Ham Steak + Muslims = Instant Hate Crime

[RollingSkull]

Man, these days, you don't even have to beat some dude to death or firebomb something to succeed at a hate crime.

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/208385-3/LewistonAuburn/Hate_incident_in_city/

LEWISTON - One student has been suspended and more disciplinary action could follow a possible hate crime at Lewiston Middle School, Superintendent Leon Levesque said Wednesday.

On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive.

The act reminded students of a man who threw a pig's head into a Lewiston mosque last summer.

The school incident is being treated seriously as "a hate incident," Levesque said. Lewiston police are investigating, and the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence is working with the school to create a response plan.
...

"Incidents like this that involve degrading language or conduct are often said by the perpetrator as a joke. I know that conduct is never static," he said. "It's part of a process of escalation."
First it is a viciously placed ham steak... then, firebombing mosques. They follow like... well... bacon and eggs?

WAIT NO I MEAN

AW fuck I COMMITTED A HATE CRIME!

[camoor]

Well, if you read the article, the porkbag kid did sound like a bully, you know, one of those a-holes back in the day that always meant trouble. No doubt he deserved some sort of punishment.

Charging the porkbag kid with a crime for this is pretty ridiculous however - he's probably not a racist but rather a grade-a jackass. Because of this kind case, people believe it's a crime to insult someone. It really has been a disturbing trend.

I don't know about anyone else, but if this had been all that I had had to go through in HS I would have been thankful.

And that Somali kid really doesn't sound racist at all. Wow - one white person threw some pork in a bag at him, and a few white people laughed - that means all white people must be jerks!

[RollingSkull]

Dude, I do worse stuff than that daily, to my friends. Yeah, he did so in a jerkweed way, but he threw a sack of meat on a table!

[Chacrana]

What I think is interesting is that it's being treated as a "serious hate crime" and the kid's in middle school. I don't care if it was unintentional or if he was being a douche -- this is kind of a ridiculous response.

[VanillaGorilla]

Ha, religion. If pigs were so great, they would be humans, and not 4-Legs-of-Deliciousness.

[Ikohn4ever]

it was a jackass thing to do and the kid should be punished and it was obviously a deliberate attempt to humiliate him through his religion. Hate crime is taking it kinda far, though the kid should prob go to some sort of sensitivity training.

[RollingSkull]

Where I come from, that's called getting someone's goat. If putting someone in proximity to ham steak is going to elicit a disproportionate reaction from you, then the entire school will continue doing it.

[RollingSkull]

Not unrelated:

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1130134.html

What if a campus fails to make these changes, and others like them? It is guilty, says the report, of "Islamophobia" -- an "emerging form of racism," according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Islamophobia includes more than clearly inappropriate behavior such as violence against Muslims or unreasonable suspicion of them. It can be as "subtle" as a remark that includes a "stereotype" or betrays the speaker's "lack of understanding" of Islam (such as the notion that Sharia law treats women as second class citizens). Just "one comment" of this kind can create a "poisoned" learning environment for Muslim students, the report says.
A great rhetorical trick. Define down "-phobia" to mean "Not a de facto Muslim." Like the entire culture knows how to push our buttons.

It gets better!

"Islamophobic" comments will soon land Canadians in serious trouble, if the federation has its way. The report outlines a comprehensive system "to encourage and facilitate a culture of reporting Islamophobia on campus. Anti-discrimination officers should be notified whenever such a comment is made, it says.

But the report makes clear that systems like this will not eradicate Islamophobia from Canadian campuses. To remove stereotypes, faculty, staff, students and administrators must all learn "the tenets of Islam," it said. "Education modules" for professors should incorporate a focus on "Islam and Islamophobia," while student activities could range from more courses on themes of the Qur'an and the Islamic world today to "socials, programs and other initiatives" to teach about Islam. Everyone on campus should learn to recognize his or her "collective responsibility to identify and stop Islamophobia."

Throughout this process, however, Islam must not be taught from a "Western perspective." This qualifies as Islamophobia, because it "misrepresents Islam." At the same time, the report says, some Muslim students have called for integrating "Islamic perspectives" in disciplines such as marketing, nursing and finance," since Islam's view of these differs from those of the West.


What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!

[YoshiFan1]

"On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive."

If the student was not white, do you think they would have mentioned the race?

[RollingSkull]

"On April 11, a white student placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where Somali students were eating. Muslims consider pork unclean and offensive."

If the student was not white, do you think they would have mentioned the race?

No. (http://mitchieville.blogspot.com/2007/04/horror-story-msm-has-tried-to-bury.html)

[Metal Boss]

No. (http://mitchieville.blogspot.com/2007/04/horror-story-msm-has-tried-to-bury.html)

There is no fate the United States justice system could provide that would bring about a fitting end to these fuckers


Why isn't this case reported as a 'hate crime' like it would have been if it was the other way around?

[evanft]

People are REALLY retarded.

[SpazX]

What he did was a "hate incident" in the fact that he obviously chose to do something that would insult their religion in particular. How that can be misunderstood is beyond me. He shouldn't be charged with a crime, but it's someting that should be taken seriously, not laughed off.

[camoor]

Not unrelated:

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1130134.html


A great rhetorical trick. Define down "-phobia" to mean "Not a de facto Muslim." Like the entire culture knows how to push our buttons.

It gets better!



What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!

I fear the day that schools can't serve hotdogs because being near pork will offend the muslims.

The mainstream religions already got their god in our pledges and on our money last century - who knows how far this perversion of our government in the "Land of the 'Free'"will spread.

RS - that's one sad story.

[trq]

What he did was a "hate incident" in the fact that he obviously chose to do something that would insult their religion in particular. How that can be misunderstood is beyond me. He shouldn't be charged with a crime, but it's someting that should be taken seriously, not laughed off.

That's about right. If you intentionally try to be an offensive dickwad, you get suspended. That's not a tough concept to grasp. But getting the cops involved? Sheesh. Schools are hyper-sensitive, but I can't say I blame them, considering how often even more hyper-sensitive parents sue them.

[trq]

What this means is that failure to comply with the Koran merits "reeducation." To avoid this, the college will need to offer, and students will need to take, classes glorifying Islam, which cannot be taught academically. To do so would be racist, Islamophobic, what have you. No, you must teach pure Islam, unfiltered through the dirty minds of the infidels.

I love these guys. They have basically figured out how to play western societies in ways I have been dreaming of for years!

There's nothing in there about "complying" or "glorifying." It's not one iota different from how students are taught to look at different eras or cultures in any other discipline: you judge them according to their own standards, not yours. You know: the idea that you're not automatically right just because you're "you." It's that whole "open mind" thing. Helps with the learning. Kind of a laudable goal for schools, probably.

[Msut77]

Is Rollingskull actually arguing that this was an accidental ham?

Or is he just that much of a flaming ninny?

