Why is the word "Lynch" a hate crime?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sure all the outlaws who were hung back in the old west will be happy to know that Idiot Al is here to defend their honor.

And I clearly see where he mentions her race as the issue is you so succinctly tried to get us to believe.

[Lathum]

You know what bugs me.

If Charles Barkley had said it everyone would say how funny and playfull he was being.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Tiger took no offense, so everyone else STFU.

That should be the right answer but sometimes it can't be. When an issue goes far beyond the individuals involved then those individuals no longer have the right to be "ok" with something.

It's like the german cannibal whose victim willingly and knowingly let himself be killeda db eaten. That was ok with him but the law didn't simply STFU.

I'm not saying I hold that view 100% but I understand it and feel it could be applied in this case with some level of justification. Especially since it's clear that the statement was meant as a compliment but had what I call "subjective racial overtones." which is basically relying on stereotypes to get through your day.

We all do this. We have to. There's just too much input thrown at us for us to evaluate each new piece of data that confronts us so we have these big boxes with labels that we throw anything that has that label into. It's a thought shortcut that can help us make decisions faster.

IMHO, that's what's happening when people say stuff like "I hate black people."

"Well, what about Joey?"

"Oh, he's ok. It's all those other black people I hate."

WTF?

See, when he takes the time he can evaluate Joey so his approach is entirely different than the big general box that he tosses people he doesn't know into so he doesn't have to administer a personality test to see how he really feels about every random person he encounters in his day.

So, I think these boxes can be useful in some cases, well, they could be more useful if they were actually true and all but most sane people again separate the truth from the fiction on an individual basis.

That's why to me the answer isn't to try and erase stereotypes completely but to try subtly to reinforce more productive and positive stereotypes so people don't have to radically alter how they process information.

You don't see asians being mad when people say they're good at math do you?

Never hear the blacks complain about having big dicks do you?

Course not.

[Axxon]

Dola,

Don't know why this didn't come to me but I'm reading the following book ( for fun no less because I'm weird )

Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City by Nathan; Moynihan, Daniel Patrick Glazer (Hardcover - 1963)

and when he is talking about the Irish he notes of their rise to prominence that they actually embraced their stereotypes and it helped unify them and enrich them culturally and in their neighborhoods. It became cool to be Irish and they played it all up, the jauntiness, the temper etc.

That's an example of stereotypes having a positive effect.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Dola,

and when he is talking about the Irish he notes of their rise to prominence that they actually embraced their stereotypes and it helped unify them and enrich them culturally and in their neighborhoods. It became cool to be Irish and they played it all up, the jauntiness, the temper etc.

That's an example of stereotypes having a positive effect.

Interesting-

Aren't black stereotypes being used for similar "unifying" effects, except with potentially negative consequences in some cases (i.e. the hip hop culture).

I guess you could say the same thing for the Irish and their drinking.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by clintl

What is he, then? Is Barack Obama not black, either?

Woods has an African-American father and a Thai mother. He is just as "black" as Obama.

She deserved to be suspended, and Woods was gracious in accepting the apology. And Sharpton should accept the suspension and apology, and move on.

Why the hell does she deserve to be suspended, because Al Shapton and his cronies were offended?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

I doubt she meant the statement in a racially insensitive way. Although to downplay that word's connotation and history is as wrong as the people who are calling for her head on a platter. It seems with these issues the common reaction is one extreme or the other. In my opinion she should have been reprimanded by her superiors, kindly educated on the context of that word, and that's that. She apologized, seemingly made a mistake in words, and Tiger wasn't offended, so the Al Sharpton's of the world are just seeking self publicity.

Agree completely.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by molson

Interesting-

Aren't black stereotypes being used for similar "unifying" effects, except with potentially negative consequences in some cases (i.e. the hip hop culture).

I guess you could say the same thing for the Irish and their drinking.

I agree, interesting thought. I wondered the same thing when I was typing it. Of course, it was a new thought and I'm so busy at work I can't think deep but I'd say you're dead right on both counts.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Why the hell does she deserve to be suspended, because Al Shapton and his cronies were offended?

I'm venturing a guess here but I'd say IF she deserves to be suspended it's because of what was mentioned earlier, because she's a journalist. Reasonable or not, we hold the press in a special light in this country and they have privileges designed to help serve the public and with those privileges should come certain responsibilities.

