That was certainly your prerogative. But the point stands, it is (or at least was) a violation of the rules to demand that another member stop posting.
Since I oppose all hate crime laws, because what crimes are love crimes /trope, I’m not much concerned about either sort.
People’s motives were already considered for determining the sort of crime they’d be charged with. That was enough.
I never said that “every SINGLE SOLITARY NEWS REPORT from real media was not factually accurate” so my statement was not wrong. So your demand that I produce such evidence is undeniably silly.
Excellent idea. Let’s start with the numerous unprovoked assaults on wearers of MAGA hats.
That’s like going after apple pie, baseball and moms.
You are assuming, you are of course free to do so but it is still an assumption.
Yes, I am assuming because that is what we were told by the Moderators when the original Forum closed and this one opened.
No you are assuming that i told snow to stop posting. Are you sure?
Never said any such thing but thank you for playing.
Yeah, the “they report, you decide” types.
I don’t think people would have cared much for the case if it wasn’t for the way media and certain celebrities portrayed it. It was obvious they wanted it to be true from the start to push a narrative. I could link a bunch of clips but you have CNN saying “This is America 2019”. And an actress lambasting the VP over it on the Colbert show, this needs to stop.
Do you support prosecution of hate crime as a hate crime in the most egregious of cases?
Oh my gosh. I logged back in JUST to see if there were such a thread as this. I am NOT disappointed. It’s always highly entertaining to watch libs act so freaking idiotic. This thread, especially the first hundred posts or so should be archived as one of the greats, along with Wavy Lays. Carry on.
There was no way anyone initially would have known it didn’t happen like he said it did.
And people here are jumping on the use of the word “allegedly” saying the fact it wasn’t used is a problem. Read the information below from the Columbia Journalism Review, a respected information source on journalism, for a better understanding of the use of the word. For those of you who haven’t written news stories, the writing is governed by stylebooks used by reporters. The AP’s is probably the most common. Here’s what the CJR says regarding the AP Stylebook. In this case, there was no question initially, so there was no reason to use “allegedly.”
Interestingly, few usage guides address the issue directly. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage says the usage of “alleged murderer” is an Americanism, but is unclear whether it should be avoided, though it seems to lean that way. The Associated Press stylebook implies that “alleged” should not be used with the person, but never says it explicitly. Part of its entry on “allege” reads: “Do not use alleged to describe an event that is known to have occurred, when the dispute is over who participated in it. Do not say: He attended the alleged meeting when what you mean is: He allegedly attended the meeting .” Since in practically every crime the dispute is over who participated in it, one could infer that the AP frowns on the use of “alleged” in front of “murderer” or “thief.”
You mean the one or two of those as opposed to hate crimes in general of which there were over 7,000 in 2017, a rise of 17 percent about 2016?
I can’t answer for WR (though I’m sure I know what he would say.)
For me, no special add-on should exist for “hate crime”.
A crime is a crime. Assault is assault. Murder is murder. Etc.
Ditto add-ons for a crime against any particular occupation. (Road repair guy. Clergy. Doctor. Cop. Whatever.) Murder is murder. Vehicular homicide is vehicular homicide. Etc.
And I also decry the parade of crying family members and acquaintances of the victim at the sentencing hearing. All it does is add emotion to the exercise of the justice system. The sentence should be the sentence for the crime, not a drain for tears.
Yeah, Wavy Lay’s was one of the infamous moments in this board’s history. Along with the New Orleans meetup where someone became a mod by using another’s laptop.
Actually, your link addresses hate crimes REPORTED. Not actual hate crimes.
Smollet’s hoax will be included in the 2019 statistics for crimes REPORTED.
And the increase in hate crimes reported (and actually perpetrated) include crimes against all demographics, so the “one or two” you try to dismiss are also part of those reported. (And it’s not just one or two. And I think you know that.)
No. False crimes, like false alarms, wouldn’t be crimes in the final stats. Therefore Smullett wouldn’t be included.
I disagree. Otherwise the stats would simply be “crimes”. Not “crimes REPORTED”.