Why is the word "Lynch" a hate crime?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

Nothing will ever beat Joe's succinct "fuck off" to the forum feed troll.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Axxon

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.

I see what you mean about the German guy now. I recall reading about that. It is very weird. Also, from reading your post of the article, it sounds like they have some issues with how to proceed based on German law, odd stuff.

I guess the difference in consent for me is when people are consenting to do something that kills or maims another human being, regardless of consent it is harmful to society and threatens the safety of others. Consenting about speach does not kill or maim someone. It is not an action in that regard.

On the canibalism thing, you will likely consider a person willing to be killed and eaten as mentally unstable. The predator is taking advantage of someone who is not mentally stable. Also, in that specific case, the consumed one is dead.

How do we know he really consented. Was he lured into the predators zone of control and killed against his will? And the predators defense is "he consented".

I'm sure doctors and such can provide much better information on why outlawing behavior that kills and maims human beings supports a civil society.

Of course it was not long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Maybe we will see Ray Bradbury's voluntary suicide to help the planet, come to fruition in our lifetime.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Axxon

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.

Actually I found the entire post very interesting. I just didn't want to get into the other issues. I think our difference is only a matter of degree. Certainly she should be counselled by her boss at the very least about not saying stupid things or things that might offend people. All else aside, you know the network doesn't want to offend ANYONE, so as an employee she needs to understand that. I just see an overreaction mainly by the Al Sharpton types.

[molson]

LOL - check out Golfweek magazine's choice of a cover photo:

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3201070

This is in MUCH poorer taste, IMO, than the underlying comment.

So everyone in this thread who wanted to make such a huge deal out of her unfortunate choice of words, now we have a lynching noose on the cover of a mainstream magazine - I hope you're happy.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Well yes, Sharpton is a gas bag, no doubt about that. I guess in the truest sense yes it is a big deal because she is white...but it WAS white people lynching black people in the past.

White people also lynched asian people, and other white people. Theres nothing intrinsically racist about "lynched"


Anyone else think Al Sharpton does much more to promote racism than he does to prevent it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Anyone else think Al Sharpton does much more to promote racism than he does to prevent it?

100% yes...and it's also promoted (to a much less sinsister and intentional way), by discussions like this one. Which leads us to nooses on golf magazine covers.

[Raiders Army]

Four pages of this....wow

[korme]

All I can say is, you can really tell who the country boys are in this thread.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Four pages of this....wow

I think this is the third post in the thread that simply mocks the discussion, and yet, like the others, you posted here, and extended the length of the thread?????

[Pumpy Tudors]

and them white folks are crazy

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JW

Actually I found the entire post very interesting. I just didn't want to get into the other issues. I think our difference is only a matter of degree. Certainly she should be counselled by her boss at the very least about not saying stupid things or things that might offend people. All else aside, you know the network doesn't want to offend ANYONE, so as an employee she needs to understand that. I just see an overreaction mainly by the Al Sharpton types.

Actually, I think we're pretty close to being in agreement then.

I don't really get worked up by the Sharpton boys though. They do have a right to have their say, have it considered by the voting ( in this case with $$ ) public and let the community decide what the appropriate reaction should be.

If enough people in a community are willing to take their business elsewhere then what use is it to call them overreactors? It's their community. Just chalk it up to a place you wouldn't like to live. I know of lots of places like that for me. Nothing wrong with them but not my cup of tea.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

LOL - check out Golfweek magazine's...now we have a lynching noose on the cover of a mainstream magazine - I hope you're happy.

LOL.

[RomaGoth]

Where were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson during the Duke LaCrosse incident?

Just sayin'.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Synovia

White people also lynched asian people, and other white people. Theres nothing intrinsically racist about "lynched"


Anyone else think Al Sharpton does much more to promote racism than he does to prevent it?

So, since tuna boats catch the occasional dolphin or other fish, there's nothing intrinsically "tuna" related to their fishing? It's just one funky big random thing that the vast, vast majority of the fish they catch are tuna then??

I like that argument though. I'm gonna rob a bank but pick up a quarter on the street so I'll just say, 'hey, I picked up this quarter on the street so there's nothing intrinsically illegal with picking up money in your bank.'

Hey, since breast cancer also happens to the occasional male there's nothing intrinsically female to this disease either.

Shit, by your logic as long as we throw in some tokens we can be as racist as we want and it'll all be good.

[Axxon]

Dola-

to end this once and for all, Hitler gassed Romanian Gypsies, Catholics and gays as well as Jews then there is no racism against the Jews in the holocaust.

I hereby Godwinned the thread.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

All I can say is, you can really tell who the country boys are in this thread.

Please don't insult country boys. We're not all racists.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So, since tuna boats catch the occasional dolphin or other fish, there's nothing intrinsically "tuna" related to their fishing? It's just one funky big random thing that the vast, vast majority of the fish they catch are tuna then??

I think you are making the OP's point for him in a roundabout way...as the operative word in the analogy is "fishing"...not tuna. So when one speaks of "fishing"(or "lynching", i.e. an action), it does not lead everybody to necessarily associate tuna or dolphin(or "white or black person", i.e. a target of the action) as both can and have been "fished" (or "lynched"), regardless of which has been "fished"(or "lynched") more.

What you've termed as a "tuna boat" is more analagous to a "racist white person"...just as a "boat" is more analagous to a "person" or even "white person".

I like that argument though. I'm gonna rob a bank but pick up a quarter on the street so I'll just say, 'hey, I picked up this quarter on the street so there's nothing intrinsically illegal with picking up money in your bank.

Again...the analogy fails since "robbing" is an illegal activity. "picking up" & "robbing" are 2 different terms...just as "lynching" & "murdering" are 2 different terms. One can murder by lynching somebody...and one can rob by picking up money from a place which does not belong to them...but they are not the same thing.

I'm not trying to nitpick you (albeit I have a bit)...but pretending that everybody in the world should understand and automatically know every word that every other person in the world might find offensive is...well, unrealistic. We have all lived in different circumstances, cultures, ethnicities, & social status...and not everybody understands every implication of every term they have heard...especially when the term has no inherit meaning to race.

By that standard or expectation...we have a lot of dictionaries to rewrite.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think you are making the OP's point for him in a roundabout way...as the operative word in the analogy is "fishing"...not tuna. So when one speaks of "fishing"(or "lynching", i.e. an action), it does not lead everybody to necessarily associate tuna or dolphin(or "white or black person", i.e. a target of the action) as both can and have been "fished" (or "lynched"), regardless of which has been "fished"(or "lynched") more.

What you've termed as a "tuna boat" is more analagous to a "racist white person"...just as a "boat" is more analagous to a "person" or even "white person".



Again...the analogy fails since "robbing" is an illegal activity. "picking up" & "robbing" are 2 different terms...just as "lynching" & "murdering" are 2 different terms. One can murder by lynching somebody...and one can rob by picking up money from a place which does not belong to them...but they are not the same thing.

I'm not trying to nitpick you (albeit I have a bit)...but pretending that everybody in the world should understand and automatically know every word that every other person in the world might find offensive is...well, unrealistic. We have all lived in different circumstances, cultures, ethnicities, & social status...and not everybody understands every implication of every term they have heard...especially when the term has no inherit meaning to race.

By that standard or expectation...we have a lot of dictionaries to rewrite.

I don't mind the nitpick. I post from work and during calls so I'm sure a lot of what I type needs nitpicking.

I think you are over stepping the analogy though since Lynching is not to crime prevention as fishing is to bringing edible food from the ocean.

But lets say it is. Compare the professed purpose of the holocaust which is to wipe out the Jewish race that also killed non Jews and try and say that the holocaust wasn't a jewish issue.

It all fails right there in Synovia's post since he clearly stated it's not a black issue since non blacks were lynched too. It's a pretty direct analogy to me.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't mind the nitpick. I post from work and during calls so I'm sure a lot of what I type needs nitpicking.

I think you are over stepping the analogy though since Lynching is not to crime prevention as fishing is to bringing edible food from the ocean.

But lets say it is. Compare the professed purpose of the holocaust which is to wipe out the Jewish race that also killed non Jews and try and say that the holocaust wasn't a jewish issue.

It all fails right there in Synovia's post since he clearly stated it's not a black issue since non blacks were lynched too. It's a pretty direct analogy to me.

Axxon, your analogies make no sense.


Should I be offended every time someone uses the word Martyr, because Christians were thrown to the lions, even when they use the word correctly? Should I be offended every time someone uses the word "kill" because my Irish ancestors were persecuted and killed by the french and english colonists when they first moved to the US?

The word was used in the correct context. It has no intrinsic race associated. White people have been lynched. Asian people have been lynched. Yes, black people have been lynched, but theres nothing intrinsically 'black' about lynching someone.


The only reason Tiger/etc should be offended is if shes insinuating that hes a horse thief.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Axxon

But lets say it is. Compare the professed purpose of the holocaust which is to wipe out the Jewish race that also killed non Jews and try and say that the holocaust wasn't a jewish issue.

It all fails right there in Synovia's post since he clearly stated it's not a black issue since non blacks were lynched too. It's a pretty direct analogy to me.

Again, you're making my point.


You can have a lynching without black people being involved. You can't have the Holocaust (with a capital H) without the Jews being involved. Theyre completely seperate things.


A closer thing would be to say that people being held against their will during a war is an intrinsically jewish thing (which its not, its been done in every war since time started)

[ISiddiqui]

You can't have the Holocaust (with a capital H) without the Jews being involved.

