Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2017, 09:50 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(07-01-2017 09:40 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  
(07-01-2017 08:26 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  We just elected someone who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't know jack shit about anything except business. He also believes in conspiracy theories, such as "millions of people voted illegally" and doesn't believe Obama was born in the U.S. The man is a complete embarrassment to the country, and deserves ridicule (especially for being a man baby), but oh look, liberals are "smug and condescending". Liberals have also been told they're "unpatriotic" or "evil" simply for being liberal, for decades. So, cry me a fucking river.

The sarcastic paraphrase is one of the most lazy rhetorical devices one can use. Go read a book you snaggle-toothe fuck.

lol'd:

[Image: QERFsV3.jpg]

Those thugs aren't "leftists". I would be very surprised if they knew who the mayor of Chicago is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 10:13 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(07-01-2017 09:50 AM)ImFred Wrote:  
(07-01-2017 09:40 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  The sarcastic paraphrase is one of the most lazy rhetorical devices one can use. Go read a book you snaggle-toothe fuck.

lol'd:

[Image: QERFsV3.jpg]

Those thugs aren't "leftists". I would be very surprised if they knew who the mayor of Chicago is.

You're probably right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
Before I start, I just want to say that I edited out a lot of stuff from your reply. I wasn't trying to change anything... just left out the stuff that I didn't see as needing to be addressed, which was repetitive (on your part or which had already been covered in my replies), or which was simply commentary rather than questioning. If you feel I have unfairly altered or omitted anything that should not have been, please let me know and accept my apologies in advance.

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You know damned well that the GOP is known for doing a single-voice "talking points" narrative, where every one of them says the same thing in the same words. Jon Stewart was known for mocking them when they did it, by playing a dozen clips of them all using the same phrase in the same conversation-- almost literally every night on The Daily Show.

So you get your view of the GOP from a late night host? A late night host that is also liberal? That would be like me hearing ben shapiro and getting my view of democrats from him. This is why you should listen to both sides, makes it easier to separate them.

I get my view of the GOP from literally every single person I know on this planet except for a friend who lives in Korea and many of the members of this board being conservative Republicans. I get my view of the GOP from growing up in the Deep South states and living in the US Midwest "red states". I am spammed endlessly with their propaganda being repeated from the mouths of the people I know and love-- often in the ways I had just heard/seen it reported on conservative media outlets that are all you ever see down here.

Jon Stewart simply made clips of a phenomenon I had already noticed. And he did it in a funny way. However, you should take note that the show consistently ranks highest in honest reporting of the facts, and the regular viewers score highest on knowledge of political events in polling research (though to be fair, O'Really and Limbaugh's viewers also score pretty high on the same surveys). Writing it off because he's a liberal is just as bad as accepting whatever he says because he's a liberal.

However, my point was that he shows--literally shows a sequence of--the Republicans repeating the same talking points, day after day, person after person, word-for-word. He's not inventing that news because he's a liberal. He also makes fun of Democrats when they try to do the same thing... mainly because they're so terrible about messaging and/or staying on message, and it's comedy gold (or would be, if both these parties of nincompoops weren't making our laws).

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  This has nothing to do with sociology.

So you have seen people learn the you can't be racist towards whites(you even posted a video about it) so where the hell does it come from? Zoology, physics, chemistry, engineering? No sociology. No other field spouts bullshit like sociology does.

Well the video is a joke, first of all. He's making comedy. He says that there is such a thing, then goes on to explain why it's okay to make jokes about white people and not about minorities, and does a pretty good job of it.

Of course someone can be racist toward whites. If I was denied a job, or harassed or harmed, or maliciously called bad names because of my white skin, then yes those people are racists. Prisons are full of anti-white racists and outright "black supremacists", and racist anti-white Hispanic groups... I can assure you! (Also full of white supremacists of course.) It's a seething hotbed of identity politics and hatred.

It's pretty clear that these attackers were racist toward white people, and taking out their anger and fear in the same way Klan-influenced moron white kids do sometimes. To the detriment of all humanity. Sad

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yes, there are "partisan hacks" (as Kyle on Secular Talk calls such folks) who promote a particular narrative in which the "poor oppressed black people" (or whatever) can do no wrong, just as there are people who apologize for Islam no matter how many heads are being chopped off--- but that is not what the majority of intellectuals in the field do, by a long, long shot.

So do you guys disown or refute these guys? If ya do credit were credit it do, and those who don't, as they say silence is consent.