Now, what those responsibilities are is certainly debatable but it's certainly within discussion that not disparaging races or encouraging racial tensions would not be acceptable.

Bottom line though, as always is the money. After all, the only way that she CAN be suspended is if her boss feels the need and that's driven by money and if enough people complain about her and not enough complain about the complainers, then she could be suspended to avoid costing the company money and that certainly is their right.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Agree completely.

Again, I'd like to agree but again, how do you feel about the german cannibal? Should he simply be set free because his victim was willing? I'm not sure society should go there yet but maybe we all don't care about anything our neighbors do as long as they agree it's ok?

Funny more than half the country isn't fine with letting grown adults to that in their own bedrooms but sure as hell want people to be able to offend countless masses as long as they say it to only one willing stooge.

Then again, I've always known most people are hypocrites. Not meaning you here but the general argument that is being offered.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Again, I'd like to agree but again, how do you feel about the german cannibal? Should he simply be set free because his victim was willing? I'm not sure society should go there yet but maybe we all don't care about anything our neighbors do as long as they agree it's ok?

Funny more than half the country isn't fine with letting grown adults to that in their own bedrooms but sure as hell want people to be able to offend countless masses as long as they say it to only one willing stooge.

Then again, I've always known most people are hypocrites. Not meaning you here but the general argument that is being offered.

I'm not following this at all. What exactly did I say or agree with that you are debating?

I agree with TOSU that she made a mistake and apologized for it; I don't think she meant it maliciously or in a racial sense (and Tiger seems to agree) and those trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it deserves are serving more to publicize themselves and piss off people than they are to make clear that the term and the context in which it was used could've been read as racist, given the history in this country of whites lynching blacks.

I do think it's apparent that some out there don't recognize why the term "lynching" when spoken by a white about a black would engender a much more explosive response than in just about any other context.

[JW]

I still don't follow you, Axxon. I still don't understand how you know she was thinking in racial terms in using the word. Maybe she was just oblivious to the racial overtones of the word. Maybe she was just guilty of not knowing the word might be offensive to some people. I certainly did not know until all the publicity broke about the Jena Six incident, that many blacks see nooses as racial symbols, for example.

And you seem to think that those who don't think she should have been suspended think it was perfectly okay for her to say what she said. I don't see that either.

As for the cannibalism issue, cannibalism is to me on a different order of magnitude than a sportscaster saying something stupid.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not following this at all. What exactly did I say or agree with that you are debating?

I agree with TOSU that she made a mistake and apologized for it; I don't think she meant it maliciously or in a racial sense (and Tiger seems to agree) and those trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it deserves are serving more to publicize themselves and piss off people than they are to make clear that the term and the context in which it was used could've been read as racist, given the history in this country of whites lynching blacks.

I do think it's apparent that some out there don't recognize why the term "lynching" when spoken by a white about a black would engender a much more explosive response than in just about any other context.

I'm saying that people are very forgiving of people saying/doing things to people publicly as long as both sides haven't got a problem with it but let it be two people of the same sex in their own bedrooms and all of a sudden it's going to cause the end of society as we know it. It's damned odd and agian, I wasn't accusing you but the argument in general is basically hypocritical to a huge number of people.

If a public insult should be ignored then why is a private situation so scrutinized?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JW

How do you know she used it in a racially-directed manner, larrymcg421? Was she really trying to say the white guys should lynch the black guy? I don't think that is apparent at all.

Nope, that's not what I said at all. I think she was saying the other golfers only hope of beating Tiger would be to take him out. She could have chosen many words to make her point, but she chose "lynch". I believe she chose that word because Tiger is seen as a black golfer. I don't think she chose it because Tiger is seen as a cowboy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Nope, that's not what I said at all. I think she was saying the other golfers only hope of beating Tiger would be to take him out. She could have chosen many words to make her point, but she chose "lynch". I believe she chose that word because Tiger is seen as a black golfer. I don't think she chose it because Tiger is seen as a cowboy.

She probably said thousands of words that day, I doubt any of them were a though-out "choice" as you suggest.

It's a huge stretch to think she "chose" to make a racial remark there on TV. Why the hell would she do that?

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I believe she chose that word because Tiger is seen as a black golfer. I don't think she chose it because Tiger is seen as a cowboy.

Or maybe she just used that it as a term for a group taking out an individual...

[Jas_lov]

I really think we're over reacting here. She should have used a different word. She didn't, she apologized, she was suspended. Tiger, the person who she was talking about, didn't have a problem with it. End of story.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

She probably said thousands of words that day, I doubt any of them were a though-out "choice" as you suggest.

It's a huge stretch to think she "chose" to make a racial remark there on TV. Why the hell would she do that?

Again, I think she was actually trying to say it as a compliment, so probably didn't think the term would be considered offensively in that context.

I don't think she's a racist and I don't think she should have been suspended. However, I am shocked that so many people don't seem to understand the racial context of that word, and why people would be upset when it's used by a white person in regards to a black person.

[Cringer]

This ripping on people for what they say is stupid. After the Packers won I marched around the truck stop yelling "sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil!" People seemed to get pissed for some reason.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Cringer

This ripping on people for what they say is stupid. After the Packers won I marched around the truck stop yelling "sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil!" People seemed to get pissed for some reason.

Maybe it's because you were naked?

[Cringer]

I had a mustache on.

[Lathum]

that explaines it

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I had a mustache on.

I hate to say it, Cringer, but if you busted in to a truck stop with nothing but a mustache on, I'd be angry, too

SI

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I hate to say it, Cringer, but if you busted in to a truck stop with nothing but a mustache on, I'd be angry, too

SI

So you are mustachist? Real nice. One day people like you will get what you deserve.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously he thinks so....No other way to explain posting in a thread where he has nothing to add other than snobbishly putting everyone down.

Snobbish? That is a new one. I have seen this before and honestly I want no parts because like politics people do not change their views. Hence when I opened the thread and noticed the same players saying more or less the same things they always have been saying there wasn't any need for me to comment.

So it was not a put down more of a what's the point. Enjoy yourself.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

there wasn't any need for me to comment.

But you did comment, that was my point. You needed to post just to let us all know how beneath you the discussion was.

Otherwise, you're saying that you'll only participate in a political discussion if people have dramatically changed their views - which makes no sense.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

But you did comment, that was my point. You needed to post just to let us all know how beneath you the discussion was.

Otherwise, you're saying that you'll only participate in a political discussion if people have dramatically changed their views - which makes no sense.

Looks like you just want to pick a fight over a few words. If they bother you that much then I think you need to seek some help. I do not participate in political discussions period because I have better things to do then argue with someone who is set in their views.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by molson

But you did comment, that was my point. You needed to post just to let us all know how beneath you the discussion was.

Otherwise, you're saying that you'll only participate in a political discussion if people have dramatically changed their views - which makes no sense.

See, I don't necessarily see it as disdain. Many, many thoughts can be conveyed through a well placed non statement.

When a lynch mob for example ( to keep it on topic ) has you roped up and on the horse and they say "you have any words in your defense" the anwer "why bother" sounds much more like resignation than disdain. This is just one example.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

Looks like you just want to pick a fight over a few words. If they bother you that much then I think you need to seek some help. I do not participate in political discussions period because I have better things to do then argue with someone who is set in their views.

Just a message board pet peeve of mine, nothing more (when someone basically posts "this discussion sucks", then leaves). I wonder about the motivation behind such a post. To me that's pure snobbery - but we can disagree on that.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

Looks like you just want to pick a fight over a few words. If they bother you that much then I think you need to seek some help. I do not participate in political discussions period because I have better things to do then argue with someone who is set in their views.

Like what?

I'm being serious and I'm not going to question or criticize any answers but I am always curious about how others set priorities and what they end up as.

I certainly have way more fun things to do than argue with someone set in their views but I rather like doing it and I suggest you might want to try.

See, it's not, it's not, it's absolutely not about convincing the other person about anything it's about honing your own ideas into solid, well thought out concepts that you can rely on and will make you make better, smarter decisions and will keep your mind nimble and quick.

Rocky did way better pounding the unwielding solid beef than he did just beating on weak human bodies. Made his azz the Heavyweight Champ.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

Just a message board pet peeve of mine, nothing more (when someone basically posts "this discussion sucks", then leaves). I wonder about the motivation behind such a post. To me that's pure snobbery - but we can disagree on that.

