the goal posts in an attempt to make it seem that whites committing crime against non-whites is somehow more important & worse than if it was the other way round. So yes, I would like to see people stop calling them hate crimes & go back to calling them racially motivated, you ugly spastic.

Chill out, it's just a shorter way of saying it and you are thinking way too much about a shortened way of saying "racially motivated crime". Nobody's gonna be asked but you to say "racially motivated attack" rather than "hate crime". They mean the exact same, why are you letting the media change the meaning of "racially motivated crime"?
 

Lemmingwise

Amber "Turd Alert" Heard
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently. Like I said earlier, we already had laws covering racial motivations in a crime & should have left it at that but no, someone had to move the goal posts in an attempt to make it seem that whites committing crime against non-whites is somehow more important & worse than if it was the other way round. So yes, I would like to see people stop calling them hate crimes & go back to calling them racially motivated, you ugly spastic.
Sure it's a made up word. All words are. And it's a fairly young word too.

It doesn't really work to go back. Particularly not because hate crime is a larger category that also includes sexual identities, ridiculous as some of those may be.

What it should be is a shield for vulnerable groups. What it is, is a legal sledgehammer to use against non-minority groups, considering none of the racially motivated attacks like the livestreamed disabled guy that was attacked and blamed for being a trump supporter (don't think he even was pro-trump) or any of the racially motivated sex scandals like Rotherham, these never get categorized as hate crimes, because hate crime laws are a one way sledgehammer.

And if any minority group achieves numbers to become majority, then it'll become a sledgehammer to use against specific minority groups (white/straight)
 
Last edited:

Rancid Flid

Panzer vor !
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Chill out, it's just a shorter way of saying it and you are thinking way too much about a shortened way of saying "racially motivated crime". Nobody's gonna be asked but you to say "racially motivated attack" rather than "hate crime". They mean the exact same, why are you letting the media change the meaning of "racially motivated crime"?

I am chill bro, honestly. Just a bit of bantz. It's not just a shorter way of saying it though, in my opinion that is.

Personally, I have no real problem with a judge dealing with a crime that is obviously motivated by racial hatred but think the term hate crime is far too broad & does actually discriminate against whites & atheists, who don't have the luxury of the protection that blacks & Muslims & Jews have. In my mind, that is racial discrimination based on my skin colour & my beliefs, or lack of them. Which shows an extreme lack of equality, in my faggy little island anyway.
 

PinstripeLuns

Oy vey!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 9, 2018
I am chill bro, honestly. Just a bit of bantz. It's not just a shorter way of saying it though, in my opinion that is.

Personally, I have no real problem with a judge dealing with a crime that is obviously motivated by racial hatred but think the term hate crime is far too broad & does actually discriminate against whites & atheists, who don't have the luxury of the protection that blacks & Muslims & Jews have. In my mind, that is racial discrimination based on my skin colour & my beliefs, or lack of them. Which shows an extreme lack of equality, in my faggy little island anyway.

I think you're giving the word too much power. Yes, admittedly in media "hate crime" is synonymous with "white man did bad" but all you can really do is like... not accept that as the definition.

Wouldn't say that Jews and Muslims have protection here, much more sympathy sure, but what can you do? I've yet to see anything actually damaging to white people outside of travellers.
 

Rancid Flid

Panzer vor !
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
I think you're giving the word too much power. Yes, admittedly in media "hate crime" is synonymous with "white man did bad" but all you can really do is like... not accept that as the definition.

Wouldn't say that Jews and Muslims have protection here, much more sympathy sure, but what can you do? I've yet to see anything actually damaging to white people outside of travellers.

Well, I think the whole hate crime thing is damaging, not just to white people but to race & inter-faith relations too. I can only guess that you're in the US, so please remember that we don't have free speech in the UK anymore, it has been destroyed by so called liberals who can often be members of the Conservative party, so basically, it's far too easy to shut people down here with cries of "racism," or Islamophobia etc. etc.

It's nearly impossible for anyone to have a reasonable debate about race or religion here & if you're in the public eye, you aren't allowed an opinion that goes against the mainstream view, or the Twitter mob, or even the man, will have you sacked. Just today, I was reading about a Christian doctor who was sacked for daring to suggest the idea that there are only 2 genders & he refused to call men pretending to be women "her." And yet a Pakistani doctor who sexually assaulted a nurse, was found guilty & entered onto the sex offenders register, was allowed to keep his job as he used the "cultural differences" excuse. Even though it's against NHS/government policy to employ known sex offenders. It's double standards & breeds resentment.
 

Foxxo

He needs a rest.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
Hate crimes are something that our society is really sensitive about, because the 1960's are the only part of U.S. history that's given any depth of coverage in most of school.

And I'm not saying that knowing the rest of U.S. history would turn you into a /pol/lack, I'm just saying that our culture hyper-focuses on it because it's the only thing that's prominent in most of our minds.