Um... "you guys"? Who? Am I to call Liberal Command Base and order a disowning?

Liberals tend to be a "herd of cats" and have little central organization. It's one of the reasons the GOP has been on the whole more successful than the Dems. I wasn't just criticizing them for having the Talking Points... only laughing at the fact that it's there and yet you pretended liberals were the ones who were speaking as one.

Seriously, why do you think Kyle is calling them "partisan hacks"? He's calling them out on the issue. He lashed into Hillary Clinton endlessly, and every other "establishment Democrat" he considers part of the problem, as well... like when they try to reduce or ignore ISIL beheadings, for instance. You should watch the show, since you watch both sides, to see how an intelligent atheist liberal actually thinks. Smile

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  White privilege is about the number of subtle ways in which whites have an advantage in society, given otherwise equal backgrounds/situations.

You know quick question? Before I go on, do you think it might be possible that the people who seem to be privileged happen to be white? I never seen anyone just realize there is only one type of privilege. Also what about black people who benefit from the same things these white people do? I have seen plenty of black people who benefit from what white folks benefit from, and I have seen people who are white that get none of the privileges from white privilege.

I still think you're talking about something different than I'm talking about, but I certainly won't argue with you that there are whites who gain very little privilege, and that there are non-whites who lose very little. That's not the point.

I urge you to please read two articles written by an author recommended by the author of the paper you quoted to me earlier:

"Checking My Privilege", in which she excoriates the people who try to shut down conversation by the phrase "check your privilege", simply because she is white.

But more importantly, please read and carefully consider her original 1988 essay, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (pdf file), which is still considered one of the best explanations of why I keep saying that you and I are talking about entirely different things when we say the phrase "white privilege".


(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Money is only a small part of that, usually expressed in terms of inherited wealth and/or openly racist government programs from the first half of the 20th century that favored building a white middle class (home loans)

But isn't income a factor? And if asians make more on average than whites wouldn't that give them a slight advantage? When ever they compare home loans of whites and claim white privilage it is usually applied to white vs black. And it isn't like black people are made to be poor, but that black people happen to live in poorer areas. Which is funny you said money is only a small factor, when it is a big factor when it comes to this.

Please read "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", and if you like, I will be glad to expand on this point. But the short answer is that they are connected issues, but it is not the only issue, and it's why using it as a metric is not useful in this context and why I think the Asian community's overall financial and academic success is a red herring. Glad to discuss it... need to lay down a few basic ideas, beforehand, in other words. I say this because of your quip later about black people who have become wealthy and moved into (privileged!) gated communities, and I certainly would agree that wealth allows someone to avoid many of the consequences of differential privilege in other ares.


(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  GI Bill

I get what you are saying with this. Back in the day there were disadvantages, however some black people did get to use the G.I bill in the past, for things like school. So if they got an education and a job at the time they could give their family privilege. And seeing as it is the current year, the GI bill doesn't discriminate(I won't say help) on race.

In the first article by the author I cited, above, she describes the generational effects of how her grandparents were able to build their lives here in the USA and emphasize education, etc., from which she benefits. The problem with the GI bill and other "in the past" programs is that the effects on the grandchildren of people (and neighborhoods) who were economically impacted by that disparity are still felt today.

Just as one example of such an impact: In the USA, most cities are made up of smaller municipalities, and there are often shocking differences in average wealth between them-- and yet they must each pay for their own school districts. The tax base disparity means students of suburb A might have great schools while the ones a few blocks over in suburb B have terrible ones that don't attract good teachers or have the funds to do the sort of educating that suburb A can/does do.

That's not only a black/white thing, of course, which is why I mentioned the deliberate programs that caused the disparities in those circumstances. It happens anywhere the tax base is less-well-off.

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First, watching only part of the video won't help your argument, because if you leave out any thing it won't help your argument.

Second, just because there is competition, doesn't mean that they don't ideologically conform. If you payed attention to the video you would see that the deer linked to studies explaining how there is an ideological uniformity. It might not be 100% exact, but they still agree on the same thing. Meaning that one person says that white privilage comes from A, and the Second says A is actually from B, that would be a competition. And if the person peer is liberal and agrees with that white privilege exist, one of them will get there paper published, even though both are wrong. In fact the studies he linked showed that more conservative points of view would improve sociology and the political diversity is more important that racial. Add on top of that a lot of sociological(and social psychological) papers aren't really repeatable. So I suggested you sit down and watch the whole thing.