[MrBadExample]

I fear the day that schools can't serve hotdogs because being near pork will offend the muslims..
Hot dogs will always be allowed since there's no real meat in them anyway.:lol:

[YoshiFan1]

There is no fate the United States justice system could provide that would bring about a fitting end to these fuckers


Why isn't this case reported as a 'hate crime' like it would have been if it was the other way around?

Because whites can only commit a hate crime, and not be the victim of one (at least that unfortunately appears to be the case). I can't believe I never heard of this incident either.

[Ikohn4ever]

No. (http://mitchieville.blogspot.com/2007/04/horror-story-msm-has-tried-to-bury.html)


do u even read the articles, nowhere in the actual news articles used as the sources were there mention of "The animals pictured below raped Christopher Newsom, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend, Channon Christian, to watch. An even more cruel fate awaited her!

Channon Christian, was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth … and then murdered her."


so either someone has some serious inside connections and that info didnt get released to the media or its total BS, i am in no way degrading the murder of these two individuals, but lets get the facts right at least


ohh and here are the sources http://www.nowpublic.com/knox_blacks_celebrate_carjacking_rapists_in_party

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=5930690

[RollingSkull]

There's nothing in there about "complying" or "glorifying." It's not one iota different from how students are taught to look at different eras or cultures in any other discipline: you judge them according to their own standards, not yours. You know: the idea that you're not automatically right just because you're "you." It's that whole "open mind" thing. Helps with the learning. Kind of a laudable goal for schools, probably.

Reread the entire article. The modules focus on "Islam and Islamophobia" and they are defining Islamophobia down to include offering school grants with interest, as the Koran forbids usury. I think you're idealizing their motives a smidge more than is justified by the facts. Consider, also, that Aussie schools have began to erase Holocaust history from their cirriculae so as not to conflict with the teachings their Islamic students have received from their own church teachings.

Furthermore, I think that sort of knee-jerk nonjudgementalism (How dare you presume to judge group X! You're not even ONE of them. You just think you're right because you don't understand their point of view!) has been a blight on the public education system for as long as I remember sitting through brain dead history class after brain dead history class, each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS and a paradigm that can only allow self-flagellation, repeatedly advancing the notion that America has always been the one true force for evil in all of the world's history.

[RollingSkull]

That's about right. If you intentionally try to be an offensive dickwad, you get suspended. That's not a tough concept to grasp. But getting the cops involved? Sheesh. Schools are hyper-sensitive, but I can't say I blame them, considering how often even more hyper-sensitive parents sue them.
I am now beginning to see the logistical advantages of having a religion that considers receiving bad grades or being charged MSRP for video games to be a deeply offensive thing.

Seriously though. He placed a bag of meat on the table near them! It isn't like he called the lot of them sand$$$$ers. (Just an excuse to use the $$$$er censor image. I love that.) Are you seriously advocating that we define out as suspendable actions based on the whims of the most offended subgroup? If so, I'm going out of my way to make a religion that forbids cutting in line, walking slowly, and standing in large groups to block a hallway.

To take a different rhetorical track, I think school idiocy like this certainly isn't going to help those Muslims fit in. The message has been sent. They're special. Protected. You can't prank them like you can just about anyone else, or the administration will be on you like white on rice. Think that isn't going to inspire even more ill will from their classmates?

[RollingSkull]

do u even read the articles, nowhere in the actual news articles used as the sources were there mention of (snip)[/URL]


D'oh! I made the wrong copy/paste!

[URL="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTZmN2EyYTAxY2YzMGQyMmI5ZDUxODg4OTA5ZDdhZjY="]This (http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=5930690) was the choice I meant to make in my article selection.

[RollingSkull]

Is Rollingskull actually arguing that this was an accidental ham?

Or is he just that much of a flaming ninny?

Msut, please, what we had was great. The stuff of legends. You were the Lucy to my Ricky. The Dianne to my Sam. The Edith to my Archie. The Rebecca to my... well... also Sam. The Lovey to my Thurston.

But, it is over now, sweetie. You're going to have to move on. I know I have,

[Msut77]

each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html

[mykevermin]

To be fair, while it's fascinating that the news did not jump all over the Christian/Newsom murders, it's not evidence of a anti-white double standard. After all, who was the centerpiece of the news before Imus, Gonzalez, and VT?

Anna Nicole.

Who get national stories when they're abducted? Pretty white females.

What groups are more likely to be abducted but aren't reported on? Black females (and, I believe, males).

The media is a mess, and I don't excuse their failure to report on that case. It certainly has all the elements of sensationalism and outrage that national news channels crave.

As for the point you're trying to make with that incident, it falls on deaf ears, given the regional small-town paper you cite in the OP.

The fact of the matter is that a ham-steak is considerable as a "hate incident." There's no two ways about it, IMO.

You can take issue with its designation, you can take issue with the police involvement, or you can take issue with both. Personally, I see no reason to think of it as anything but a hate incident (you must admit, a ham steak is a pretty absurd thing to taunt someone with unless you fully grasp what is considered unclean by Muslim doctrine, and select those people as a target). I would disagree with official involvement and the need to "make an extreme example" of this kid. It seems to have backfired, as people (like you) are feeling sorry for this fucker because you feel he's being overpunished. I don't disagree that the punishment is unnecessary, but still think the kid is a fucker.

Now, I think you need to reconsider how "hate crime" is defined by US law before making any further claims. I don't know how Canada does it, but I do know how the US (or at least most states) do it, and your insistence (in the OP) of massive violence is unnecessary and unrelated to "hate crime" designation.

[RollingSkull]

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
Msut, dear, that's why I loved you. The amusing little way in which you prove my point for me.

Of course I knew about that letter. I almost was hoping someone would dig it up.

If the burden of proof for unqualified statements in college level US History books about multiple instances of smallpox blankets is a single mention of the possibility of it in a single letter, then I rest my case regarding history classes being crap.

[RollingSkull]

To be fair, while it's fascinating that the news did not jump all over the Christian/Newsom murders, it's not evidence of a anti-white double standard. After all, who was the centerpiece of the news before Imus, Gonzalez, and VT?

Anna Nicole.

Who get national stories when they're abducted? Pretty white females.

What groups are more likely to be abducted but aren't reported on? Black females (and, I believe, males).

The media is a mess, and I don't excuse their failure to report on that case. It certainly has all the elements of sensationalism and outrage that national news channels crave.

I disagree with you on your basic principles there. For starters, I'm not implying an anti-white double standard in the news. I'd say it ranges more along the pro-non-white-ethnic-group standard, which comes from a (p, m)aternalistic mindset that to give out that sort of information inflames racial ill will against non-whites. Approach it from that paradigm, and I think it holds for most media practices. (Well, when combined with the ratings grab of an attractive little blond girl in peril when you factor in the sleaze of the likes of Geraldo and Greta.*)

*This should go without saying, but Fox News dipwad reporters are the only ones whose names I can recall. Please don't take it as affirmation about the EVILS of FAUX NEWS.

As for the point you're trying to make with that incident, it falls on deaf ears, given the regional small-town paper you cite in the OP.

The fact of the matter is that a ham-steak is considerable as a "hate incident." There's no two ways about it, IMO.

You can take issue with its designation, you can take issue with the police involvement, or you can take issue with both. Personally, I see no reason to think of it as anything but a hate incident (you must admit, a ham steak is a pretty absurd thing to taunt someone with unless you fully grasp what is considered unclean by Muslim doctrine, and select those people as a target). I would disagree with official involvement and the need to "make an extreme example" of this kid. It seems to have backfired, as people (like you) are feeling sorry for this fucker because you feel he's being overpunished. I don't disagree that the punishment is unnecessary, but still think the kid is a fucker.

Now, I think you need to reconsider how "hate crime" is defined by US law before making any further claims. I don't know how Canada does it, but I do know how the US (or at least most states) do it, and your insistence (in the OP) of massive violence is unnecessary and unrelated to "hate crime" designation.

I think it goes without saying, but hate crime designations are bunk anyway. I need not explain why unless someone has the stones to contest me on that one. Furthermore, I think it goes without saying that my statement (More mocking at how much easier 'bigotry' has become) in the original post was a jest.

I, for one, have seen readings of the Koran that claim that eating pork is bad, not simply being around it. And I could, were I to retrace my steps over the ENTIRE INTERNETS, unearth a good deal of anecdotes of Muslims being less than strict about it.

That said, I'm not entirely sure where you're approaching this from, if you're slavishly devoted to the legal definition of a 'hate incident'... or, well, I don't know.

I don't know what you mean by my point "falling on deaf ears." And I certainly don't agree that the administrations efforts have backfired. They've suspended the kid. The message has been sent to those students.

[camoor]

Once you start criminalizing the hate emotion, you're taking a step into Orwellian thought-police land.

Crime is crime.

An accused person's sentence shouldn't depend on the color of their skin and the color of the victims skin. That's called racism.

[SpazX]

Once you start criminalizing the hate emotion, you're taking a step into Orwellian thought-police land.

Crime is crime.

An accused person's sentence shouldn't depend on the color of their skin and the color of the victims skin. That's called racism.
The point isn't to actually define and sentence based on the emotion of "hate." That's simply the word they use to name it. You're right that it shouldn't depend on the color of skin, but that's not what it's supposed to do (how it works in individual cases is another story). Sentencing does depend on intent, as it should, and this is simply another level of intent.

When someone commits a hate crime they're supposed to get a harsher sentence because they are not only attacking an individual they are attacking a group through that individual.

An obvious example: A Klansman burning down a black family's house is more than a crime against that one family. They pick out that victim because of their race and their intent is to spread fear among them and therefore attack that entire group.

[Msut77]

Msut, dear, that's why I loved you. The amusing little way in which you prove my point for me.

Of course I knew about that letter. I almost was hoping someone would dig it up.

If the burden of proof for unqualified statements in college level US History books about multiple instances of smallpox blankets is a single mention of the possibility of it in a single letter, then I rest my case regarding history classes being crap.

You sound like a Holocaust denier.

There was more than one letter by him showing he was completely bent on exterminating Native Americans.

[SpazX]

Are smallpox blankets in and of themselves really that relevant RollingSkull? Is the forced relocation and extermination of native americans not readily apparent? Are you trying to say that the main culprits behind it were not white Americans?

Just what exactly is the point?

EDIT: If anything grade school history is incredibly rosy and college history only seems so harsh in contrast to the avoidance of actually teaching anything in grade school.

All that aside from the bias that any particular textbook may have since they are indeed written by people.

[RollingSkull]

Are smallpox blankets in and of themselves really that relevant RollingSkull? Is the forced relocation and extermination of native americans not readily apparent? Are you trying to say that the main culprits behind it were not white Americans?

Just what exactly is the point?

This is a fairly common fallacy. Allow me to paraphrase it with a skit, as this is the best way I can describe it.

Msut: Hitler killed 7 billion Jews.
RS: Er... I don't think there are that many Jews on planet Earth. He couldn't possibly have killed that many.
Msut: Defending Hitler again, are we?
SpazX: Well, he still committed genocide. Why are you denying that?

The smallpox blankets was simply a small, but easy example of falsehoods and similar idiocy taught in textbooks, similar also to the myth of Native Americans being "at one with nature" or what have you (Sorry, Native American myths are easy targets, as I've long since forgotten most of my grievances).

The point isn't to actually define and sentence based on the emotion of "hate." That's simply the word they use to name it. You're right that it shouldn't depend on the color of skin, but that's not what it's supposed to do (how it works in individual cases is another story). Sentencing does depend on intent, as it should, and this is simply another level of intent.

Intent has only, in the past, mattered in determining predetermination. Anything beyond that stretches into motive (Which is closer to what you describe. Why they did it. It doesn't matter if you kill your spouse for the insurance money or because she wasn't putting out.) and isn't a part of the prosecution's responsibility. Hate crimes put motive in the hands of the prosecution, and challenge the defendant to prove that the 'hate' motive wasn't in their hearts.

I don't think what the law SHOULD do in this case is as relevant as what it actually does: create protected "victim groups" (currently devoid of white, heterosexual males) who have legal advantages that directly contradict notions of equality before the law, should crimes against these groups be motivated by their membership in said groups (Abstract terminology used because these victim groups could, theoretically, expand indefinitely. Could it be a hate crime to beat up wiggers? Hobos?).

[Ikohn4ever]

The smallpox blankets was simply a small, but easy example of falsehoods and similar idiocy taught in textbooks, similar also to the myth of Native Americans being "at one with nature" or what have you (Sorry, Native American myths are easy targets, as I've long since forgotten most of my grievances).


well its hard to generalize Native Americans since there were so many tribes of them, but there are many examples of them being one with Nature. In the current National Geographic they discuss the Jamestown colony, and one of the reasons they succeeded and the larger group of NA failed was that the Europeans fucKed up the land. They change the way the whole area functioned, introduced livestock destroying grassland and agriculture, introducing earthworms and european honey bees disrupting forests and sustainable agriculture. Now the NA might have no been completely at one with nature but they were much more able to move with nature instead of going completely against it like Europeans.

[RollingSkull]

Geez, you make it sound like every attempt to bring foreign crops and animals is an affront to Gaia and doomed to failure.

The Native Americans weren't especially different from any other nomadic tribal sorts of cultures. They'd use up the resources they could in an area, and move on.

[evanft]

Ya know, it's hard to take someone who QUADRUPLE posts seriously.

[Msut77]

RS: People are telling lies about Hitler.
Msut: Hitler caused the death of around 6 million Jews.
RS: Hitler killed no Jews and Poland attacked Germany first.
Msut: Defending Hitler again, are we?
SpazX: Well, he committed genocide. Why are you denying that?

Meanwhile this is closer to what actually happened.

[Ikohn4ever]

Geez, you make it sound like every attempt to bring foreign crops and animals is an affront to Gaia and doomed to failure.

The Native Americans weren't especially different from any other nomadic tribal sorts of cultures. They'd use up the resources they could in an area, and move on.



