Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Foxi4]

do i even need to say anything
speaks for itself, don't it?

Explain. According to Statista, there were approximately 4930 recorded victims of racially-motivated hate crime in 2019, 775 of which were victims of anti-white hate crimes. By pure head count it's the second most affected group after African-Americans. Perhaps not per capita, but it does happen, and apparently not infrequently. If we're supposed to legislate against hate crimes without racial bias, you'd think the race of the victim would be immaterial, no? If a crime is motivated by prejudice against a particular race or ethnicity then it's a hate crime by definition, the specific racial make-up of the population shouldn't matter, the crime does. For the record, I don't think racial prejudice is a relevant factor - the relevant factor is whether the crime is premeditated or not - the specific reasoning doesn't matter, unless you're interested in adding extra years to sentences based on the additional thought crime charge.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/737690/number-of-racist-hate-crime-victims-in-the-us-by-race/

 

[Darth Meteos]

Explain.

all too happy to, mate
i'm saying he's a white supremacist

i'm not attempting to make a nuanced point, i'm pointing out that those are fairly common phrases for white supremacists to say
it's like when you see someone say "i have gay friends," i'm poking fun at how blatant and stereotypical it is

 

[Foxi4]

all too happy to, mate
i'm saying he's a white supremacist

i'm not attempting to make a nuanced point, i'm pointing out that those are fairly common phrases for white supremacists to say
it's like when you see someone say "i have gay friends," i'm poking fun at how blatant and stereotypical it is

Weird assumption to make, but fair enough - as long as you're consistent.

 

[Lacius]

Explain. According to Statista, there were approximately 4930 recorded victims of racially-motivated hate crime in 2019, 775 of which were victims of anti-white hate crimes. By pure head count it's the second most affected group after African-Americans. Perhaps not per capita, but it does happen, and apparently not infrequently. If we're supposed to legislate against hate crimes without racial bias, you'd think the race of the victim would be immaterial, no? If a crime is motivated by prejudice against a particular race or ethnicity then it's a hate crime by definition, the specific racial make-up of the population shouldn't matter, the crime does. For the record, I don't think racial prejudice is a relevant factor - the relevant factor is whether the crime is premeditated or not - the specific reasoning doesn't matter, unless you're interested in adding extra years to sentences based on the additional thought crime charge.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/737690/number-of-racist-hate-crime-victims-in-the-us-by-race/

Violence against a person on the basis of race, white or otherwise, is and should be a hate crime. I don't think anybody is arguing that one race should get hate crime status while another doesn't.

What I'm reading from your stats is that white people make up 73% of the population while only being 15-16% of hate crimes. That's pretty low. (Note: I don't know what did/didn't include white Hispanics as "white" in the stats, since they're behind a paywall).

 

[Foxi4]

Violence against a person on the basis of race, white or otherwise, is and should be a hate crime. I don't think anybody is arguing that one race should get hate crime status while another doesn't.

What I'm reading from your stats is that white people make up 73% of the population while only being 15-16% of hate crimes. That's pretty low. (Note: I don't know what did/didn't include white Hispanics as "white" in the stats, since they're behind a paywall).

I don't think a per capita statistic is a relevant factor that somehow trumps incidence per annum in this case. I'm of the position that legislating "hate" is, in effect, legislating thoughts. They might be thoughts we don't like, but they're thoughts nonetheless, and the idea of thought crimes becoming a part of the law doesn't sit well with me. I'm perfectly fine with people hating anything or anyone, including myself - I'm only interested in whether they act upon those thoughts and how planned the act is, since there's a difference between randomly getting into an altercation and planning out an assault of a specific individual. With that being said, if you're of the opposite mindset, the only consistent and non-racist way to advocate for such bills is to include everyone under their umbrella, regardless of their race - not doing so goes against the equal protection clause.

 

[Darth Meteos]

I don't think a per capita statistic is a relevant factor that somehow trumps incidence per annum.

per capita is a much stronger statistic
your argument is that anti-white violence is significant
but, despite there being many, many more white people, there is significantly less anti-white crime than anti-black crime
with so many opportunities, you'd think white people would be targeted more if it was an issue of any significance

 

[Foxi4]

per capita is a much stronger statistic
your argument is that anti-white violence is significant
but, despite there being many, many more white people, there is significantly less anti-white crime than anti-black crime
with so many opportunities, you'd think white people would be targeted more if it was an issue of any significance

In this specific case per capita is irrelevant - we have incidence that is non-zero, so this type of crime does occur. If it's a racially motivated crime you're interested in, anti-white crime is still racially motivated, even if there's only 1 per year, let alone 775. Are you legislating against a specific kind of circumstances that, in your mind, make a crime more egregious, or are you attempting to institute unequal protection under the law?

 

[tabzer]

per capita is a much stronger statistic
your argument is that anti-white violence is significant
but, despite there being many, many more white people, there is significantly less anti-white crime than anti-black crime
with so many opportunities, you'd think white people would be targeted more if it was an issue of any significance

Saying that there being more potential victims makes it less of a big deal is the insinuation. If black people tend to perpetuate more hate crimes per capita than white people do, the argument might be easily reversed. Either way, I think both uses of statistics are not useful in diminishing racism or racially motivated crime.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

do i even need to say anything
speaks for itself, don't it?

I'm an independant person of color that believes there is an active bias against white people. So, how does that speak for itself?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Explain. According to Statista, there were approximately 4930 recorded victims of racially-motivated hate crime in 2019, 775 of which were victims of anti-white hate crimes. By pure head count it's the second most affected group after African-Americans. Perhaps not per capita, but it does happen, and apparently not infrequently. If we're supposed to legislate against hate crimes without racial bias, you'd think the race of the victim would be immaterial, no? If a crime is motivated by prejudice against a particular race or ethnicity then it's a hate crime by definition, the specific racial make-up of the population shouldn't matter, the crime does. For the record, I don't think racial prejudice is a relevant factor - the relevant factor is whether the crime is premeditated or not - the specific reasoning doesn't matter, unless you're interested in adding extra years to sentences based on the additional thought crime charge.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/737690/number-of-racist-hate-crime-victims-in-the-us-by-race/

I agree that it's pointless to create laws against hating color X, but not Y or Z. The law needs to take into account all crimes motivated by hate. I also agree with you that you cannot and should not try to outlaw emotions. People think all sorts of random shit every single minute and some people can't control their thoughts. Outlawing what you think or feel is asinine.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm an independant person of color that believes there is an active bias against white people. So, how does that speak for itself?

This reminds me of the "Black White Supremacist" sketch by Dave Chappelle. Never fails to squeeze a laugh out of me.

 

[Valwinz]

Georgia Judge Allows for Further Investigation of Fulton County Ballots After Large Discrepancies Uncovered
But I was told the 2020 election was the most secure one in History this is IMPOSSIBLE

ICYMI: Georgia Judge Allows for Further Investigation of Fulton County Ballots After Large Discrepancies Uncovered https://t.co/oFRRiwoUAT

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) May 22, 2021

 

[Deleted member 559230]

This reminds me of the "Black White Supremacist" sketch by Dave Chappelle. Never fails to squeeze a laugh out of me.

Chappelle's stuff is hit and miss and is usually mainly edgy as fuck, but this video was sort of dry. It did get me to laugh once, that's when the guy's head exploded. I still need to watch his recent Netflix comedy that was supposedly shunned and called for cancellation because it wasn't politically correct.

 

[Lacius]

I don't think a per capita statistic is a relevant factor that somehow trumps incidence per annum in this case. I'm of the position that legislating "hate" is, in effect, legislating thoughts. They might be thoughts we don't like, but they're thoughts nonetheless, and the idea of thought crimes becoming a part of the law doesn't sit well with me. I'm perfectly fine with people hating anything or anyone, including myself - I'm only interested in whether they act upon those thoughts and how planned the act is, since there's a difference between randomly getting into an altercation and planning out an assault of a specific individual. With that being said, if you're of the opposite mindset, the only consistent and non-racist way to advocate for such bills is to include everyone under their umbrella, regardless of their race - not doing so goes against the equal protection clause.

Per capita statistics are pretty relevant in this instance. Hypothetically, if a group were to make up 15% of the population, and 15% of racially motivated violence was against that group, then you know that the group is targeted no more than random chance would suggest. If a group makes up 15% of a population but makes up 80% of racially motivated violence, then you've got a vulnerable population. If a group makes up 15% of the population, but only makes up 1% of the racially motivated violence, then you've got a group that's of least concern. Please don't pretend this isn't at all relevant. I am not arguing that the most vulnerable groups should be the only ones that hate crime laws apply to, but it means more should be done (outreach, language options, etc.) to make sure the violence doesn't happen and that it's prosecuted appropriately under current hate crime laws.

As for the broader topic, you and I disagree on whether or not motive should be taken into consideration with regard to racially motivated violence (there's far more than enough precedent for taking into account motive when prosecuting other violent crimes, but we don't need to derail the thread by talking about it), but you and I are in agreement that the laws should be consistent, and they are consistent.

 

[Foxi4]

Per capita statistics are pretty relevant in this instance. Hypothetically, if a group were to make up 15% of the population, and 15% of racially motivated violence was against that group, then you know that the group is targeted no more than random chance would suggest. If a group makes up 15% of a population but makes up 80% of racially motivated violence, then you've got a vulnerable population. If a group makes up 15% of the population, but only makes up 1% of the racially motivated violence, then you've got a group that's of least concern. Please don't pretend this isn't at all relevant. I am not arguing that the most vulnerable groups should be the only ones that hate crime laws apply to, but it means more should be done (outreach, language options, etc.) to make sure the violence doesn't happen and that it's prosecuted appropriately under current hate crime laws.