Snobbery, is that even possible on a message board? I digress because I refuse to get sucked into a fruitless debate.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

Snobbery, is that even possible on a message board? I digress because I refuse to get sucked into a fruitless debate.

You'll only debate with fruits??? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Like what?

I'm being serious and I'm not going to question or criticize any answers but I am always curious about how others set priorities and what they end up as.

I certainly have way more fun things to do than argue with someone set in their views but I rather like doing it and I suggest you might want to try.

See, it's not, it's not, it's absolutely not about convincing the other person about anything it's about honing your own ideas into solid, well thought out concepts that you can rely on and will make you make better, smarter decisions and will keep your mind nimble and quick.

Rocky did way better pounding the unwielding solid beef than he did just beating on weak human bodies. Made his azz the Heavyweight Champ.

I just don't see the point of it honestly. Sports to a certain degree I can understand because it is based on action(I am not sure if this makes sense) while arguing with someone who is a hardcore conservative about something like abortion would be pointless in my opinion. If you did manage to give the best debate that was infallible they would resort to something like the bible and dig in deep despite the presence of overwhelming evidence. (I am just using an example so please people do not try to argue abortion with me.)

That being said you bring up some very valid points and they are worth being considered. This is just my own personal preference and definitely didn't mean to come off as some snob or anything. I my intent was just to post that I did read the post and decided to sit this one out for the reasons I have stated.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

I just don't see the point of it honestly. Sports to a certain degree I can understand because it is based on action(I am not sure if this makes sense) while arguing with someone who is a hardcore conservative about something like abortion would be pointless in my opinion. If you did manage to give the best debate that was infallible they would resort to something like the bible and dig in deep despite the presence of overwhelming evidence. (I am just using an example so please people do not try to argue abortion with me.)

That being said you bring up some very valid points and they are worth being considered. This is just my own personal preference and definitely didn't mean to come off as some snob or anything. I my intent was just to post that I did read the post and decided to sit this one out for the reasons I have stated.

Hey, I'm on your side on the whole meaning of the post thing. I don't think it was snobbery.

I think you did get what I said though so mull it over. It's not about convincing others it's about convincing yourself of the solidity of your own beliefs because you know that your opponent is equally dedicated, equally unyielding and going to give your views and your mind an intense workout that you won't get talking to someone you could convince to see your view.

Peace.

[Axxon]

Dola,

not to mention the fact that once you've done that you'll have a way easier time convincing fence sitters to consider your views and there's lots more of them than the fanatics and who knows? Maybe some positive change can happer.

Of course, you would have to want to do that. That's true.

I like knowing I can if I need to though.

[Cringer]

I just spent 30 minutes listening to a guy on the CB rant on and on about how evil Jews are. I even encouraged him some because it was funny as hell listening to the guy. He couldn't even say United States correctly, he kept saying United State. The guy made me seem like Einstein.

Sometimes in life you just have to laugh crap off and move on with your life instead of threatening and yelling at a guy over the CB radio like some guys do.

There is no moral to this story.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I just spent 30 minutes listening to a guy on the CB rant on and on about how evil Jews are. I even encouraged him some because it was funny as hell listening to the guy. He couldn't even say United States correctly, he kept saying United State. The guy made me seem like Einstein.

Sometimes in life you just have to laugh crap off and move on with your life instead of threatening and yelling at a guy over the CB radio like some guys do.

There is no moral to this story.

Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein.

Joe Theismann, Former quarterback

[Axxon]

obligatory Dola,

Norman, is that you?

[tarcone]

Those of you who called Sharpton an idiot are racist. Everyone knows slaveowners killed any blacks that they thought were smart. Thus, it is racist to call a black man an idiot. So please stop.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I am shocked that so many people don't seem to understand the racial context of that word, and why people would be upset when it's used by a white person in regards to a black person.

I wonder if there is any kind of north/south differentiation on this. Living in the rural Midwest, I don't know that I ever really heard the word "lynch" in a racial context. Somewhere along the line I became aware of the context, but only with as much recognition as some people seem to have with the old West context.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I wonder if there is any kind of north/south differentiation on this. Living in the rural Midwest, I don't know that I ever really heard the word "lynch" in a racial context. Somewhere along the line I became aware of the context, but only with as much recognition as some people seem to have with the old West context.

I think you're right about that, and it supports my issue with these kind of things constantly coming up.

In the south, race is everything (it would seem). People's first reaction to everything is it's racial contexts. Which of course, just greatly increases the division of the races.

In other places, it's just not the first thing you think of. I grew up in a fairly diverse northeast city, and I just wasn't hit over the head with race (as an issue) in every step of my grade school existence. I had to learn things like stereotypes, and why certain, seemingly harmless words and images were "racist", because our lives simply didn't revolve around that kind of thing.

When people lose their shit over people mis-speaking in this way, when they clearly have no racial intent behind their words, all you do is create more division.

[JW]

Yet having grown up in the South, I did not understand until recently that the word "lynch" and the word "noose" automatically, that is without context, had a racial connotation to many blacks. And I've worked intimately with black Americans during both my military and teaching careers. I taught 10 years for example in a high school with a 99% black students population, black principal, and majority black faculty and have had many discusisons about issues of race. I understood perfectly that those words in certain contexts had racial implications, but I did not understand that apparently to many blacks the words themselves devoid of context are thought of first in racial terms.

That is why I think it is wrong to assume that the sporscaster had any kind of racial intent in mind when using the word. For many white Americans, well, we don't first think of race when we consider the words. Many black Americans do, apparently.

So that is why I have to wonder about her being punished for using the word. And I am NOT saying nothing should have been done. (There seem to be some here who think the only options are punishing her or doing nothing.) She should have been made aware of the racial implications of the word. Period. Unless she had a history of such incidents.

At the same time I have to wonder what the almost hysterical reaction by some black activists to such incidents does to bring the country together. It is as if Sharpton and some other activists wait for chances to pounce on such incidents to prove to their constituents that they are still relevant.

[ISiddiqui]

I grew up in the North (Southern New Jersey), and I had knowledge that lynch and nooses are highly racially loaded terms. So it isn't just the South where this is known. Now, I don't think she was being racist, but it was a stunningly moronic use of words. She should be made aware of that most definately. As for punishment, I don't know how much of that is necessary.

[Axxon]

I found the following article thought provoking. Apparently lynchings have some far reaching effects that I wouldn't have thought of. Just shows how vile the practice we want so badly to trivialize is. It kinda makes you see why the term could be upsetting. Especially people who believe the point about capital punishment.

The Legacy of Lynching: Part I

By Richard Morin

Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page B05

For decades, scholars have sought to answer this bloody question: Why has the murder rate been disproportionally high in the South for more than a century? Some argue it's the weather -- hot, steamy conditions setting tempers on edge and provoking deadly violence. Others blame widespread poverty and illiteracy. Still others fault a so-called southern "code of honor" that requires any slight to be avenged.

Now three sociologists have found an additional explanation: lynchings.


Today's Editorials

Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* a new millennium, a new harbinger
* Chapati Mystery
* Hiram Hover


Full List of Blogs (7 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Steven F. Messner of the State University of New York at Albany and his collaborators examined county data from 10 southern states where historically reliable information on vigilante lynchings is available: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. (Some counties where boundaries had changed were aggregated into groups of counties.)

This data set, originally collected by other researchers, contained the number of lynchings in each county in each state between 1882 and 1930, a period that scholars call the "era of lynchings." Then they gathered homicide data from the FBI and National Center for Health Statistics for each county covering the period from 1986 to 1995.

Based on this information, Messner and his colleagues produced two maps. One showed homicides: Those counties with the highest rates were colored black; those with lower rates were shaded gray, while those with the lowest rates were white. The second displayed lynchings, using the same shadings. Counties with the most lynchings were colored black, those with a lower rate were gray and those with the lowest rates were white.

A quick glace at the maps revealed a chilling pattern. The dark areas roughly overlapped: the counties with the most lynchings had the highest homicide rates, while counties with fewer lynchings had comparatively fewer murders. The overlap wasn't perfect, but it was apparent even to the naked eye, Messner reported in the latest issue of the American Sociological Review.

A more sophisticated statistical analysis confirmed the relationship. Counties with the most lynchings had homicide levels roughly 5 percent higher on average than those counties with the fewest lynchings -- a correlation that didn't disappear when the researchers controlled for factors known to influence the murder rate, such as population, poverty, low levels of education, the percentage of young people in the population, the unemployment rate and the percentage of single-parent households. They even developed an elaborate method to account for the code of honor, and found that that the correlation remained strong.

Why would a brutal practice that began more than a century ago affect these same areas today? Messner isn't yet sure. "That's the million-dollar question. We see these analyses as the first word, not the last." He hopes others will join in searching for the reasons. But Messner is confident that "lynching seems to matter and is relevant to our understanding of contemporary lethal violence" in the South.

The Legacy of Lynching: Part II

Is capital punishment the modern equivalent of lynching?

Yes, argue three researchers who found that the states that sentenced the most criminals to death also tended to be the ones with the most lynchings in the past.

Sociologist David Jacobs of Ohio State University and collaborators Jason T. Carmichael of Ohio State and Stephanie L. Kent of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas found that the number of death sentences for all criminals -- black and white -- was higher in states with a history of lynchings. But the link was particularly strong when they analyzed only death sentences for black defendants.

The sociologists theorize that the death penalty became a legal replacement for the lynchings of the past. They found that the number of death sentences in states with the most lynchings increased as the state's population of African Americans grew larger, suggesting that "current racial threat and past vigilantism largely directed against newly freed slaves jointly contribute to current lethal but legal reactions to racial threat," Jacobs and his colleagues write in a forthcoming issue of the American Sociological Review.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400529.html

[JW]

I don't see how people are trivializing lynching here. Some people just seem to be saying that not everyone automatically thinks of lynching in racial terms and that the sportscaster might well have not been thinking at all in racial terms.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's a crime since Tilghham is white.

This may be my favorite second post in a thread ever.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Axxon

That should be the right answer but sometimes it can't be. When an issue goes far beyond the individuals involved then those individuals no longer have the right to be "ok" with something.

It's like the german cannibal whose victim willingly and knowingly let himself be killeda db eaten. That was ok with him but the law didn't simply STFU.

Are you actually serious here? That is a horrible analogy.

One is a comment that includes nothing in context to the reason a select group is complaining. The other is an actual act that is carried out. That analogy is better used for something like the Dr. Death assisted suicide scenario.

Also, you interestingly used "German" cannibal. It implies pre-historic in time period, where the act was likely not regulated by any law. You might have used a tribal group that actually practices cannibalism today. That would have set foundation in today's cultural and moral standards. That would have provided a little more support. But it is still a very odd analogy.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JW

I don't see how people are trivializing lynching here. Some people just seem to be saying that not everyone automatically thinks of lynching in racial terms and that the sportscaster might well have not been thinking at all in racial terms.

I think it's pretty likely that she wasn't trying to be a racist and I would say that she wasn't thinking at all rather than thinking in racial terms. I can't see how any sane person in this country can think honestly about lynching and not giving even the slightest thought to the racial element to american lynching

But as I said, I don't think she was trying to be a racist and I don't think very many people think that.

Isn't the point that the criticizers are saying though is that there should be clear boundaries and we're not at the point that we can decide that on a case by case basis?

I mean, once a precedent is set, you'd have to allow the truly racist to say whatever they want too. Is it perhaps better to have a few unfair examples made so the boundary is clear?

Keep in mind, really I'm playing the devils advocate here. I'm actually a believer and have stated it here several times that I think this word policing is silly but I'm trying to see the other side and the fact that people can come out and say that they never knew black folks was lynched more than white folks to be very scary because when people lie like that for no reason I have to wonder what they are really thinking.

I brought up the last post though because I found the topic in it interesting. I'm sorry that my one sentence diminished the interest in the rest of the piece for you.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Are you actually serious here? That is a horrible analogy.

One is a comment that includes nothing in context to the reason a select group is complaining. The other is an actual act that is carried out. That analogy is better used for something like the Dr. Death assisted suicide scenario.

Also, you interestingly used "German" cannibal. It implies pre-historic in time period, where the act was likely not regulated by any law. You might have used a tribal group that actually practices cannibalism today. That would have set foundation in today's cultural and moral standards. That would have provided a little more support. But it is still a very odd analogy.