I guess u have no idea what happens when you bring flora and fauna from a different ecosystem to a new environment, it can decimate it and take over, very similar to what the Europeans did

[SpazX]

Intent has only, in the past, mattered in determining predetermination. Anything beyond that stretches into motive (Which is closer to what you describe. Why they did it. It doesn't matter if you kill your spouse for the insurance money or because she wasn't putting out.) and isn't a part of the prosecution's responsibility. Hate crimes put motive in the hands of the prosecution, and challenge the defendant to prove that the 'hate' motive wasn't in their hearts.

I don't think what the law SHOULD do in this case is as relevant as what it actually does: create protected "victim groups" (currently devoid of white, heterosexual males) who have legal advantages that directly contradict notions of equality before the law, should crimes against these groups be motivated by their membership in said groups (Abstract terminology used because these victim groups could, theoretically, expand indefinitely. Could it be a hate crime to beat up wiggers? Hobos?).
Yeah you're right, that would be motive.

I agree that every crime that a white guy commits against a minority group should not be a hate crime and I don't believe that all of them are considered hate crimes.

But can you tell me with a straight face that the boy didn't target the somali students because of their religion with the intention of insulting their religion? Can you tell me that when the majority group does something like that to a minority group it doesn't create tension between the groups that can then escalate to more violence? Is that then not a more serious crime?

The Native Americans weren't especially different from any other nomadic tribal sorts of cultures. They'd use up the resources they could in an area, and move on.
In fact, many Native American tribes weren't nomadic until after Europeans came and they lost their land, the ecology was changed, and horses were introduced.

Many tribes also never really became nomadic, as in they didn't wander around for food intentionally. Some were settled, but then moved as Europeans moved in, etc. until they were wiped out or were able to settle somewhere the Europeans didn't go.

[RollingSkull]

But can you tell me with a straight face that the boy didn't target the somali students because of their religion with the intention of insulting their religion? Can you tell me that when the majority group does something like that to a minority group it doesn't create tension between the groups that can then escalate to more violence? Is that then not a more serious crime?

If the minority views the actions of one boy and the people who found his prank funny as indicative of the whole and then brought it up at the next Somali Muslim meeting, I'll cop to what you said if you cop to them being TEH RACIST.

Seriously though, is the law SUPPOSED to punish increasing the "tension" (Scare quotes used to signify a very tenuous legal definition) between groups? How is that its domain? Couldn't the same be said if the boy picked on a group of fat students, increasing strife between fat and thin? Handicapped and non? Deaf?

In addition, wouldn't the perceived preferential treatment of the victim group by the administration also increase resentment towards them?

In fact, many Native American tribes weren't nomadic until after Europeans came and they lost their land, the ecology was changed, and horses were introduced.

Many tribes also never really became nomadic, as in they didn't wander around for food intentionally. Some were settled, but then moved as Europeans moved in, etc. until they were wiped out or were able to settle somewhere the Europeans didn't go.

We're getting sidetracked. The only thing I'm interested in is that the belief that Native Americans were somehow at one with nature and never overconsumed because of some heightened awareness with Gaia or whatnot is false, and even that as a tangent related to lazy public education.

[RollingSkull]

evanft is a child. What can I say? There has to be someone at the bottom rung even on the internets.

Msut, come on. That's not fair. You know how much it turns me on when you do what you usually do. Whenever you show that hot, HOT complete lack of intellectual consistency you have, that slavish devotion to your own narrative... ooh, sets my heart aflutter.

And then, when you, completely without irony, accuse me of being a mindless Bushbot; a charge made of such deep willful ignorance and equivocation... a charge that shows that you have the intellectual depth of a thimble... Oh, man, I just want to melt in your arms.

I guess u have no idea what happens when you bring flora and fauna from a different ecosystem to a new environment, it can decimate it and take over, very similar to what the Europeans did

And yet, we still eat plants today that are grown in areas that they weren't native to. Inconceivable.

I bet the Native Americans brought them over. They're the only ones who truly were one with nature and could understand which plants were kosher.

Please, the ecosystem will adapt. The short term changes will be shocking, but if you think the ecosystem came into existence in perfect harmony and the SLIGHTEST TOUCH could RUPTURE THE ENTIRE FOOD CHAIN, you are misguided. Civilization would not have come this far if we were too afraid to take control of our environment and add to it what we needed for food.

[SpazX]

If the minority views the actions of one boy and the people who found his prank funny as indicative of the whole and then brought it up at the next Somali Muslim meeting, I'll cop to what you said if you cop to them being TEH RACIST.

That's where the reaction and punishment comes in. If the boy is not punished accordingly and it isn't taken seriously it would be easy for the Somali's to think that the whites there don't care how they are treated. Like the Somali boy was saying in the article, the disapproval of the action by other kids reassured him that it was not acceptable.

Seriously though, is the law SUPPOSED to punish increasing the "tension" (Scare quotes used to signify a very tenuous legal definition) between groups? How is that its domain? Couldn't the same be said if the boy picked on a group of fat students, increasing strife between fat and thin? Handicapped and non? Deaf?

That depends on the case, don't try to make it a slippery slope when you know that some things are more relevant than others. Something that is done with the intention of turning one group against another and causing more violence should be punished more than one that is not.

In addition, wouldn't the perceived preferential treatment of the victim group by the administration also increase resentment towards them?

People almost always will view the treatment as preferential if they lose (or lose vicariously through whichever party they agree with) anyway.

[RollingSkull]

That's where the reaction and punishment comes in. If the boy is not punished accordingly and it isn't taken seriously it would be easy for the Somali's to think that the whites there don't care how they are treated. Like the Somali boy was saying in the article, the disapproval of the action by other kids reassured him that it was not acceptable.
The same could be said for any prankster and his victim. I don't see why this instance means more for a Muslim than for ANY other potential target of a prankster. Any target of the prankster could makes some prejudiced judgement about people like that prankster. Why does the burden fall heavier on the administration to punish more severely if the prankster is white and the victims are a specific victim group? I'm not saying the kid shouldn't have been punished, but it isn't like he slipped pork into their meals. He threw it down in a bag on the table.

That depends on the case, don't try to make it a slippery slope when you know that some things are more relevant than others. Something that is done with the intention of turning one group against another and causing more violence should be punished more than one that is not.
But what it should be doing is not what it is actually doing. An action counts as a hate crime if, through subjective judgement, race is defined as a motivating factor, which puts the onus on the defense to disprove motive (Something evaluated subjectively enough that the humor I take from the $$$$er word censor could be enough to prove motive should I later commit a crime against a black individual.), and gives litigious members of the specified victim groups a weapon that could be used maliciously.

I've never seen hate crimes phrased as specifically dealing with the nebulous concept of making groups dislike each other more. Maybe I'm a little slow, but that isn't a crime in and of itself.

People almost always will view the treatment as preferential if they lose (or lose vicariously through whichever party they agree with) anyway.
Only hate crimes phrase that treatment as a function of one's victim group status. Only hate crimes define out specific victim groups.