You're still sounding like a Creationist, I'm afraid. There are those who object to conclusions in sociological papers, all the time-- and that's when everyone goes "but 10 years ago, you said ____!!!", just like with evolutionary biology-- but when there are things that are so well-demonstrated that they no longer merit serious dissent, you won't find much dissent. That's the exact point the Intelligent Design people exploit when they try to claim they're being censored from biology journals.

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  So, two opinion pieces (which I read and with which I agree, by the way) about increasing issue of "safe spaces" and suppression of free speech on campuses in the classrooms of some types of professor. What does it have to do with the field of sociology?

Where do you think these ideas of safe spaces and suppression of free speech comes from? Mathematics? No, sociology. Why, because they teach shit like oppression. They teach women, minorities, and homosexuals that they are oppressed, though when you look into it they are not. And what pushes this false narrative? Sociology.

Did you take sociology in college? My professor never mentioned any of those things, at all. I did, however, tangle with a number of people who were getting bad information from their "African-American Studies" or "Women's Studies" classes, so I'll grant you that part of the point. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. The ideas of safe spaces and suppression of free speech come from well-intended morons we now call "social justice warriors", but not from the well-established data on how privilege actually hurt and continues to hurt minority communities on the whole.

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Well, the last one seems to be a good example of sociology as a science, but I don't know why you say it's a good example of peer review in sociology. It is a paper that has been cited twice (not a good sign), but I don't see a particular problem with the methodology. They ran an experiment to see if there really was a bias in video gaming, as alleged by several prominent female gamers and a number of feminist writers. What's your beef with that article?

This could be refuted with one factor. They are played halo 3, in 2015. You know how many people were playing halo 3 in 2015? Pretty much no one. The game was pretty much dead at the time. If they used something like call of duty advanced warfare, they could have had a less stupid point. And yet nobody double checked that. No one went, "Halo 3? Nobody plays that game. How do you expect to get a narrative of women in games from a game nobody plays? Don't you think a more up to date game would work?" But no they saw this, didn't even question why they were using Halo 3 and how that could damage the narrative, and just rolled with it. Nobody looked deep into it and even tried it themselves, because if they did, this would have been rejected. That fact you read through this and thought this was an alright example of peer review in sociology, kinda shows that the peer review is terrible.

It was actually published on September 13, 2012, while Halo 4 was not released until November 2012.

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But it's why I said you're absorbing the propaganda narrative. It's bombarding you from a number of sources, and you're accepting it a little bit uncritically. You think you're examining it critically, and I'm trying to show you that it's not so.

You kinda sound like my dad when we debate religion. Also it might not be that I accept things uncritically, but it might be that you might be bias. We all have our biaes, but I channel them into stupid shit, like digimon lore. It might be that you have your own narrative and bias when it comes to this. I mean I say what privilage doesn't exist, and I am not white, I am black. What advantage do I have saying white privilage isn't a thing? I mean white women aren't lining up at my door wanting to have sex with me for it. So what advantage do I have of refuting white privilage?

I am well aware of your racial background. But you are not a professional sociologist. I was pointing out that he has no inherent reason to assert its existence in the data unless it is there. He's certainly not the "go along to get along" type-- right now, he's working on challenging the "unquestionable" narrative about how to combat the spread of HIV by making criminal laws which report positive persons to the law and make them vulnerable to all sorts of retaliation from jilted lovers, etc. He has drawn incredible heat for it, but maintains his position on the subject because the data show that suppression actually hurts the efficacy of prevention measures, rather than helping.

Your narrative seems to indicate that, for whatever reason, you believe that the primary consideration in these factors is wealth and the ability to acquire it... and I say that is only part of the issue, and that the others contain equal weight (including their ability to impact the ability to gain wealth when they are in play). Because those factors were not on play in your life, apparently, your personal experience tells you that the rest of it is simply made-up whining. It behooves you to suggest that you climbed up on your own merits alone, taking race out of the equation.

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  My friend is white and among the brightest people I know... and that's saying something. I pointed out his race because I know he has no inherent reason to promote the narrative you suggest is common among sociologists, and yet he argues strenuously that this is indeed what the data suggests.

You see, I said that people can do it unintentionally right? Also white guilt, so even if I did claim he was doing it intentionally, that would be the reason.

