Two White Teens Burn Mentally Ill Black Man Alive...

[Psychic Missile]

What are you talking about? The left does not care about "oppression" of minority groups. They run most of the cities where this "oppression" is happening.

It doesn't matter if you think it's really true or not that the left cares about minority oppression because that's at the very least what they claim, so caring more about potentially racially motivated crime against minority groups is in no way hypocritical or some kind of gotcha.

And whom is killing whom? Are more whites killing blacks or are more blacks killing whites? Do you know?

Why does that matter?

[Cow Poke]

I don't care about the color of the people involved, this is horrendous. And quite frankly, I'd say the media is being racist by omitting the racial descriptions. If the race or ethnicity of people involved in other cases is relevant enough to mention despite any evidence of racial motivations in those crimes, then the media should be fair and mention race in this crime. Otherwise, they're discriminating based on race. Which is...you know, racist.

I should also clarify that I'm pretty firmly convinced that racism or at the very least, the perception of racism as a systemic problem, will continue to be a big issue until we as a society quit mentioning race at all unless it's somehow relevant. Do it on ID documents, police reports, when reporting on (actual) race-motivated crimes, and when it's otherwise necessary to describe someone's physical appearance. Otherwise, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Not on job applications, college applications, any of that. It should not be ok to just casually mention someone's race in a narrative unless it's somehow relevant, but in our society we do this ALL the time....as long as the context is politically acceptable.

Interesting that you should mention on descriptions of people for police incidents - because as far back as the early 80's, we were being profoundly criticized for mention race or any other related attributes of a suspect because it was "racial profiling".

[seer]

It doesn't matter if you think it's really true or not that the left cares about minority oppression because that's at the very least what they claim, so caring more about potentially racially motivated crime against minority groups is in no way hypocritical or some kind of gotcha.

Of course it is hypocritical, not only don't they care about minorities (just look at the cities they run) they stir up racial hatred - all in the service of gaining and keeping power. The have been doing this for decades.

Why does that matter?

Why does the left keep pointing to a white man killing Asians? When they have been doing their best to restrict Asians from getting into Colleges like Harvard. And the fact that blacks attack Asians at a higher rate than any other ethnic group? Why aren't you leftists talking about that? Hypocrites...

https://www.financegeek.org/chinese/...n-asian-crime/

[Psychic Missile]

Of course it is hypocritical, not only don't they care about minorities (just look at the cities they run) they stir up racial hatred - all in the service of gaining and keeping power. The have been doing this for decades.

Doing something in accordance to what you say you want to do is the opposite of hypocritical. An action to the contrary would be hypocritical. Leftwing media focusing on crimes against minority groups is in accordance to what the left says they care about, therefore it's not hypocritical. The left would have to be bringing harm to a minority group, which would be contrary to what the left says it stands for, in order to be hypocritical. I don't know what you're referring to in regards to cities and racial hatred, but if these actions result in minority oppression, then those would be apt examples of hypocrisy.

Why does the left keep pointing to a white man killing Asians? When they have been doing their best to restrict Asians from getting into Colleges like Harvard. And the fact that blacks attack Asians at a higher rate than any other ethnic group? Why aren't you leftists talking about that? Hypocrites...

https://www.financegeek.org/chinese/...n-asian-crime/

You started a thread about how the left is hypocritical because they don't care about a crime involving black criminals and a white victim and I'm just pointing out how it doesn't make sense. I have no interest in discussing affirmative action or the recent Asian hate crimes with you in this context.

[seer]

Doing something in accordance to what you say you want to do is the opposite of hypocritical. An action to the contrary would be hypocritical. Leftwing media focusing on crimes against minority groups is in accordance to what the left says they care about, therefore it's not hypocritical. The left would have to be bringing harm to a minority group, which would be contrary to what the left says it stands for, in order to be hypocritical. I don't know what you're referring to in regards to cities and racial hatred, but if these actions result in minority oppression, then those would be apt examples of hypocrisy.

So they can claim to care about minorities, but really don't, and get to escape the charge of hypocrisy? Sorry I'm not buying it. It's like me publicly coming out against porn and trying to make it illegal all the while watching it myself. As long as speak in accordance with what I claim I get to escape the charge of hypocrisy?

You started a thread about how the left is hypocritical because they don't care about a crime involving black criminals and a white victim and I'm just pointing out how it doesn't make sense. I have no interest in discussing affirmative action or the recent Asian hate crimes with you in this context.

It makes perfect sense to a rational mind. The Asian and College things were other examples.

[CivilDiscourse]

Doing something in accordance to what you say you want to do is the opposite of hypocritical. An action to the contrary would be hypocritical. Leftwing media focusing on crimes against minority groups is in accordance to what the left says they care about, therefore it's not hypocritical. The left would have to be bringing harm to a minority group, which would be contrary to what the left says it stands for, in order to be hypocritical. I don't know what you're referring to in regards to cities and racial hatred, but if these actions result in minority oppression, then those would be apt examples of hypocrisy.



You started a thread about how the left is hypocritical because they don't care about a crime involving black criminals and a white victim and I'm just pointing out how it doesn't make sense. I have no interest in discussing affirmative action or the recent Asian hate crimes with you in this context.

So, what you are saying is that they aren't hypocritical, they just have a double standard.

[Psychic Missile]

So they can claim to care about minorities, but really don't, and get to escape the charge of hypocrisy? Sorry I'm not buying it. It's like me publicly coming out against porn and trying to make it illegal all the while watching it myself. As long as speak in accordance with what I claim I get to escape the charge of hypocrisy?

The specific example this thread is based on is not hypocrisy, that does not mean the left can't be hypocritical.

It makes perfect sense to a rational mind. The Asian and College things were other examples.

If I say that I love chocolate, then I share new stories about how chocolate is good for you and ignore news stories about how chocolate is bad for you, I may have a confirmation bias, but I'm not hypocritical. I'm doing exactly what you would expect me to do. If I say that I love chocolate but then vote to have chocolate banned, then I'm a hypocrite. My words and deeds don't match.

I've seen this type of thing before, where someone will point to a news story like this and ask "why isn't this more widely reported?" when the answer is apparent and behaviorally consistent. I just don't get the point.

[Psychic Missile]

So, what you are saying is that they aren't hypocritical, they just have a double standard.

I don't think so because the circumstances Seer was talking about in the original post are seen as qualitatively different due to context.

[CivilDiscourse]

I don't think so because the circumstances Seer was talking about in the original post are seen as qualitatively different due to context.

But that "context" creates a double standard. After all, a hate crime by blacks against a white man being seen and judged differently (and therefore held to a different standard) than a hate crime by whites against a black man is a double standard.

This isn't an isolated thing. They have "punching up vs punching down" to create standards about prejudicial attacks that differ. They have "racebending and whitewashing" to create standards about changing the race of a fictional character that differ. They also have "Racist" vs "severely prejudiced" to create different standards about what previously was simply called racist.

[Cow Poke]

But that "context" creates a double standard. After all, a hate crime by blacks against a white man being seen and judged differently (and therefore held to a different standard) than a hate crime by whites against a black man is a double standard.

This isn't an isolated thing. They have "punching up vs punching down" to create standards about prejudicial attacks that differ. They have "racebending and whitewashing" to create standards about changing the race of a fictional character that differ. They also have "Racist" vs "severely prejudiced" to create different standards about what previously was simply called racist.

Whatever happened to "the content of their character" instead of skin color?

[NorrinRadd]

Whatever happened to "the content of their character" instead of skin color?

If MLK were alive and preaching today, the Left would cancel him if not kill him

[seer]

If I say that I love chocolate, then I share new stories about how chocolate is good for you and ignore news stories about how chocolate is bad for you, I may have a confirmation bias, but I'm not hypocritical. I'm doing exactly what you would expect me to do. If I say that I love chocolate but then vote to have chocolate banned, then I'm a hypocrite. My words and deeds don't match.

I've seen this type of thing before, where someone will point to a news story like this and ask "why isn't this more widely reported?" when the answer is apparent and behaviorally consistent. I just don't get the point.

What if you really didn't like chocolate,and went around telling everyone how much you loved it and how great it was?

[Cow Poke]

If MLK were alive and preaching today, the Left would cancel him if not kill him

Isn't that amazing? Especially when he would speak about blacks committing an inordinate amount of crime relative to their demographics in a community - Ferguson, Mo, no less!

[Bill the Cat]

Your title is backward

[NorrinRadd]

Your title is backward

He did it intentionally to make a point.