[Msut77]

Whenever you show that lack of intellectual consistency you have, that slavish devotion to your own narrative.

And then, when you, completely without irony, accuse me of being a mindless Bushbot; a charge made of such deep willful ignorance and equivocation... a charge that shows that you have the intellectual depth of a thimble

There would not be a problem if you were not such a dishonest nutjob .

[elprincipe]

Fox News dipwad reporters

When using a phrase like this in a posting, is it not a requirement that the name "Shepard Smith" be somewhere close to it?

[trq]

Furthermore, I think that sort of knee-jerk nonjudgementalism (How dare you presume to judge group X! You're not even ONE of them. You just think you're right because you don't understand their point of view!) has been a blight on the public education system for as long as I remember sitting through brain dead history class after brain dead history class, each ideologically hamstrung by falsehoods like SMALLPOX BLANKETS and a paradigm that can only allow self-flagellation, repeatedly advancing the notion that America has always been the one true force for evil in all of the world's history.

Actually, it's pretty carefully considered nonjudgementalism. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that if you (the general "you") think you already know everything, you're not going to learn much. Simply picking a historical period or a different culture and giving them all the "benefit" of your modern perspective and society ("Boy, Germans sure were evil fifty years ago.
And how about the South in the Civil War? They must've been real stupid, not knowing it's wrong to keep slaves.") doesn't tell you much of value, like how perfectly typical people might have actual reasons for doing terrible things. So whatever your pet peeves about blankets (and apparently Muslims, if these boards are any judge), white American self-flagellation isn't an integral part of that paradigm. After all, if I'm a proponant of anything, it's consistency.

[trq]

I am now beginning to see the logistical advantages of having a religion that considers receiving bad grades or being charged MSRP for video games to be a deeply offensive thing.

Hey, creating a religion wholecloth worked for L. Ron Hubbard; knock yourself out.

Seriously though. He placed a bag of meat on the table near them! It isn't like he called the lot of them sand$$$$ers. (Just an excuse to use the $$$$er censor image. I love that.) Are you seriously advocating that we define out as suspendable actions based on the whims of the most offended subgroup? If so, I'm going out of my way to make a religion that forbids cutting in line, walking slowly, and standing in large groups to block a hallway.

Nobody's really aguing that this isn't an overreaction to some degree, as far as I can tell. It ain't perfect, but letting the people who aren't offended determine what's offensive to other people doesn't work, either. ("It should be okay to call people $$$$ers; it doesn't offend me." "But you're white." "So?")

Consider the swastika -- despite 1,500 years of use as a buddhist and hindu sun symbol, it's highly offensive to jews. How do you tell what's fair use? It has to fall to intent, and this kid intended to be a douche and go after race/religion.

To take a different rhetorical track, I think school idiocy like this certainly isn't going to help those Muslims fit in. The message has been sent. They're special. Protected. You can't prank them like you can just about anyone else, or the administration will be on you like white on rice. Think that isn't going to inspire even more ill will from their classmates?

If he just wanted to clown on the somali kid, he should have made fun of his shoes or his backpack or any of the millions of things you can tear into a kid for. He didn't. So the message isn't that the Somali kid's special; it's that he's in the same category as, say, every black kid who wouldn't take someone dropping watermelon and fried chicken on his table.

[camoor]

Nobody's really aguing that this isn't an overreaction to some degree, as far as I can tell. It ain't perfect, but letting the people who aren't offended determine what's offensive to other people doesn't work, either. ("It should be okay to call people $$$$ers; it doesn't offend me." "But you're white." "So?")

What about the first amendment? I think that once people start to talk about this as a crime, then it's fair to cite the first amendment's right to free speech. There's no amendment guaranteeing your right to not be offended.

[SpazX]

The same could be said for any prankster and his victim. I don't see why this instance means more for a Muslim than for ANY other potential target of a prankster. Any target of the prankster could makes some prejudiced judgement about people like that prankster. Why does the burden fall heavier on the administration to punish more severely if the prankster is white and the victims are a specific victim group? I'm not saying the kid shouldn't have been punished, but it isn't like he slipped pork into their meals. He threw it down in a bag on the table.

It's different because minorities require more protection than majorities just by virtue of the fact that they're a minority, especially such an extreme minority as those Somali kids in a town that's 96% white.

An example: If you were to go to a country in the Middle East that was majority Middle Eastern Muslim and slam down a ham sandwich they'd probably laugh at you (provided you didn't pick some violent fundamentalists...).

They have the security in knowing that they are the majority. Everyone else is like them and agrees with them. The Somali students don't have that security by default, it has to be shown to them.

But what it should be doing is not what it is actually doing. An action counts as a hate crime if, through subjective judgement, race is defined as a motivating factor, which puts the onus on the defense to disprove motive (Something evaluated subjectively enough that the humor I take from the $$$$er word censor could be enough to prove motive should I later commit a crime against a black individual.), and gives litigious members of the specified victim groups a weapon that could be used maliciously.

I've never seen hate crimes phrased as specifically dealing with the nebulous concept of making groups dislike each other more. Maybe I'm a little slow, but that isn't a crime in and of itself.

You don't throw out hate crime laws if people use them improperly though. You have to either make sure they're not used improperly or alter them to be as specific as possible. People sue too often, but that doesn't mean you take away their right to sue since it's quite often justified.

I'd have to know how often they're used improperly to know if it's really a problem. If I ever have the free time I'll look into it :-P.

Only hate crimes phrase that treatment as a function of one's victim group status. Only hate crimes define out specific victim groups.

And they're not worded so that they exclude the majority, it's just that people don't find it necessary to defend the majority like they do a minority group. Just as the 1st Amendment is used to protect speech, religion, etc. that is unpopular since it's unnecessary to defend something nobody cares about anyway.

[RollingSkull]

When using a phrase like this in a posting, is it not a requirement that the name "Shepard Smith" be somewhere close to it?

They ARE synonyms, aren't they?

[elprincipe]

("Boy, Germans sure were evil fifty years ago.
And how about the South in the Civil War? They must've been real stupid, not knowing it's wrong to keep slaves.")

You're not seriously arguing that Nazis and slavery weren't evil, are you? Your moral relativism is getting out of hand.

[RollingSkull]

Actually, it's pretty carefully considered nonjudgementalism. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that if you (the general "you") think you already know everything, you're not going to learn much. Simply picking a historical period or a different culture and giving them all the "benefit" of your modern perspective and society ("Boy, Germans sure were evil fifty years ago.
And how about the South in the Civil War? They must've been real stupid, not knowing it's wrong to keep slaves.") doesn't tell you much of value, like how perfectly typical people might have actual reasons for doing terrible things. So whatever your pet peeves about blankets (and apparently Muslims, if these boards are any judge), white American self-flagellation isn't an integral part of that paradigm. After all, if I'm a proponant of anything, it's consistency.

THOSE FILTY SAND$$$$erS

Ahem.

Man, sandninja has SUCH a nice ring to it.

I'm not saying that we judge every other culture by holding them against progress made today. No cirriculum I've seen has done that, and I'm fairly sure the proposed Islamic cirriculum being discussed is not simply trying to prevent that either. How many people would be up in arms if schools were forced to teach a Christian cirriculum, topics as decided by the Catholic church?

But you don't learn anything either if you shield yourself from ever saying "Wow, that was barbaric" where it is merited. It prevents the students from truly understanding the progress made in modern societies and fosters bad habits of placing other cultures on the "exotic" pedastal, which is precisely the sort of thing that fosters myths like the ecological Native American or allows cirriculae to gloss over the less palatable aspects of certain cultures.

Nobody's really aguing that this isn't an overreaction to some degree, as far as I can tell. It ain't perfect, but letting the people who aren't offended determine what's offensive to other people doesn't work, either. ("It should be okay to call people $$$$ers; it doesn't offend me." "But you're white." "So?")

Consider the swastika -- despite 1,500 years of use as a buddhist and hindu sun symbol, it's highly offensive to jews. How do you tell what's fair use? It has to fall to intent, and this kid intended to be a douche and go after race/religion.

You could just go the road of Iran... "The Holocaust didn't happen. What are you guys so upset about?" ;)

Yes, the kid played a joke based on one's religion. He didn't burn a cross in their lawn. He didn't sneak ham into their meals. He placed a bag of ham on the table. Unless simply observing ham will cause Muslims to go directly to hell, what he did is, at best, a minor prank. A minor prank that used their religion at its focal point, yes, but a minor prank nonetheless. Given the gamut of more malicious things he could have done with just a smidge more imagination, I think it is hard to read from his intent that he meant it as anything more than a mean-spirited, yet harmless jest. I don't think it should be read as "SAND$$$$erS SHOULD BURN"

You don't throw out hate crime laws if people use them improperly though. You have to either make sure they're not used improperly or alter them to be as specific as possible. People sue too often, but that doesn't mean you take away their right to sue since it's quite often justified.

That's not the point. I don't think they're constitutional and I don't think they should be within the scope of our justice system. There is no patch fix for including subjective motive within the scope of the prosecution to prove and the defense to disprove. We have never done that in the past with very good reason. We have never judged a crime more severe based on its motive, only on whether it is a crime of passion or premeditation. I don't think it fits with legal tradition, and I don't think it jives with the Constitution, mainly equal protection. And, mostly, I think it is redundant. We already have established laws and punishments for beating people, lighting crosses on their lawn, what have you. That the crime is somehow worse because it was done for reason x instead of y is absurd to me.

And they're not worded so that they exclude the majority, it's just that people don't find it necessary to defend the majority like they do a minority group. Just as the 1st Amendment is used to protect speech, religion, etc. that is unpopular since it's unnecessary to defend something nobody cares about anyway.

How they're worded does not change how they are perceived, which is relevant in this case because they exacerbate the racial tensions they seek to combat (A fallacious bit of logic in and of itself, using laws of this sort to fix a social ill, but that point hasn't been made directly, so tis a straw man.), by providing the minorities protected legal status.

I could always, by the way, just dare you to prosecute as a hate crime a murder of a white individual committed by a black individual. I'll bet $20 on the outcome of that.

[evanft]

This thread is like a rollercoaster.

[RollingSkull]

I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.

Oh fuck. It is over. /thread. I lose. :(

[SpazX]

That's not the point. I don't think they're constitutional and I don't think they should be within the scope of our justice system. There is no patch fix for including subjective motive within the scope of the prosecution to prove and the defense to disprove. We have never done that in the past with very good reason. We have never judged a crime more severe based on its motive, only on whether it is a crime of passion or premeditation. I don't think it fits with legal tradition, and I don't think it jives with the Constitution, mainly equal protection. And, mostly, I think it is redundant. We already have established laws and punishments for beating people, lighting crosses on their lawn, what have you. That the crime is somehow worse because it was done for reason x instead of y is absurd to me.

I think the difference I'm getting at here is the effect of the crime. There are laws against burning crosses on other people's property I'm sure, but what would that be, trespassing and some open flame law? That doesn't address what burning the cross really means or the effect that it has.

I don't like the ability of prosecution to abuse it either, but at the moment I can't think of a better way to address the problem.



How they're worded does not change how they are perceived, which is relevant in this case because they exacerbate the racial tensions they seek to combat (A fallacious bit of logic in and of itself, using laws of this sort to fix a social ill, but that point hasn't been made directly, so tis a straw man.), by providing the minorities protected legal status.

I could always, by the way, just dare you to prosecute as a hate crime a murder of a white individual committed by a black individual. I'll bet $20 on the outcome of that.

Well since minorities are given harsher punishments than whites generally I guess it's not really necessary to punish them more for hate crimes ;).

Laws like these are from the school of thought that racism is best fought through the law rather than social activism (which is disruptive and at times can become violent). Ultimately that doesn't really seem to completely work, but people keep those laws as a decent substitute while society adjusts to treating everyone equally (if that's even ever possible).

I'm ending here, since FrogalP effectively ended the thread with whatever that was. So you can reply or not or whatever, but I'm done. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation.

[RollingSkull]

I think the difference I'm getting at here is the effect of the crime. There are laws against burning crosses on other people's property I'm sure, but what would that be, trespassing and some open flame law? That doesn't address what burning the cross really means or the effect that it has.

I don't like the ability of prosecution to abuse it either, but at the moment I can't think of a better way to address the problem.

I don't think the problem need be addressed through legal terms, especially by making already illegal crimes crimes super-duper bad if they are done because the victim is a minority.

Laws like these are from the school of thought that racism is best fought through the law rather than social activism (which is disruptive and at times can become violent). Ultimately that doesn't really seem to completely work, but people keep those laws as a decent substitute while society adjusts to treating everyone equally (if that's even ever possible).

I don't believe any social ills are particularly well fought by law. The law punishes people that break it, and not a lot else. Take a ride down the local interstate to see what a great job speeding laws have done to combat speeding. ;)

Full disclosure though, as a conservative, there aren't many things the government can do that I don't think people can do better.

I'm ending here, since FrogalP effectively ended the thread with whatever that was. So you can reply or not or whatever, but I'm done. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation.

Hey, that's like picking up FrogalP's victory flag and waving it like your own! Have some class! He was the one who so soundly defeated me! :P

[elprincipe]

I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.

So...any guesses as to what language this was written in before it was run through BabelFish?

[Moxio]

How bitter.

[docvinh]

So...any guesses as to what language this was written in before it was run through BabelFish?
I'm going with Italian.

[evanft]

I those being constitution characteristic, being proper among scales of our administration of justice systems which do not think of that I do not think.

Execution or there is no predicament of the patch because subjective motive within scale of the defense which counterevidence it should do is included in order to prove. As for we of the never very doing in the past that good reason and without being. We never that are crime of passion or premeditation, crime it is harsher having made motive be based, but it judged how, as for without being.

I conformity of legal tradition think that and or, that constitution, jives of mainly equal protection do not think. And, mostly, I think of that that is excessive. Something which is the lawn, crosses the punishment for the people where we establish law already, are attached and strike. How crime as for doing, being in place of y to end because of the reason X, there is an irrationality in, worse thing me.

What was that one guy's name? Ya know, the crazy anti-semite who made all those completely off-the-wall posts?

[trq]

What about the first amendment? I think that once people start to talk about this as a crime, then it's fair to cite the first amendment's right to free speech. There's no amendment guaranteeing your right to not be offended.

Well, the "hate crime" issue is what I think most of us are in agreement about as being an overreaction. My point was purely about this kid not being "over sensitive" and having the same right to be offended as any other person confronted with someone making cracks about his race or religion. I wouldn't be overly bothered in his shoes, but saying that anything that isn't universally offensive to absolutely everyone should be written off as "special treatment" is a poor scale to go by. So once more: Arrested? Too much. Suspended? Is there any group that would just laugh off racial or religious insults in schools? Why should this kid?

You're not seriously arguing that Nazis and slavery weren't evil, are you? Your moral relativism is getting out of hand.

Really? THAT'S what you took from my post? C'mon now.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying, however, is that simply writing them off as "evil" doesn't tell you anything about how these things happened in the first place. Nobody ever considers themselves "evil"; the Nazis didn't wear black because that's just what bad guys do. Everyone thinks they're doing the right or necessary thing. So ignoring that and simply sticking a black hat and curly mustache on them doesn't tell you anything about, say, the dangers of "just following orders," or the pitfalls of hypernationalism, or what can happen when you look for minority scapegoats.

If you're getting moral relativism out of anything I've said, you couldn't have missed the mark by a wider margin. If anything, it's about moral consistency -- either judging oneself (or your own national/racial/religious/whatever group) as harshly as you judge others, or judging them as leiniently as you would yourself. That's fairness. That's objectivity. Blanket "us good, them bad" or "us bad, them good" statements miss the point, and it seems like there are lots of the latter in the OP. Just because I feel compelled to dig into those doesn't mean I'm advocating the opposite position.

[RollingSkull]

Is there any group that would just laugh off racial or religious insults in schools? Why should this kid?
In a perfect world, the Somalis would have learned that the worst thing you can do is let a prankster know he got under your skin.



That's objectivity. Blanket "us good, them bad" or "us bad, them good" statements miss the point, and it seems like there are lots of the latter in the OP. Just because I feel compelled to dig into those doesn't mean I'm advocating the opposite position.
There's nothing wrong with exploring the reasons of x, y, or z, but I shouldn't think it is too world-ending to say "Yes, our culture is better because we don't treat women like property."

[trq]

In a perfect world, the Somalis would have learned that the worst thing you can do is let a prankster know he got under your skin.

Knowing how to deal with some jerkwad IS useful, but "develop lunchroom social skills" is probably about as important as "vote for my American Idol" or "buy new Fallout Boy CD" for some Somali immigrant kid. In any event, I'm not sure that the burden should be on the kid being made fun of, instead of the kid being a dick anyway.

There's nothing wrong with exploring the reasons of x, y, or z, but I shouldn't think it is too world-ending to say "Yes, our culture is better because we don't treat women like property."

Even if we ignore the likely retort along the lines of "No, OUR culture is better because our women aren't filthy whores," it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. What about Europe, where the standard of living is higher, and the freedoms generally more expansive? "Our culture is better because we don't deprive homosexuals of their full rights"? So Europe > USA > Middle East? Wait, wait, the Continent has no real committment to free speech, so maybe we're tied ... but they only limit stuff like Holocaust denial. That's not so bad. And we're still the number one country for arms exportation ... but is that a plus or a minus? Oh, and Canada is sorta like the best of both worlds, so maybe Canada > USA/Europe > Middle East ... and the Middle East has sub-saharan Africa beat by a mile, so ...

So what? It's just not a productive way of thinking about the world. Human civilization is infinitely more complicated than a bowling score sheet.

[elprincipe]

Really? THAT'S what you took from my post? C'mon now.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying, however, is that simply writing them off as "evil" doesn't tell you anything about how these things happened in the first place. Nobody ever considers themselves "evil"; the Nazis didn't wear black because that's just what bad guys do. Everyone thinks they're doing the right or necessary thing. So ignoring that and simply sticking a black hat and curly mustache on them doesn't tell you anything about, say, the dangers of "just following orders," or the pitfalls of hypernationalism, or what can happen when you look for minority scapegoats.

If you're getting moral relativism out of anything I've said, you couldn't have missed the mark by a wider margin. If anything, it's about moral consistency -- either judging oneself (or your own national/racial/religious/whatever group) as harshly as you judge others, or judging them as leiniently as you would yourself. That's fairness. That's objectivity. Blanket "us good, them bad" or "us bad, them good" statements miss the point, and it seems like there are lots of the latter in the OP. Just because I feel compelled to dig into those doesn't mean I'm advocating the opposite position.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I am quick to jump on percieved moral relativism because I detest it so much.

[RollingSkull]

So what? It's just not a productive way of thinking about the world. Human civilization is infinitely more complicated than a bowling score sheet.

Just because civilization is multi-faceted doesn't mean that refusing to take any score at all is an instant route to the high ground. I'm not talking about ranking civilizations based on a scorecard, I'm talking about having the courage of your convictions to believe that your civilization is better in one way or in totality because of specific, justifiable reasons. The contrary mindset is hardly productive either inasmuch as it allows intellectual laziness in the face of otherwise difficult to justify positions. Doctrinaire feminists these days make a great example. The very same people who believe that the Duke Lacrosse dudes were most likely not innocent, and something clearly happened there, will refuse to pass any judgement on anything that comes out of an Islamic country. Germany using Sharia to justify a Moroccan man beating his wife. Iran sentencing rape victims to 100 lashes (Well, it beats the maximum sentence for such a crime: death). (I could probably go on, but I don't exactly memorize these things.) Across the board, doctrinaire feminists will remain silent about these incidents, offering the occasional lip service about how uncomfortable they feel in passing judgement on foreign cultures.

This nonjudgemental way of thinking allows for that sort of intellectual inconsistency, justifying a lazy world view, because it is so much easier to be concerned with the plight of your fellow man within your own country and let any sort of empathy or compassion you proclaim stop at the water's edge.

[camoor]

Well, the "hate crime" issue is what I think most of us are in agreement about as being an overreaction. My point was purely about this kid not being "over sensitive" and having the same right to be offended as any other person confronted with someone making cracks about his race or religion. I wouldn't be overly bothered in his shoes, but saying that anything that isn't universally offensive to absolutely everyone should be written off as "special treatment" is a poor scale to go by. So once more: Arrested? Too much. Suspended? Is there any group that would just laugh off racial or religious insults in schools? Why should this kid?

I was friends with some Mormon kids in my HS, they certainly didn't goto the admin every time someone made a crack.