If you knew him, you'd know why that statement was funny. I'm not actually sure he's capable of feeling guilt. I greatly respect that man, but I'm pretty sure he's incapable of feeling guilt of any sort. It's part of what recently got him divorced. Laugh out load

(07-01-2017 08:46 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 05:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  He is the first to call out bias and to critically examine the questions from every possible angle. He also criticizes the "echo chamber" effect, and in fact is the guy who first pointed me to an article I quoted on this forum about how professors are being terrified into silence by the demands of the students who think they deserve safe spaces and don't need to challenge their assumptions with disliked speech.

Yeah critical in the same way creationist are critical of each other. Just because you are critical of one persons bias, doesn't mean that you don't have a bias similar to his but in a different way.

And about liberal professors fearing there students. You created this monster, no one else.

I think the American for-profit university system, in which the administrators are terrified to be sued, created most of that monster. But again, I certainly won't argue that there's a toxic narrative going on in the university system. That still has no bearing on the entire field of sociology.

A better Creationism analogy would be the movie God's Not Dead, in which they portray the atheist evolutionist professor as just promoting his "theory" because he's angry at god due to the loss of his wife (and because he's a douchebag). It doesn't have any honest bearing on the field of evolutionary biology, only part of whose publications come from professors trying to earn tenure.

Finally, I'm skipping the rest of this because there really wasn't anything to argue in there. I cited Quora because I liked how the guy phrased it, that's all. It pointed out that we simply don't hear about most of it, but that it's still there.

And in conclusion, yes, I did find it ironic that Vosur of all people had the "testicular fortitude" to call anyone else on the planet condescending. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
07-01-2017, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2017 02:22 PM by excitedpenguin.)
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 11:51 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 07:28 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  I think we should focus on treating people as individuals and not reinforce the highly corrosive race-culture narrative.

I'm a human being. I'm white, but that doesn't relate me to other white people in any special sense. That's dumb. This is a characteristic I was born with by dint of circumstance. Just so with black people.

I think, with Americans, for instance, this sort of thinking is so entrenched in the popular culture that they fail to see it's irrational dimensions.

Act in the world as if it's the kind you'd like to live in. I don't think that's bad advice, in some circumstances.

Treating people exclusively as individual is a pious vow in my opinion. On paper it sounds great, fair, simpler and gentler. Yet, group identification is a fundamental part of how human being socialise. We are, by nature, tribal. We base our tribal identity in multiple layers of more or less rigid characteristic from our sex, apperance, language to our likes and dislike in terms of entertainment. Prejudices are almost impossible to elliminate for we don't know most of the people we interract with. We base our judgement of people we don't know on their perceived group identity, personnal experience with people of that said group or, failling that, what we heard about people of that group and proceed from than on. We don't even want to know most of the people we meet, we just want to carry on with our day and that's it.

In fact, right now, I am interracting with you and I'm assuming you are an Amercian agnostic atheist in his late twenties or early thirties, white and male. I assume you are moderatly liberal. You support gay rights, abortion rights, you have no opposition to public healthcare and education provided it's of good quality. You don't stand for blatant display of racism and sexism, but don't like to be bothered by activists who aggresively defend a cause. You have some colledge background, though you might not have completed it. You also aren't a fan of partisan politic. I might be wrong and I have no rational basis on which to base this opinion of you. I am assuming this so that when I write something to you it's more convenient. It allows me to have some sort of connection to you. It makes me care about what you write and what you think; and also makes me care about you might think of me. You don't need even half of those characteristics to have my full attention, interest and, I hope, kindness, but still I impose them on you as to imagine a bit how you look like on your side of the computer screen.If you were dressed as a sandwich man, smelling sweat, with a bible in your hand, with a flag pole that says that women's indecent dressing causes earthquake, I would go out of my way to ignore you completely and procede to ignore up to your very existence even if despite all this, once in while, such person could say something interesting or genuinly funny. I wont be there to hear, neither do I think most people would. Is my discrimination a form of bigotry? In certain sense, yes it is. It's not as unfair as to ignore a person based on his, more wide, religious indentity or his nationality, but I still discriminate on people based on some of their perceived group-identity and I think that most of the people who would deny having such practice are liars or are fooling themselves. I am working on my own bigotry by trying to remain mindful of it and capable of thinking complexly about such subject like discrimination, group identity and society.

I am more capable than you to relate to people different than me. That might be because I don't like to be put in a box and also probably because I'm in my early twenties, in fact, undergoing a possible identity crisis. Aside from that and the American nationality you got most things right.

Edit to add to the above: if someone tells me their within my age group, I tend to get more suspicious of their intelect than if they're in their fifties. I will actually relate more to a middle aged man who is intelligent enough to hold his own in an intellectual discussion, than with some kid my age blinded by all manner of ideals and shiny things caught in the crust of the new millennium.

