DOJ to white male bullying victims: Tough luck

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by rbell, Mar 19, 2011.

  1. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'd love to hear Eric's defense of this practice. Please speak up Eric. Enlighten us to the justification for this action by the Justice Dept.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    A long time ago, when Obama was running for POTUS, a poll was run here on BB asking if we thought Obama would govern as a black man first and an American second.

    The results were heavily in favor of him governing as a black man first.

    I don't think any of us realized how much of a racist he is, but our opinion has provern correct.

    We also did not realize, in our wildest dreams, how far down the line governing as an American would be. I'm not sure it's even in the top 5.
     
  4. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    The silence from our leftest leaning friends is deafening.
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    I just look at it as what it says: It's intended as an enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. "In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ."

    People are seeing only race there, but it also includes religion, which many here would certainly want protection from discrimination for. Also, disability. (Man, people just snatched this up without even reading what was actually there. People need to cool down on this stuff already and stop projecting it at others!)

    That means, bullying will be prosecuted if they think it is part of a bias attack (and I don't see where it says only if it is white on black; that was only the example used by the reporter).

    Now, we can argue as to whether the DOJ should be involved at all, or if they should only go by those 1964 categories. I'm not even decided on that. When I began seeing all the attention bullying has been getting recently; my first thought was "good; about time". For in the past, you were basically on your own with bullies, and all even most of the adults would say is "just get tougher".
    But if this is only about bias instances, then I too see it as likely just some political thing, and not as thorough as I thought.

    For instance, my wife and I have always commented on how much of a double standard it is that it is still open season on weight (the other discriminated category in the title), compared to all the attention the other forms of bias get, and no one seems to even think about that one, as pop culture continues to idolize total skinniness, particularly for women.
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    72
    If he went beyond the scope of the law, he'd be blasted for doing that, too.

    If we want anti-bullying regulations, we have state legislatures. Civil rights legislation can only be used for civil rights issues.
     
  7. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    When black kid is bullied by a white kid it's automatically assumed to be a hate crime. But, if it's the other way around then the white kid is only getting what he deserves. Thanks for making that clarification for us Eric. What would we do without you to enlighten us?
     
  8. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Eric, I take it you are against equal standing under the law...and rather you prefer preferential treatement to some...whoever the goverment deems "victim groups?"
     
  9. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    And that by the very people who like to claim victim status anytime it is convenient for them but would deny it to anyone else. And, I they are the ones who are always crying 'racist.'
     
  10. Ed B

    Ed B
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based solely on the linked article in the original post, it looks to me like a matter of jurisdiction. And though I want all bullying stopped I would rather we didn't extend the reach of the federal government to police school yard bullies. As mentioned above by StefanM we can ask our state legislatures to do that and demand our local school districts enforce the anti-bullying procedures they already have.

    Let’s not resort to a nuclear (federal) solution in the name of fairness and in the process dissolve more local sovereignty**.

    ** Note: I was not referring to any of the ever-present C v A discussions on sovereignty. :)
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Slid right over the racial aspects, didn't he?

    The above DOJ position put together with their disposition of the New Black Panthers case and the instructions from Holder not to enforce civil rights claims against minorities, We are looking at the most racist administration in the last 50 years, maybe longer.
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
    Maybe I am old fashion, but lets settle bullying the way we did years ago - go behind the barn and fight it out.
     
  13. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    72
    That doesn't work when the child being bullied is physically weaker.
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where do you see that in this article?

    And where do you figure that from what I said? I said I was undecided.

    And you continue to run off with this stuff neither the article, nor anyone here said.
    Don't you see that you're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing some imaginary "they" for. Someone else is being unfairly "favored" over some group you're defending. You see this everywhere, including where it is not even being said.

    (Have you two checked your Notifications?)

    Because the legislation in question is not just about race; that's just the example used by the article's title. It mentions "overweight" as well.

    It also says :

    If a schoolyard bully is a straight black male and his target is another straight black male where does that leave the victim in the eyes of Attorney General Eric Holder? What about two female students of the same sexual orientation and race?

    So it's actually not just about white males being slighted, even though that is the unfortunate choice of example for the title.
    The "heterosexual white male student with no disabilities", (even if bullied for being "overweight") is not apart of any of those groups, so that's why he would be left out in any of these cases the DOJ wants to enforce.

    I have never defended anything like that, and I'm tired of you all presuming something like that.

    OK, well, Sag did not ask me what I thought about all the other things Holder has done in the past "put together" with this, and which I have not followed, and have never defended. So I didn't "slide" past anything.

    I don't know why these departments and other figures are focusing on particular "victim groups" now (whichever ones), when many of the issue (such as "bullying", which is commanding so much attention now) is so much more broad than the groups they outline, and I get tired of it too, because it often becomes straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, and just provides fuel for the "backlash mentality" of others to claim to be the "true" discriminated against groups.

    So I said that it sounds like some political agenda, and not a genuine thorough addressing of the problem of bullying. What else do you want from me?
    If all this stuff angers you all so, then write your concerns to Holder, or whatever reps can bring it to him. If you think that's futile, then fine, but accusing me or others here over some political figure's double standards won't fix the problem.
     
  15. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    now here's a bully who doesn't seem to understand he's a dot compared to the kid he's bullying ..... and man, did he get owned.
     
  16. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    The school suspended both kids. Sad!! It used to be that when you defended yourself, you didn't get into trouble. Now days, not only are you victimized by the bully that you defended yourself against, but then you are further victimized by the school system because you fought back. School administrators are the most spineless people out there with these zero tolerance policies that make criminals out of innocent people.
     
  17. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
    I suppose the thinking of the school is if the "policy" is too suspend both kids then no one will fight . Works really well, doesnt it
     
  18. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    This ties in to the debacle of "hate crime" issues. Here are some reasons that the exercise in stupidity known as "hate crime legislation" needs to take a dirt nap:

    Hate crimes are problematic because (forgive the repost, but it's pertinent):

    1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless." Ergo," All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." We found that repulsive in the '60's; why should it not be repulsive now?
    2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. Remember..."innocent until proven guilty," and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" Throw that out the window with hate crime bills...We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
    3. They are unequally enforced. For instance, in Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
    4. They needlessly clog up the justice system. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
    5. They begin an erosion of rights: now, instances of "offensive" speech are considered "hate crimes." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready: You're next. It's true in other locales worldwide; it will be true here.
    6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there. For all you criminal-coddling leftists out there: How about some truth in sentencing? How about the administration of justice for victims instead of perpetrators?
    7. The moniker "hate crime" is itself a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crimes come from hate.
    Now...to those who defend such a policy as listed in the OP...do you have a problem enforcing justice unequally under the law? And if "no," then how do you reconcile that blatant injustice with some of the reasoning listed above? (Not to mention the very fabric of our society)?
     

Share This Page

Loading...