In fact, whenever someone was cracking wise - they'd just tell all the jokes themselves in a sarcastic "is-that-the-best-you-can-do" way - it was pretty funny and a great way of diffusing the situation.

The Somalis sound like tattle-tails, sometimes you have to fight your own battles in life instead of running to mommy all the time.

[trq]

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I am quick to jump on percieved moral relativism because I detest it so much.

De nada.

Just because civilization is multi-faceted doesn't mean that refusing to take any score at all is an instant route to the high ground. I'm not talking about ranking civilizations based on a scorecard, I'm talking about having the courage of your convictions to believe that your civilization is better in one way or in totality because of specific, justifiable reasons.

I think that's just fundamentally flawed (for one, it treats culture as immutable -- is American culture the same today as it was fifty years ago? -- and by dealing in absolutes, it keeps anyone who thinks their culture is the "best" -- i.e., everyone -- from ever taking or learning from other cultures), so I'll just point out that when it comes to "in total," it's self-contradictory, because to say "Culture X is better than Culture Y" does, in fact, entail keeping a scorecard.

Are you going to tell me that people should have the "courage" to believe they know the one true religion next? Because history has taught us that's a real winning meme so far.

Doctrinaire feminists these days make a great example.

I won't really get into it, since it'd just be way too off topic, but in my experience with that specific subset of feminists, I've found the opposite: that they're all too willing to judge other cultures based on their own standards. I can't think of a more broken-record comment from that camp than "Muslim women have to wear things on their heads and faces! How awful!" Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If they ever tried asking an actual Muslim woman about it, they might not get the answer they expect.

I was friends with some Mormon kids in my HS, they certainly didn't goto the admin every time someone made a crack.

The Somalis sound like tattle-tails, sometimes you have to fight your own battles in life instead of running to mommy all the time.

Good on the Mormon kids, but Utah ain't Somalia. Do we now expect every immigrant to be perfectly and instantly assimilated on arrival? Further, we can "lolz, its a hamm sammich!" all day, but the fact that the "It's not like they ate it!" defense is springing up tells me how little anyone here knows about the kid's religious beliefs, which brings me to my final point: It's not anyone's place to tell other people what they're allowed to be offended by, bottom line.

Maybe the Somali kid's a whiny bitch. Doesn't matter. If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime. Don't want to get suspended? Don't pull shit.

[RollingSkull]

I think that's just fundamentally flawed (for one, it treats culture as immutable -- is American culture the same today as it was fifty years ago? -- and by dealing in absolutes, it keeps anyone who thinks their culture is the "best" -- i.e., everyone -- from ever taking or learning from other cultures), so I'll just point out that when it comes to "in total," it's self-contradictory, because to say "Culture X is better than Culture Y" does, in fact, entail keeping a scorecard.
It doesn't have to. One would expect one's culture can be taken in a current snapshot while being aware of its fluidity. In the same vein, one should not be beholden to EVERY potential change in their culture, especially coming from before they are born.

Are you going to tell me that people should have the "courage" to believe they know the one true religion next? Because history has taught us that's a real winning meme so far.
Don't know any cultures that achieved affluence to this date by understanding other cultures and not judging them.



I won't really get into it, since it'd just be way too off topic, but in my experience with that specific subset of feminists, I've found the opposite: that they're all too willing to judge other cultures based on their own standards. I can't think of a more broken-record comment from that camp than "Muslim women have to wear things on their heads and faces! How awful!"
I could direct you to some websites if interested. My experience is not unsubstantial.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If they ever tried asking an actual Muslim woman about it, they might not get the answer they expect.
By that same metric, who am I to judge my slaveholding ancestors? I was never a part of such a thing, and, really, the cultural differences between the 1800s and today are so immense... Last I heard, the darkies rather enjoyed their work.

And, again, who are we to interfere in, say, Darfur? If those black folk wanna kill each other, that's just what they do. It is their culture, and we really cannot judge them for it.

Good on the Mormon kids, but Utah ain't Somalia. Do we now expect every immigrant to be perfectly and instantly assimilated on arrival? Further, we can "lolz, its a hamm sammich!" all day, but the fact that the "It's not like they ate it!" defense is springing up tells me how little anyone here knows about the kid's religious beliefs, which brings me to my final point: It's not anyone's place to tell other people what they're allowed to be offended by, bottom line.

Maybe the Somali kid's a whiny bitch. Doesn't matter. If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime. Don't want to get suspended? Don't pull shit.
But it isn't our place to cater our society to the most offended individual. That has been a common theme in most of what I've posted in this thread. If we cater to everything the Somali students would get offended by, replete with disproportionate punishment, we are, in effect, instituting their cultural norms on the entire school through a sort of Orwellian version of 'tolerance', in a way that the same people who screamed for separation of church and state would applaud heartily.

[RollingSkull]

And I haven't read anything about Islam that ranks ham at the level of kyptonite to Muslims. I've only seen them as being forbidden from eating it.

[camoor]

Good on the Mormon kids, but Utah ain't Somalia. Do we now expect every immigrant to be perfectly and instantly assimilated on arrival? Further, we can "lolz, its a hamm sammich!" all day, but the fact that the "It's not like they ate it!" defense is springing up tells me how little anyone here knows about the kid's religious beliefs, which brings me to my final point: It's not anyone's place to tell other people what they're allowed to be offended by, bottom line.

Maybe the Somali kid's a whiny bitch. Doesn't matter. If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime. Don't want to get suspended? Don't pull shit.

I agree that the hambag kid should be punished, and I wouldn't argue against a suspension. The only part I thought was ridiculous was the "hate crime" aspect.

I love how everyone needs to tiptoe around mainstream religion, but then you have transparent religious discrimination like this happening all the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24wiccan.html?em&ex=1177560000&en=b32d06a7c7b02220&ei=5087%0A

This guy only had to die for his country to get the right to put what he wanted on his tombstone - forgive me if I can't manage to muster up sympathy and outrage over a situation in which a teenager had to sit through the horror of being one foot away from a ham sandwich.

[CZroe]

Ha, religion. If pigs were so great, they would be humans, and not 4-Legs-of-Deliciousness.

Umm, in all religions that forbid pork, it's not because pigs are revered and considered "great," but rather because pigs are considered "unclean." That's the exact opposite. You're thinking of the way Hindus treat cows.

I agree that the hambag kid should be punished, and I wouldn't argue against a suspension. The only part I thought was ridiculous was the "hate crime" aspect...

Indeed. It has to be a crime on its own to be committed as a hate crime.

[captaincold]

By now you guys know that this was a fake story right?

[CZroe]

By now you guys know that this was a fake story right?
Well, I'm the one who brought it up again, but I was just following the source of the quote from Raynre's signature to provide a correction since it's been getting spread around for so long.

[Snake2715]

Ha, religion. If pigs were so great, they would be humans, and not 4-Legs-of-Deliciousness.

Did you ever look into exactly what they eat? They are actually gross as hell and I am not concerned with any religious aspects of it.

That goes for Crabs and shrimp as well...