As for the broader topic, you and I disagree on whether or not motive should be taken into consideration with regard to racially motivated violence (there's far more than enough precedent for taking into account motive when prosecuting other violent crimes, but we don't need to derail the thread by talking about it), but you and I are in agreement that the laws should be consistent, and they are consistent.

Oh, but it's not relevant - not at all. If your focus is to increase the penalties for crimes that are racially motivated, that's all you need to say - you don't need to specify it further to protect all groups equally, regardless of how statistically vulnerable they are. You are correct though, we don't need to derail the thread.

 

[Lacius]

Oh, but it's not relevant - not at all. If your focus is to increase the penalties for crimes that are racially motivated, that's all you need to say - you don't need to specify it further to protect all groups equally, regardless of how statistically vulnerable they are. You are correct though, we don't need to derail the thread.

The conversation was about whether or not a specific population is vulnerable to racially motivated violence and if that vulnerability necessitates increased outreach and other mitigating factors. The conversation was not whether or not violent crimes against white people should be hate crimes.

Georgia Judge Allows for Further Investigation of Fulton County Ballots After Large Discrepancies Uncovered
But I was told the 2020 election was the most secure one in History this is IMPOSSIBLE

There weren't actually any discrepancies uncovered. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Fulton County or anywhere else in the country.

All of the ballots in Georgia have already been recounted by hand. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Do not hold your breath. The issue regarding the judge unsealing ballots is due to an arbitrary demand to rescan them at a higher resolution. They already have them at a sufficient resolution, and as I already said, they've already been recounted by hand.

 

[Valwinz]

The conversation was about whether or not a specific population is vulnerable to racially motivated violence and if that vulnerability necessitates increased outreach and other mitigating factors. The conversation was not whether or not violent crimes against white people should be hate crimes.


There weren't actually any discrepancies uncovered. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Fulton County or anywhere else in the country.

All of the ballots in Georgia have already been recounted by hand. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Do not hold your breath. The issue regarding the judge unsealing ballots is due to an arbitrary demand to rescan them at a higher resolution. They already have them at a sufficient resolution, and as I already said, they've already been recounted by hand.

So the Judge just made it up who do I belive the Judge or Lacius in the GBA forums

 

[Lacius]

So the Judge just made it up who do I belive the Judge or Lacius in the GBA forums

The judge didn't say anything about there being issues with the vote count. I suggest you read what you post.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Mostly because people are requesting Audits only because they lost. Not because of fraud.. because you know the only people charged with voting fraud for 2020 elections were people who illegally voted for Trump. Requesting an Audit without real reason or proof is like having the cops break into your home to find reasons for a warrant. It does not work that way

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

By that token .. why are republicans soo against 1/6 commission
“Are you scared they may find something you don't want them too?”

But the Dems requested an audit in the 2000 election of George W. Bush when they lost, so why is this not allowed? So I guess when either side loses no audits should ever be allowed, possibly rigged or not, because said losing side should "get over it"? Really, if the positions were reversed here, you're telling me you wouldn't want an audit if you didn't think foul play was afoot? If you don't, that's fine, that's your right to have an opinion, but having audits is still legal and will be carried out by either side regardless if people think it's a waste of time. People will gladly waste that time if they think there's a small chance to preserve true election integrity.

Also, before I forget, how much time left before this thread inevitably shuts down? lol

 

[Lacius]

But the Dems requested an audit in the 2000 election of George W. Bush when they lost, so why is this not allowed? So I guess when either side loses no audits should ever be allowed, possibly rigged or not, because said losing side should "get over it"? Really, if the positions were reversed here, you're telling me you wouldn't want an audit if you didn't think foul play was afoot? If you don't, that's fine, that's your right to have an opinion, but having audits is still legal and will be carried out by either side regardless if people think it's a waste of time. People will gladly waste that time if they think there's a small chance to preserve true election integrity.

Also, before I forget, how much time left before this thread inevitably shuts down? lol

A recount was requested in Florida in 2000 because George W. Bush (ultimately) won the state by 537 votes (0.009%). In other words, a recount was requested (and mandated by Florida law) because of the closeness, not because of alleged fraud.

Side note: This all also occurred after George W. Bush's brother, Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, engaged in the purging of voters from voter rolls and disproportionately purged Black voters. This, combined with the closeness of the election, might have cost Al Gore the election.

If you're looking for a double standard here, you're unlikely to find one on the Democratic side.

 

[Darth Meteos]

It is, at last, over.