You're taking the word to the "eskimo" extreme. There as nothing special in choosing the word german except I didn't feel like googling the article and I remembered the story took place in germany and hoped that would be enough for people to know what story I was talking about.

As for the analogy I truly wonder what is so different between thought and action when the topic is whether something is consensual. That's the point I'm making but really, it's not even that.

Both are ACTIONS. This person took the action of broadcasting something possibly hurtful to an audience of millions. Tiger didn't take offense at that ACTION nor did the cannibal victim.

Though I'll give you your objection for the state of argument and ask you to explain why a completely consensual action can be wrong but a completely consensual action can't be?

Then we can talk about the fact that the comment was offensive ( and here I'm giving the other side their argument ) to a race of people, not an individual person and they most certainly haven't given it their ok to the statements so the whole "tigers ok with it" argument was bogus.

And that can be. A person actually can be a racist against their own race. Can we find one of them, publically abuse them with all the worst, most vile and disgusting concepts ever and have them say they're cool with it so no one else should be offended?

I'm really curious about that too. Seems that this would be a good tactic for the klan to take up so the good non racists can accept them again as cool people in hip robes.

[Axxon]

Dola, Grammaticus, on reading your post again I get that you don't know the case I'm talking about.

First hit when typing german cannibal into google is this one about the case so I wasn't that off on its relevance.

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm

A man accused of killing, dissecting and eating another man has gone on trial in central Germany.

The court heard how horror films had fuelled Armin Meiwes' childhood fantasies of eating school friends.

The 41-year-old computer technician is charged with murder, even though the victim allegedly volunteered for his fate by replying to an internet advert.

The gruesome incident was all captured on camcorder and the footage is expected to form part of the evidence.

"I had the fantasy, and in the end I fulfilled it," he said. The fantasy first developed between the ages of eight and 12, he added.

Mr Meiwes spoke of how he felt ignored by his father, and longed for a good-looking younger brother - whom he would bind to himself forever by consuming.

Internet link

It is Germany's first cannibalism case, and the world's media have gathered in Kassel to watch the proceedings.

Television images showed Mr Meiwes - wearing a jacket and a tie - smiling and talking light-heartedly to his lawyer moments before the trial began.

It was the first time that the self-confessed cannibal had been seen in public since his arrest.

The grisly details of the case caused a sensation in the German media when Mr Meiwes was arrested in December, 2002.

My friend enjoyed dying, death. I only waited horrified for the end after doing the deed. It took so terribly long
Armin Meiwes

Cannibalism: A modern taboo

In a recent newspaper interview he admitted that he had killed and then partly eaten his victim.

Mr Meiwes advertised on the internet for a well-built male prepared to be slaughtered and then consumed.

"Slim and blond, that would have been the type", he told the court.

The victim, 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, answered the advert in March 2001.

Mr Meiwes told investigators he took Mr Brandes back to his home in Rotenburg, where Mr Brandes agreed to have his penis cut off, which Mr Meiwes then flambéed and served up to eat together.

Prosecutors say Mr Meiwes then stabbed the victim repeatedly in the neck and dissected the corpse.

Shock value

Legally it is a tricky case, says the BBC's correspondent in Berlin, Ray Furlong.

Bernd-Jurgen Brandes
The court will test if Mr Brandes gave his life willingly

Cannibalism is not a recognised offence under German law and the defence will argue that, since the victim volunteered, this was no murder.

If the court accepts the defence argument, Mr Meiwes can expect a jail term of up to five years.

But the prosecution will push for a life sentence on the basis that Mr Meiwes is simply too dangerous ever to be released.

Meanwhile, Germans will continue to be treated to a media frenzy that plays on the story's unrivalled shock value.

And among the "highlights" will be the two-hour video that Mr Meiwes took of the whole incident on his camcorder, our correspondent says.

"The public probably won't be excluded from this part of proceedings; we have a tradition of open trials," says legal expert Felix Hardenberg.

"But the panel of judges will show only the relevant parts: what the victim is saying and doing before and during the killing."

Mr Meiwes has said that after his trial he intends to pass the time in jail - if convicted - by writing his memoirs.

The court will hear 38 witnesses and 14 sessions are scheduled in the trial, which is scheduled to end in late January.

The case only came to light when an Austrian student spotted another advertisement placed by Mr Meiwes on the internet and alerted police.