First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply Dem on CNN: Not sure if race based kidnapping and torture was hate crime
Jarexx 
30941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Boston
Offline
Posted 1/5/17
makes me wonder what would happen if the situation was reversed.
Posted 1/5/17

Jarexx wrote:

makes me wonder what would happen if the situation was reversed.


You don't have to wonder very hard, do you?
11397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Interesting. Please elaborate.

Try to work it out on your own.



Well you're obviously implying that I am a liar in a thread who's topic we share the exact same opinion on, so you'll forgive me for being a little confused but I would like an explanation please.
621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

Jarexx wrote:

makes me wonder what would happen if the situation was reversed.


Considering the media generally leans left, it would likely get more attention, which is unfortunate. No matter who's giving or receiving the hate, a hate crime is a hate crime and should all be treated as such.
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Well you're obviously implying that I am a liar in a thread who's topic we share the exact same opinion on, so you'll forgive me for being a little confused but I would like an explanation please.


Naturally you are wrong yet again. Keep trying though. Also keep trying to derail the thread by only thinking of yourself, instead of the poor, white, special needs man who was tortured live on facebook by racists.
11397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Well you're obviously implying that I am a liar in a thread who's topic we share the exact same opinion on, so you'll forgive me for being a little confused but I would like an explanation please.


Naturally you are wrong yet again



octorockandroll wrote:
obviously I think its a hate crime.



So you're saying it is not a hate crime?
Posted 1/5/17
Guys, do we really need to do this yet again?

Xxanthar: I get that a thread that held merit was closed yet again and you feel that it was unfair (and biased). But you end up taking these threads into a realm of personal insults. My comment was basically to try to alleviate the "seriousness" of your post because it was clearly passive-aggressive. There's no need to deliberately divert a topic that was (for once) progressing without personal attacks and irrationality. Any thread where we're all on the same page regarding the original post is .......quite rare, personally.

octorockandroll: You're kind of falling into the trap that he set for you (which is undoubtedly why your post was reported to the moderators; whether it be by him or someone else is mostly irrelevant). Just scale back and let things be without having to take the bait that he lays out for you.

Both of you need to chill.
If we're trying to ensure this thread remains on the "serious" line of discussion about this awful event, then such back and forth rebuttal comments will only result in another 10-15 page thread riddled with nonsensical insults or sarcastic snark attempting to bait each other.
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Well you're obviously implying that I am a liar in a thread who's topic we share the exact same opinion on, so you'll forgive me for being a little confused but I would like an explanation please.


Naturally you are wrong yet again



octorockandroll wrote:
obviously I think its a hate crime.



So you're saying it is not a hate crime?


Quoting small sections of my posts and inserting your quotes from past posts, that I did not even reference, in order to spin things is hardly honest. Therefore, I am done with you for the day, least you manage to close this thread as well.
11397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

Guys, do we really need to do this yet again?
octorockandroll: You're kind of falling into the trap that he set for you (which is undoubtedly why your post was reported to the moderators; whether it be by him or someone else is mostly irrelevant). Just scale back and let things be without having to take the bait that he lays out for you.

Both of you need to chill.
If we're trying to ensure this thread remains on the "serious" line of discussion about this awful event, then such back and forth rebuttal comments will only result in another 10-15 page thread riddled with nonsensical insults or sarcastic snark attempting to bait each other.


I'm aware I'm doing exactly what he wants by playing his little troll game, but why not take the bait when the trap is so comical?

Also, one of my posts was reported? I wasn't aware of this, I don't see any of them breaking rules.

Regardless, I guess it would be best to stop now for the sake of preserving the actual discussion in this thread, as you said. Besides, not much point in going on now that the other user's spitefulness has come forth from it's thin veil.
25686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

ninjitsuko wrote:
Any thread where we're all on the same page regarding the original post is .......quite rare, personally.


Very true. No reason to pick fights over this. Politics in general need more focus on the objectives, rather than trashing opponents. In this case, we're mostly interested in the correct Hate Crime charges being made, which everyone seems to want. There will be more to say when the police announce the charges.
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

Guys, do we really need to do this yet again?

Xxanthar: I get that a thread that held merit was closed yet again and you feel that it was unfair (and biased). But you end up taking these threads into a realm of personal insults. My comment was basically to try to alleviate the "seriousness" of your post because it was clearly passive-aggressive. There's no need to deliberately divert a topic that was (for once) progressing without personal attacks and irrationality. Any thread where we're all on the same page regarding the original post is .......quite rare, personally.