But you see, I tend to focus more on people who disagree with me, because it's them I have to understand and interact with. It's their ideas that matter. Those that already agree with me I tend to be very critical of, on the other hand, precisely because in my mind, they got some things right, but here, they could've and should've known better(for example).

I think you're projecting and generalizing. I hope you'll agree with me, at least, that there is no good reason to assume we can't be different in this sense and that your pessimistic view of the role played by relatability in social interactions could, at the very least, be overstated by you in the above. We don't have a science of the brain yet. Not a complete one. We can't know these things. We can only rely on our subjective experience, and, if we like, on some myriad of explanatory items relating to this in the humanist sciences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 04:57 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen




"Here’s one more part of the torture video I think is worth seeing. The media and police are seemingly trying to make it seem like they just casually yelled “Fuck Trump” and “Fuck white people” as if it is something normal to say and it played no part in the crime beyond that.

This video shows more of the scope of how politics might have been a driving factor, and not an afterthought.

They made the kid drink toilet water while forcing him to say “Fuck Trump” several times.

If this doesn’t convince you politics was a big part, perhaps even the sole motive, you are a terrorist apologist. This includes much of the MSM by now and people who somehow manage to land a job speaking to millions of people on TV every night. If you wonder how this racism and violence is so easily justified for many young people, you’ll need to look at those who fail to condemn these acts for what they are right now and keep downplaying it as “kids being kids” or some sick brand of revenge for a feeling of ‘injustice’.

You can see in the victim’s mannerism he is clearly mentally incapable, he almost reacts like a small child. He is terrified, and it’s beyond disgusting that these thugs got a rush out of intimidating a kid that was clearly lacking any ability to defend himself."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 05:21 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(07-01-2017 04:57 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  If this doesn’t convince you politics was a big part, perhaps even the sole motive, you are a terrorist apologist. This includes much of the MSM by now and people who somehow manage to land a job speaking to millions of people on TV every night.

No argument that it's an awful thing and those people belong in prison...

But I'm gonna have to give you a "Citation Needed" flag on the "much of the MSM" claim.

The only thing I've seen so far that even comes close is Symone Sanders on the Don Lemon show saying that we have to let the police finish their investigation because to label it specifically a hate crime requires demonstration of the racist motive, instead of just hating someone's political affiliations.

Now I happen to think she's a moron, at least on this point, since the video clearly has them saying fuck white people, and the victim is white. There really aren't too many circumstances in which I can see that failing to qualify as a hate crime.

But to be a legal hate crime, it must be shown that the motive for the attack was something beyond the normal motive for any such attack-- they have to show that the attack was motivated by hatred of his race or disability. It's an additional element of the charge which must be proven to the jury, in other words, beyond a normal Assault & Battery felony charge's elements.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 05:32 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
I honestly don't see what there is to argue about. This was a terrible thing that happened. I don't think it's right to torture others, especially if the person is not hurting anyone. People should not be attacked for their race or political view. :/

☆☆☆
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CosmicRaven's post
07-01-2017, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2017 06:24 PM by cactus.)
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
Out of curiosity, I just checked Mother Jones and Daily Kos to see what kind of spin they put on this incident. I was actually kind of surprised to see that neither site even covered it, apparently. Confused
I really thought they'd be all over this shit.

Edit: Ok, I found something. Sounds like this DailyKos member doesn't want to grant this individual incident any legitimacy as a newsworthy item. I haven't found any staff posts yet, though. I'll keep looking.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/0...of-America

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 06:45 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(07-01-2017 06:11 PM)cactus Wrote:  Out of curiosity, I just checked Mother Jones and Daily Kos to see what kind of spin they put on this incident. I was actually kind of surprised to see that neither site even covered it, apparently. Confused
I really thought they'd be all over this shit.
Why were you surprised? It's not exactly uncommon for things that don't fit the liberal narrative to be swept under the rug by those sites.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2017, 09:10 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(07-01-2017 06:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-01-2017 06:11 PM)cactus Wrote:  Out of curiosity, I just checked Mother Jones and Daily Kos to see what kind of spin they put on this incident. I was actually kind of surprised to see that neither site even covered it, apparently. Confused
I really thought they'd be all over this shit.
Why were you surprised? It's not exactly uncommon for things that don't fit the liberal narrative to be swept under the rug by those sites.

I'd like to see your disdain for conservatives some day, but you appear to only ever mention liberals.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: