Homophobic attack on London bus - mod warning, please see OP

Kimsang

Kimsang wrote: »

There is only one ideological bent allowed to insult other posters here, and the hypocrisy is clear for all to see.
You need to remove your blinkers.

Jussie Smollett completely fabricated a story of a hate crime against him, because of the victim-hood narrative culture we live in.
Here is 35mins of stories of 'victims' lying because we live in a victimhood culture.

I nor anyone else dispute the fact that these women were attacked in London.

What is under dispute is WHY they were attacked. Using hateful words DURING an attack does not equate to a hate crime.

The majority of the posters on here claiming victimhood or play the poor white male card describe themselves as right wing/conservative and plenty of them call other people names etc.

Now people have tried to shoehorn in a lot of ****e from trying to say that the attack was faked/staged, it was only reported because they were gay, it's only being called a homophobic attack because the lgbt community would complain to the police if they didn't and it was Muslims. it shows how narrow minds think alike when it comes to religion, race and sexuality to meet some posters prejudices and have an issue with the story and how the investigation was/is being handled and that they can't tack on their opinions to it without it being pointed out that the evidence so far doesn't back up their opinions.

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

I just find it interesting that any time anyone from certain groups are attacked it is automatically racist, misogynistic etc.

Scumbags are mostly just scumbags... They aren't smart or motivated enough to have such ideologies. They pick on people who are different as all bullies do.

This sounds like a classic case of scumbag teens beating up two lesbians for a change instead of teen boys.

One good thing about this is because of the coverage they are going to get , a punishment that hopefully is in line , for what their scumbag behaviour deserves .

The dumb smile is off these dumb fookers today .

Odhinn

RIGOLO wrote: »

Theres no evidence white males were involved either , but I dont see you objecting to them being discussed in the thread.

Lifes complicated , lots of things are connected, you should take a look around we live in a world of connections, best get used to it.

I think your next move is the raycist card.. you've exhausted the other ones and are just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Or go for the big red nuclear option , play the fashist card.. you might feel better.

"racist", "fascist". FYI.

Blueshoe

RasTa wrote: »

One thing we do know is that it was teenagers who did it now can everyone please shut the **** up about muslims ffs.

I doubt they where devout asking them to kiss if it disgusts the Muslims so much.

My money is on atheist kids.

Rowdy teens. High on sugar

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I just find it interesting that any time anyone from certain groups are attacked it is automatically racist, misogynistic etc.

Scumbags are mostly just scumbags... They aren't smart or motivated enough to have such ideologies. They pick on people who are different as all bullies do.

This sounds like a classic case of scumbag teens beating up two lesbians for a change instead of teen boys.

If they do it will only be what ever the maximum for what ever they plead to or are found guilty of. The maximum sentences for different types of assault and similar are quite lenient in my opinion both in the UK and here.

Timberrrrrrrr

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mod: Shut up about muslims. Everyone. The derailment has gone way too far.

Unless a reputable source reports that the perps were muslims, then any further shoehorning of muslims into this thread gets you a ban.



People with spanish accents are fair game though.

https://tenor.com/view/fawlty-towers-fawltytowers-manuel-know-gif-9682901

Kimsang

Boom there is your hypocrisy. Other thread about women attacking women gets closed without reason.

I was asked a question by a posted from this thread that is also relevant to this thread, so I will answer it unless the authoritarian mods decide it goes against their ideology.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Tell you what, since we’re all so thick, why don’t you explain what would need to happen to Call an attack against a gay couple a hate crime?

You’ve established that you don’t think homophobic slurs + violence = a hate crime, so in your mind, what does?

Good question.

Thank you for summing up my position fairly.

The defendant's actions, words, and affiliations often supplies the best evidence of his state of mind when committing a crime--including a hate crime.
But you must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the motivation for the attack was based on a certain characteristic.

Where a person who wears glasses attacked and called '4 eyes' this is not a hate crime. If the attacker was seen to hate people who wear glasses, had diaries about how they hate people who wore glasses, had a tattoo that they hated people who wore glasses, or openly espoused their hatred for people who wore glasses this would be a hate crime.

Evidence of Bias
Aside from defendant’s own statements, relevant evidence of bias might include:

defendant’s membership in a group that espouses hatred for certain groups (such as a black separatist group or an online chat group that opposes homosexuality)
defendant’s possession of literature or symbols associated with bias, such as Nazi memorabilia or anti-Semitic texts
defendant’s own writings, graffiti, or tattoos
the use of biased slurs or graffiti during or at the site of the crime
the date of the incident, if it coincides with a significant holiday or anniversary, and
other hate crimes committed by defendant.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-prosecutors-prove-hate-crimes.html


We have re-written the definition of hate -crime in recent times to be more of an umbrella term, but this dilutes the most heinous of hate crimes.

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

Boom there is your hypocrisy. Other thread about women attacking women gets closed without reason.

I was asked a question by a posted from this thread that is also relevant to this thread, so I will answer it unless the authoritarian mods decide it goes against their ideology.



Good question.

Thank you for summing up my position fairly.

The defendant's actions, words,and affiliations often supplies the best evidence of his state of mind when committing a crime--including a hate crime.
But you must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the motivation for the attack was based on a certain characteristic.

Where a person who wears glasses attacked and called '4 eyes' this is not a hate crime. If the attacker was seen to hate people who wear glasses, had diaries about how they hate people who wore glasses, had a tattoo that they hated people who wore glasses, or openly espoused their hatred for people who wore glasses this would be a hate crime.

Evidence of Bias
Aside from defendant’s own statements, relevant evidence of bias might include:

defendant’s membership in a group that espouses hatred for certain groups (such as a black separatist group or an online chat group that opposes homosexuality)
defendant’s possession of literature or symbols associated with bias, such as Nazi memorabilia or anti-Semitic texts
defendant’s own writings, graffiti, or tattoos
the use of biased slurs or graffiti during or at the site of the crime
the date of the incident, if it coincides with a significant holiday or anniversary, and
other hate crimes committed by defendant.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-prosecutors-prove-hate-crimes.html


We have re-written the definition of hate -crime in recent times to be more of an umbrella term, but this dilutes the most heinous of hate crimes.

Ummm you’ve just totally torn apart your own argument.

Kimsang

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Ummm you’ve just totally torn apart your own argument.

No you've just proven mine. What you are highlighting there is " relevant evidence of bias might include"

Evidence is NOT proof.

Kimsang

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Ummm you’ve just totally torn apart your own argument.

From the same website I quoted;

Note that much evidence of bias, such as statements that are hateful (or even violent) and belonging to groups that promote hate, are not crimes in and of themselves. Hate crimes laws punish acts motivated by animus, not thoughts or words.

Kimsang

DubInMeath wrote: »

The majority of the posters on here claiming victimhood or play the poor white male card describe themselves as right wing/conservative and plenty of them call other people names etc.

Now people have tried to shoehorn in a lot of ****e from trying to say that the attack was faked/staged, it was only reported because they were gay, it's only being called a homophobic attack because the lgbt community would complain to the police if they didn't and it was Muslims. it shows how narrow minds think alike when it comes to religion, race and sexuality to meet some posters prejudices and have an issue with the story and how the investigation was/is being handled and that they can't tack on their opinions to it without it being pointed out that the evidence so far doesn't back up their opinions.

I'm only saying it wasn't a hate crime.

To attribute anything else to me is not fair.

I'm saying its a heinous act that should be prosecuted under the full weight of the law.
But it should not be prosecuted en par with how we prosecute nazis and the KKK those crimes should be reserved for those deserving of it.

Skylinehead

Kimsang wrote: »

Boom there is your hypocrisy. Other thread about women attacking women gets closed without reason.

I was asked a question by a posted from this thread that is also relevant to this thread, so I will answer it unless the authoritarian mods decide it goes against their ideology.

Mod: Don't post here either. Your thread was closed for the reason of being utterly stupid, not to mention the agenda. The next time you bring it up gets you a lengthy ban.

blinding

Binge Drinker wrote: »

Some victims are more important than others. If me or you get beaten up the media wouldn't give a ****.

Higher-archy of Victims .

Ulysses Gaze

What both surprises and perplexes me is how someone hasn't managed to blame George Soros for this attack.

Over 50 pages in and no mention of him?

Ah lads....

blinding

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

What both surprises and perplexes me is how someone hasn't managed to blame George Soros for this attack.

Over 50 pages in and no mention of him?

Ah lads....

Was he seen in the Vacinity ?

Ulysses Gaze

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

What both surprises and perplexes me is how someone hasn't managed to blame George Soros for this attack.

Over 50 pages in and no mention of him?

Ah lads....

as i understand it, soros would be blamed for the coverage and perhaps thered be an insinuation that he had paid for the whole event to be staged

he wouldn't, strictly speaking, be blamed for the attack as a rule in the general run of things

rape culture is the equal/opposite factoral bogeyman here, which to be fair hasnt been offered as a cause yet either

Nikki Sixx

Could the thread title be changed to “misogynistic attack?” The thread title is misleading.

FunLover18

Why are people being so protective of the term "homophobic". You'll happily call these men scum and call for them to be locked up but you won't call them homophobes. They verbally abused a lesbian couple BECAUSE they were a lesbian couple and then beat them when they didn't get their way. What did these men miss from the homophobic checklist??

Dante7

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

Could the thread title be changed to “misogynistic attack?” The thread title is misleading.

I'd agree with that. It's textbook male violence against women.

ILoveYourVibes

Lesbians threaten men. If you are bi ..that's ok. Because they are certain you are really straight just loose. But lesbian no.

Lesbians belong in porn not on a bus etc.

Dante7

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Lesbians threaten men. If you are bi ..that's ok. Because they are certain you are really straight just loose. But lesbian no.

Lesbians belong in porn not on a bus etc.

That's exactly it. Just take the penis. You know you want it.

ILoveYourVibes

Dante7 wrote: »

That's exactly it. Just take the penis. You know you want it.

yup

MrFresh

FunLover18 wrote: »

Why are people being so protective of the term "homophobic".

Fear. They don't want name calling to be homophobic because that means the names they call people or the jokes they tell make them homophobic. They're afraid their "free speech" will be limited and they'll be labelled a racist or homophobe next time they say something racist or homophobic.

i think we're almost a thousand posts into the hate crimes thread and i still havent seen a reasonable justification for why a crime needs such a categorisation

"for the stats, mannnn. why do you hate ~group x~"

once you're finished explaining how everyone you disagree with thinks -charming trait btw, always very convincing rhetorically- maybe you can set out why anyone should be enthused about an attack being labelled as misogynist or homophobic.

bonus points if you can set out the actual practical differences youd like to see or can already see in such labelling- longer sentences, higher conviction rates, whatever

you lose points for anything that approaches 'raising awareness', thems the rules

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i think we're almost a thousand posts into the hate crimes thread and i still havent seen a reasonable justification for why a crime needs such a categorisation

"for the stats, mannnn. why do you hate ~group x~"

once you're finished explaining how everyone you disagree with thinks -charming trait btw, always very convincing rhetorically- maybe you can set out why anyone should be enthused about an attack being labelled as misogynist or homophobic.

bonus points if you can set out the actual practical differences youd like to see or can already see in such labelling- longer sentences, higher conviction rates, whatever

you lose points for anything that approaches 'raising awareness', thems the rules

Because certain groups in society have faced horrific discrimination in the past. And because we have moved forward as a society, we try to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

I’ve answered your question, can you answer mine: Why are you so against recording attacks against specific groups who are particularly vulnerable?

Blueshoe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i think we're almost a thousand posts into the hate crimes thread and i still havent seen a reasonable justification for why a crime needs such a categorisation

"for the stats, mannnn. why do you hate ~group x~"

once you're finished explaining how everyone you disagree with thinks -charming trait btw, always very convincing rhetorically- maybe you can set out why anyone should be enthused about an attack being labelled as misogynist or homophobic.

bonus points if you can set out the actual practical differences youd like to see or can already see in such labelling- longer sentences, higher conviction rates, whatever

you lose points for anything that approaches 'raising awareness', thems the rules

Here's the thing about your statement though.

Nobody cares .

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I’ve answered your question, can you answer mine: Why are you so against recording attacks against specific groups who are particularly vulnerable?

i dont think you have! id almost dock the dreaded "raising awareness" points tbh but we should be trying to reach a compromise in this fractious thread

i think that the example we're discussing of a ****ty crime by ****ty toerags is a sleight-of-hand device for spin and show that allows for media and social media attention on victims for an easy discharge of anger and frustration.

its used to co-opt and control the reader/viewer into support for political agenda and it distracts from the actual crime, and particularly what is or isnt being done about it

its used to further create- not undermine- an "us and them" status and its pretty invariably. a soft (or not-so-soft) invite to collective responsibility on the non-categorised group to examine the log in its eye.

anyone asking "hang on, if the victims are different to me and i must navelgaze on that, cant we ask in what way the people responsible are also?" is castigated. thats pretty obvious agenda management and we should absolutely be cynical when we see it. "shut up if you're not going to express your online sympathy" is the message, how useless is that?

"citizens victim of robbery on public transport" should be the story here. thats the meat imo.

instead we're getting a focus-grouped plate of lettuce and if we ask where the meat has gone the accusations of impurity start flying.

KikiLaRue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i dont think you have! id almost dock the dreaded "raising awareness" points tbh but we should be trying to reach a compromise in this fractious thread

i think that the example we're discussing of a ****ty crime by ****ty toerags is a sleight-of-hand device for spin and show that allows for media and social media attention on victims for an easy discharge of anger and frustration.

its used to co-opt and control the reader/viewer into support for political agenda and it distracts from the actual crime, and particularly what is or isnt being done about it

its used to further create- not undermine- an "us and them" status and its pretty invariably. a soft (or not-so-soft) invite to collective responsibility on the non-categorised group to examine the log in its eye.

anyone asking "hang on, if the victims are different to me and i must navelgaze on that, cant we ask in what way the people responsible are also?" is castigated. thats pretty obvious agenda management and we should absolutely be cynical when we see it. "shut up if you're not going to express your online sympathy" is the message, how useless is that?

"citizens victim of robbery on public transport" should be the story here. thats the meat imo.

instead we're getting a focus-grouped plate of lettuce and if we ask where the meat has gone the accusations of impurity start flying.

I don’t understand why you want to ignore the blatant homophobia of the attack?

ohnonotgmail

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don’t understand why you want to ignore the blatant homophobia of the attack?

Because if they acknowledge that the attack was homophobic (and it certainly was) then they might have to acknowledge that some of their own thoughts and actions are homophobic. If they keep the bar for homophobia high enough they dont have to do that.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because if they acknowledge that the attack was homophobic (and it certainly was) then they might have to acknowledge that some of their own thoughts and actions are homophobic. If they keep the bar for homophobia high enough they dont have to do that.

quote~~~

explaining how everyone you disagree with thinks -charming trait btw, always very convincing rhetorically-

~~~