I have worked very hard to remove all obvious and 'perceived' personal insults from my posts for a quite while now. Often to only be rewarded with personal insults hurled at me, which I report and nothing is done about. I have a right to display my unhappiness with the way things are going, and perhaps that comes off as passive-aggressive. That is the only option I have to express myself here honestly without getting my posts edited, deleted or getting myself banned. I have carefully adjusted my writing style, to comply with the vague and unfair enforcement of the forum rules.

Last time I checked, being passive-aggressive was not against the rules. If some people choose to take my posts as personal insults it's more of a "if the shoe fits, wear it' situation, since I have not singled out individuals, aside from direct replies to questions asked of me.

edit: It's pretty hard to abide by rules that change at the whims of those who enforce them. Post clear and concise rules, and apply them fairly among ALL users. There would be far less problems that way.
One Punch Mod
98350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

Guys, do we really need to do this yet again?

Xxanthar: I get that a thread that held merit was closed yet again and you feel that it was unfair (and biased). But you end up taking these threads into a realm of personal insults. My comment was basically to try to alleviate the "seriousness" of your post because it was clearly passive-aggressive. There's no need to deliberately divert a topic that was (for once) progressing without personal attacks and irrationality. Any thread where we're all on the same page regarding the original post is .......quite rare, personally.

octorockandroll: You're kind of falling into the trap that he set for you (which is undoubtedly why your post was reported to the moderators; whether it be by him or someone else is mostly irrelevant). Just scale back and let things be without having to take the bait that he lays out for you.

Both of you need to chill.
If we're trying to ensure this thread remains on the "serious" line of discussion about this awful event, then such back and forth rebuttal comments will only result in another 10-15 page thread riddled with nonsensical insults or sarcastic snark attempting to bait each other.


This.



octorockandroll wrote:

I'm aware I'm doing exactly what he wants by playing his little troll game, but why not take the bait when the trap is so comical?

Also, one of my posts was reported? I wasn't aware of this, I don't see any of them breaking rules.

Regardless, I guess it would be best to stop now for the sake of preserving the actual discussion in this thread, as you said. Besides, not much point in going on now that the other user's spitefulness has come forth from it's thin veil.


"why not take the bait when the trap is so comical?"

1) with that remark you are leaning darned heavily toward disrespectful. Please stop.
2) A good reason for not taking the bait is to avoid diverting the thread into a squabble between the two of you.

As to the rest, I didn't see the report so I don't know why and I don't know who, but maybe it was because you are contributing to dragging this toward the realm of personal argument.

But I agree, that it would be best to stop now. I'll be deleting future posts between the two of you if they are not clearly about the topic rather than about each other or each other's posting style.



Xxanthar wrote:

Last time I checked, being passive-aggressive was not against the rules. If some people choose to take my posts as personal insults it's more of a "if the shoe fits, wear it' situation, since I have not singled out individuals, aside from direct replies to questions asked of me.


Passive-aggressiveness and sarcasm are not in and of themselves against the rules, but they often can convey an inflammatory tone or suggest disrespect for other users, and if it goes too far that way then it is against the rules. I don't think your original snarky post here requires any mod action, but the ongoing argument between you and octorockandroll is getting out of hand and disrupting the thread, so please just stop participating in that.
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

Jordan Hill, 18, of Carpentersville, is charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle and residential burglary.

Tesfaye Cooper, 18, of Chicago, is charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary.

Brittany Covington, 18, of Chicago, is charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary.

Tanishia Covington, 24, of Chicago, is charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restrain and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.


Glad the DA had some sense
Posted 1/5/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


This is pretty good news. Just in case there's any question of credibility:

WGNtv.com - Chicago's local Fox News.
abc7 - Local ABC News
Chicago Tribune - includes the police press conference as well (before the official DA charges).

The Chicago Police Department has also stated that they'll have another press conference about the charges at 2PM CST (in about 20 minutes from this post).
35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17
The second half of the quote is:


After wondering if it were hate for Trump or white people, she expanded on he point. “If we start going around and anytime someone says or does something egregious or bad and sickening in sense,” she noted. “In connection with the president-elect Donald Trump or even President Obama for that matter because of their political leanings, that’s slippery territory. That is not a hate crime.”


Which means the point was: Is it a hate crime if its politically motivated and legally speaking no, it is not. Political affiliations are not a protected class.

Timeline wise this entire segment occurred before authorities released any information on charges as the host clearly states before asking Sanders that he cannot say whether its a hate crime because the police are still investigating.

And finally, lets not kid ourselves here. If the political positions were reversed we'd be hearing the same thing.

TL;DR: Waiting until you have all the information before making a definitive judgement ( Especially as a news network ) is not bias. Political, racial or otherwise.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.