-
Features
More deplorables ...
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
repoman
Contributor
White Hispanics are still around:
"White Hispanic" is such a meaningless description. Katherine of Aragon was a "White Hispanic." I guess the purpose of that Tweet was to conjure animus against White people.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,653
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
Why that and not to conjure animus against Hispanics? Or why wasn't the purpose simply to try to be accurate? They could be wrong though. The reports about reports could be wrong too.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Hispanic is a cultural, not a racial descriptor.
And any white hispanic will be happy to explain it to you.
And any white hispanic will be happy to explain it to you.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
And you base that on what exactly?
Also a "White Hispanic" is a Hispanic person who is white. You really need to look up the word "Meaningless" before you use it in a sentence.
- - - Updated - - -
What does this have to do with anything again?
laughing dog
Contributor
Perhaps you could explain why you felt the above was relevant to the topic of this thread.
And after they check their white privilege they can explain what it's like to be a downtrodden minority.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
After you...
Elixir
Made in America
That's why they call it White Nationalism. It lets you trod on anyone who isn't White OR who isn't an American National.
repoman
Contributor
LordKiran
Veteran Member
They didn't get criminal charges by the way.
repoman
Contributor
HAven't had time to read into the case in the bottom picture.
How would you think this ranks for pitifully weak sentencing? Where does it stand compared to the affluenza kid or the swimmer rapist that made the news?
I would say that sticking something up another kids ass is assault even if (and this is a HUGE if) not meant as sexual.
I would say that comparing similar cases makes sense after this has gone through the whole system and sentencing reached.
One aspect of sentencing which may be fucked up this:
If you have a person who comes from a fairly stable and caring family he may have a lighter sentence than someone who was beaten daily and had cigarettes put out on their arm. Because the person with the caring family is more "reformable".
But what if the judge said, you have a nice family therefore you are more depraved than a neglected person doing the same crime and I will give you the max sentence.
How would you think this ranks for pitifully weak sentencing? Where does it stand compared to the affluenza kid or the swimmer rapist that made the news?
I would say that sticking something up another kids ass is assault even if (and this is a HUGE if) not meant as sexual.
I would say that comparing similar cases makes sense after this has gone through the whole system and sentencing reached.
One aspect of sentencing which may be fucked up this:
If you have a person who comes from a fairly stable and caring family he may have a lighter sentence than someone who was beaten daily and had cigarettes put out on their arm. Because the person with the caring family is more "reformable".
But what if the judge said, you have a nice family therefore you are more depraved than a neglected person doing the same crime and I will give you the max sentence.
repoman
Contributor
The editor for this radio segment needs to be disciplined. Imagine the reverse happening.
Making it sound as if the attacker may have been white and the victim black.
Making it sound as if the attacker may have been white and the victim black.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
They gave the one kid community service.
repoman
Contributor
Forgetting race of the offenders for a second. Also forgetting what being 18 means legally.
If there is a group of four people from ~15-19 years old that strongly harass and violate another kid who is mentally challenged and also use racial taunts at the same time...
Would kids who had two married professional parents (accountant, nurse, teacher) receive less harsh penalties than kids who were from broken homes and whose parents had shitty jobs?
Forget even about lawyers, which may be impossible and pointless. Imagine the poor kids managed to get a great public defender.
If there is a group of four people from ~15-19 years old that strongly harass and violate another kid who is mentally challenged and also use racial taunts at the same time...
Would kids who had two married professional parents (accountant, nurse, teacher) receive less harsh penalties than kids who were from broken homes and whose parents had shitty jobs?
Forget even about lawyers, which may be impossible and pointless. Imagine the poor kids managed to get a great public defender.
Derec
Contributor
Not even Jimmy McGill could save them. All the prosecutor would have to do is roll the tape.
fast
Contributor
Breaking news, fast gets another hit to add to the count:
John Lewis talks some smack about Trump, and Trump (being the person he is) smacks back.
Pretty straight forward, I think.
But, if the liberal media is going to report this, they first have to identify the race of the players. They don't have to announce it per se, but they need to identify the race of the players. How else can they plan their spin that makes my progastication so spot-on?
Gotta keep your eye on the ball!
First up, John Lewis ... black
Counter-puncher ... white
Now, this isn't your typical villain/victim dichotomy, but the principle is the same.
If black and bad, down play the misdeeds and down play race
Let's spin the wheel of truthful irelevancies to plan our spin. We already know who the mud will be slung at or misdirected because of race.
So, let's spin the wheel: tick, tick, click, click
Play the race card? Pronounce the issue of race as if Trump was talking smack to a BLACK man?
Nay, that'a overdone and there's no clear victim.
Spin 2: hmmm, what's it gonna land on? Remember, we know who we're gonna shed in a negative light, but we need to circumvent suspicion of dishonesty with utterance of truths.
Ooh, here's one, we can call John Lewis a hero. An icon. He must be held up in high esteem.
Oh but fast, it's true! Yeah, true deception! The media is so dishonest, and speaking the truth blinds people of it.
A man talks smack and another man talks smack back. This has nothing to do with race or past accomplishments, so why wasn't a spin made with alternative truths that cast shades of a different color?
Gee, what was that last word again?
John Lewis talks some smack about Trump, and Trump (being the person he is) smacks back.
Pretty straight forward, I think.
But, if the liberal media is going to report this, they first have to identify the race of the players. They don't have to announce it per se, but they need to identify the race of the players. How else can they plan their spin that makes my progastication so spot-on?
Gotta keep your eye on the ball!
First up, John Lewis ... black
Counter-puncher ... white
Now, this isn't your typical villain/victim dichotomy, but the principle is the same.
If black and bad, down play the misdeeds and down play race
Let's spin the wheel of truthful irelevancies to plan our spin. We already know who the mud will be slung at or misdirected because of race.
So, let's spin the wheel: tick, tick, click, click
Play the race card? Pronounce the issue of race as if Trump was talking smack to a BLACK man?
Nay, that'a overdone and there's no clear victim.
Spin 2: hmmm, what's it gonna land on? Remember, we know who we're gonna shed in a negative light, but we need to circumvent suspicion of dishonesty with utterance of truths.
Ooh, here's one, we can call John Lewis a hero. An icon. He must be held up in high esteem.
Oh but fast, it's true! Yeah, true deception! The media is so dishonest, and speaking the truth blinds people of it.
A man talks smack and another man talks smack back. This has nothing to do with race or past accomplishments, so why wasn't a spin made with alternative truths that cast shades of a different color?
Gee, what was that last word again?