4 Arrested In FB Video Torturing Of A Mentally Challenged Man

[Thumpalumpacus]

What a whiny ass! Damn! I'll lose sleep over this one! I have no credibility with the Thump! Well, the double standards that you and your left leaning buddies hold to regarding racism doesn't give you much credibility either.

You have a shot at a civil conversation here, but you'll need to stop being a cunt in order to have it. We'll see if you can manage that.

The fact that you think I have a double-standard about racism is simply evidence that you didn't read my reply above, wherein I give my opinion on this attack. It's also evidence that you don't know my attitudes about race relations. This is simply one more false allegation of yours ... a further erosion of your believability.

Keep digging, amigo.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, I'm gonna bow out of this thread. It's unfortunate (though telling) that this turned into a debate. This was a racist hate crime against an innocent disabled teenager. Period. There is no debate to be had.

[Napoléon]

Did I fucking say you were the one who posted in politics?

Seemed like you were implying it. I am the OP after all and you said 'it was posted in politics' so...

Why don't you just tell me where you were? Have you defended the black guy who got punched in the face at a Trump rally? Did you defend him when the guy who punched him said he should kill him on television?

Where was the thread on that?

Did you defend the black woman who got beat up for defending Trump's star in Hollywood?

Didn't realise it was a competition where we're keeping count tbh. Seems like you're missing the whole point of anything I've posted here.

When you use words like trigger, it makes me realize that you have been feeding into the American Conservative rhetoric for way too long. Not everyone who disagrees with you is some SJW who is "triggered." Maybe we just think you act a little overly concerned about white people as opposed to other people for someone who isn't racist. I mean, really. I never see not racist people distinguish people white on black and black on white hate crimes. They're just hate crimes, but you are very fast to talk about who is white and who is black when there's a white kid getting his ass beat. Let me spell this out for all of you. This was fucking horrible. That A Theist is using it to further an agenda is disfuckingsgusting. If you associate with and don't denounce that kind of behavior, you're just as bad as he is and you can go fuck yourself with that nonsense. ETA: You have openly stated that you don't share his agenda. I'm glad to hear it. Still, using this as a means to "point out hypocrisy" isn't exactly compassionate, is it? You could have waited until they were actually being hypocrites about it before you started saying they would be hypocrites about it.

Lol sorry I didn't realise they had the monopoly on the word 'triggered'. This is as good as MTV telling me I can't say 'woke'.

Me saying I'm triggering you and playing 4D Tetris is used with an enormous amount of irony. That it seems to go over a lot of people's heads is what makes it more hilarious. I'm basically parodying what r/The_Donald users would be saying and people bite every time.

Maybe I should have waited for people to be hypocrites before calling them so, that's a fair point. In fairness, I haven't said to anyone here they're defending the attackers or anything of the nature. The main thing when I keep saying "double standard" refers to how it is portrayed in the media and subsequently how 'the left' (yes I know this is identity politics and no I am not literally calling you all hypocrites.) downplays incidents when it happens to those on the opposing political spectrum. CNN's Don Lemon literally said "this wasn't evil" about this particular news story. Other left leaning news outlets have done the same.

More often than not I find that the posts on this forum reflect a lot of the shit I see from these MSM outlets. This is what I tried to explain earlier in the thread when you asked about why Bella said what she did (in hindsight I should have just let Bella defend herself on that one).

As I've said. I'm just as disgusted when I see shit happen to black people, it's not a competition though and if you think I'm saying anything of the sort then you're missing the point of what I have my jimmies rustled about.

[A Theist]

What a whiny ass! Damn! I'll lose sleep over this one! I have no credibility with the Thump! Well, the double standards that you and your left leaning buddies hold to regarding racism doesn't give you much credibility either.

You have a shot at a civil conversation here, but you'll need to stop being a cunt in order to have it. We'll see if you can manage that.

The fact that you think I have a double-standard about racism is simply evidence that you didn't read my reply above, wherein I give my opinion on this attack. It's also evidence that you don't know my attitudes about race relations. This is simply one more false allegation of yours ... a further erosion of your believability.

Keep digging, amigo.

If you really want to be civil, yeah sure. We can do that. If you can stop acting like a superior pompousass and agitating these tiffs with your condescending little digs I'll be civil with you in response. We'll see if you're able to manage that one, Kemosabe.

[Napoléon]

You have a shot at a civil conversation here, but you'll need to stop being a cunt in order to have it. We'll see if you can manage that.

The fact that you think I have a double-standard about racism is simply evidence that you didn't read my reply above, wherein I give my opinion on this attack. It's also evidence that you don't know my attitudes about race relations. This is simply one more false allegation of yours ... a further erosion of your believability.

Keep digging, amigo.

This is not necessarily aimed at you Thump, but when certain people bow into a thread like this and immediately brand others racist, it's the same exact feeling you probably have in response to A Theist right now.

Is it not understandable that the discussion gets to this point when people throw terms like that around? Again, a seeming double standard to me that I don't see anyone else bringing up. When Min pops in and effectively says this thread is 'just a bunch of racist shit' (paraphrasing), who else turned around to ask what was racist? Who else turned around and called him out for such a ridiculous comment?

---

A thread started to make a political point, not to acknowledge the horror.  Napo hasn't started a single thread in the last few months that wasn't politically motivated.  If you can't see that this one was, too, I hate to say it, but you're a bit naive, dear.

The thread had no political point. You can think that all you want. It was the top post on r/news at the time and I posted it here because it wasn't already covered. If someone else had made the thread then I wouldn't have posted it myself, but generally if I have something I want to post about and it hasn't been posted about, I'm going to have to create a thread in order to post about it...

The subsequent direction of the discussion went political sure, but when you have an incident where people used the term "Fuck Trump", it's definitely going to be a talking point within the thread isn't it.

[Autumnlicious]

Well, I'm gonna bow out of this thread. It's unfortunate (though telling) that this turned into a debate. This was a racist hate crime against an innocent disabled teenager. Period. There is no debate to be had.

There never was a debate over if it was a hate crime. Period.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, I'm gonna bow out of this thread. It's unfortunate (though telling) that this turned into a debate. This was a racist hate crime against an innocent disabled teenager. Period. There is no debate to be had.

There never was a debate over if it was a hate crime. Period.

never said that

[Autumnlicious]

You did. Let me single step you through English. If it is not what you intended, then I expect it will be easy to clarify your position.

Here are the assumptions/axioms employed:

- You would not have included within the same paragraph unconnected ideas/statements. (A fair assumption given that you would not be able to communicate otherwise)

- You had some point or set of points to express (as opposed to a meaningless platitude)

Please correct me if my assumption on reading what you write is incorrect.



1. "It's unfortunate (though telling) that this turned into a debate."

- This establishes there is some debate, but does not specify what it is about. A safe assumption is either it will be left unspecified (thus requiring a thread read to establish) or will be specified shortly.

2. "This was a racist hate crime against an innocent disabled teenager. "

- this is either a bare statement of fact (stand alone) or could be related to the undefined debate as a statement of fact.
- Two possible meanings so far - either "There's a debate and there shouldn't be. Here's a fact" or "This debate is predicated on bad conjectures. This fact clearly is in conflict with that conjecture"

3. "There is no debate to be had."

- this statement establishes that the prior statement (the fact) directly negates the purpose of a debate by conflicting with said debate's fundamental premise.

Therefore, given the above, the unambiguous meaning of your paragraph, Catholic_Lady, is that there is a debate on if there was a hate crime and there shouldn't be a debate because the established facts contradict the premise of said debate.

[Catholic_Lady]

You did. Let me single step you through English. If it is not what you intended, then I expect it will be easy to clarify your position.

Here are the assumptions/axioms employed:

- You would not have included within the same paragraph unconnected ideas/statements. (A fair assumption given that you would not be able to communicate otherwise)

- You had some point or set of points to express (as opposed to a meaningless platitude)

Please correct me if my assumption on reading what you write is incorrect.



1. "It's unfortunate (though telling) that this turned into a debate."

 - This establishes there is some debate, but does not specify what it is about. A safe assumption is either it will be left unspecified (thus requiring a thread read to establish) or will be specified shortly.

2. "This was a racist hate crime against an innocent disabled teenager. "

- this is either a bare statement of fact (stand alone) or could be related to the undefined debate as a statement of fact.
- Two possible meanings so far - either "There's a debate and there shouldn't be. Here's a fact" or "This debate is predicated on bad conjectures. This fact clearly is in conflict with that conjecture"

3. "There is no debate to be had."

- this statement establishes that the prior statement (the fact) directly negates the purpose of a debate by conflicting with said debate's fundamental premise.

Therefore, given the above, the unambiguous meaning of your paragraph, Catholic_Lady, is that there is a debate on if there was a hate crime and there shouldn't be a debate because the established facts contradict the premise of said debate.

You misunderstand. 

What I meant by that was that the only thing there is to say on this thread is that this was a racist hate crime against a disabled person. That's it. That's all any of us should come into this thread to say/acknowledge. I wasn't meaning to imply that the arguments in this thread were that it wasn't a hate crime. I've already explained what the arguments I saw were about, and it wasn't anyone denying that it's a hate crime.

---

The thing is, I don't think anyone is having a hard time doing that. Read back over the thread and I don't think there is a single person who has denied that it was a hate crime, or even a racist hate crime. However people like A Theist were jumping up and down yesterday trying to convince everyone that people were denying exactly that, despite the fact that the thread is filled with people saying it was a hate crime, racially motivated, etc.

So where I have a problem is whether A Theist is actually so dense that he couldn't be bothered to read the thread properly and see that despite his assumptions, nobody was actually doing the things he was claiming they were doing, or whether he was saying those things to try and turn this thread into an argument over racism towards white people and how liberals all think that only white people can be racist. After being told repeatedly that people weren't denying the racist element of the crime, and A Theist continuing to espouse that view, I can only conclude that he had an ulterior motive for being involved in the thread, because quite honestly I don't think he's that dense.

Right, no one has said "this is not a hate crime." 

But there have been a couple people who have been hesitant to call it a racist hate crime, there have been a couple people who have said it doesn't matter if it's racism, and there have been a couple people who have come in here only to make some sort of objection at the person for having posted it. Some of these same people are the ones to be super quick to call racism on anything when it doesn't involve a white person as the victim, and who wouldn't object to other criminal news stories being posted. I pointed out a specific example earlier. 

So yeah, I'm seeing a double standard among some folks and that's what I'm pointing out personally. I can't speak to A Theist's motivations, though I will point out that he accused Thump of being one of the people who had a problem calling this a race crime when he actually had done just that. And I did call him out for it.

Bolded the above just now

[brewer]

From what I've read this started out as a sleep over (the victim knew at least one of them, they visited friends and slept in the stolen van) and then it escalated during a "play fight" at the females apartment at what sounds like (at least to me) the females urging. 

That does not sound like it started out as a race motive. Nor a disability motive. 

Is there another potential instigating motive/factor? Say, oh, I don't know, something like teenage macho and bravado?

What ever started it is at least partially unclear. We do know how it ended. The charges appear to be totally appropriate. Time will tell if they are supported or not. The victim is not dead and has a chance to recover.