Yes you can (any capitalization is irrelevant... we are talking about the general term here of both lynching and holocaust). Holocaust is simply a Greek word meaning completely burnt. Any mass genocide can be called a holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust

Since the mid-19th century, the word has been used by many authors to refer to large catastrophes and massacres, particularly those caused by immolation. According to the OED, the earliest attested such usage dates from 1671, but it became common in the 19th century. In 1833 the journalist Leitch Ritchie, writing about the medieval French monarch Louis VII, wrote that he "once made a holocaust of thirteen hundred persons in a church". This refers to his invasion of Vitry-le-François in 1142 during which the 1,300 inhabitants of the town were burnt alive in the church.

By the early twentieth century the term was widely used to refer to massacres of Armenians in Turkey, particularly during World War I. The Armenian Genocide was called "The Holocaust" (1920) and "The Smyrna Holocaust" (1923).^[2] In 1929, Winston Churchill referred to "helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust" (The World Crisis).^[3]
Even before the Second World War, the possibility of another war was referred to as "another holocaust" (that is, a repeat of the First World War). With reference to the events of the war, writers in English after it was over tended to use the term in relation to events such as the fire-bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima, rather than the Nazi genocide.^{[citation needed]} The term was most commonly used to refer to the destructive consequences of nuclear war.^[4]

The term became increasingly widespread as a synonym for "genocide" in the last decades of the 20th century to refer to mass murders in the form "X holocaust" (e.g. "Rwandan holocaust"). Examples are Rwanda, the Ukraine under Stalin, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

[Synovia]

ISiddiqui, thats why I said "with a capital H". Holocaust with a capital H refers to that specific event.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Synovia

ISiddiqui, thats why I said "with a capital H". Holocaust with a capital H refers to that specific event.

I edited my post. The "capital H" is irrelevent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Which leads us to nooses on golf magazine covers.

http://sports.myway.com/news/01182008/v6257.html

Golfweek magazine replaced the editor responsible for illustrating the current cover with a noose and apologized Friday for its depiction of a Golf Channel anchor's use of "lynch" in a comment about Tiger Woods.

"We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country," Turnstile Publishing Co. president William P. Kupper Jr. said. "We were trying to convey the controversial issues with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people. For that, we are deeply apologetic.
...
Turnstile is the parent company of Golfweek.

The company said Dave Seanor, the vice president and editor of Golfweek, has been replaced immediately by Jeff Babineau.

A copy of the Jan. 19 cover was removed from the magazine's Web site Friday morning.

Seanor said in an interview Thursday night that he took responsibility for the cover, which showed a noose against a purple sky and the title, "Caught in a Noose." The subtitle said, "Tilghman slips up, and Golf Channel can't wriggle free."

The magazine devoted four pages of news and commentary on the topic, including a column on the back page supporting Tilghman and asking that the controversy be kept in context.

In an editorial, the magazine explained why it felt the Tilghman story deserved so much attention. It was accompanied by a cartoon that showed the Rev. Al Sharpton, who demanded Tilghman be fired, holding a noose and offering it to a pair of Golf Channel employees staring in a hole of thin ice, presumably where Tilghman had sunk.

Reaction to the noose drew a harsh rebuke from PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem.

"Clearly, what Kelly said was inappropriate and unfortunate, and she obviously regrets her choice of words," Finchem said in a statement. "But we consider Golfweek's imagery of a swinging noose on its cover to be outrageous and irresponsible. It smacks of tabloid journalism. It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident that was heading to an appropriate conclusion."

It was not clear if Seanor had been fired.

Babineau, 45, has been with Golfweek for nine years, including roles as editor, deputy editor and senior writer.

"We know we have a job ahead of us to re-earn the trust and confidence of many loyal readers," Babineau said. "Our staff is very passionate about the game. Our wish is that one regretful error does not erase more than 30 years of service we've dedicated to this industry."

[RomaGoth]

It always comes back to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They both need to get lost and let things be. I have never in my life seen 2 people stir up things more often than these two morons. The woman's comments were out of line, yes; however I do not believe she meant anything by them and this has completely gotten out of hand. The cover of the golf magazine was meant to grab headlines, but it was in poor taste.

I wish as a society we could just get over all this crap and stand together against common problems like hunger, child porn, terrorism, and poverty. Instead, we continue to bicker over stuff and promote the very problems that we are seeking to resolve. Everytime people like Sharpton and Jackson speak, the fires of racism are stoked anew.

It is all too bad.

[14ers]

Another Golf racist hate crime?


GolfWeek magazine editor fired over this cover.


It is getting harder and harder to enjoy sports now days. Maybe Star Trek was right; In the future there will be no sports or athletes.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

It always comes back to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They both need to get lost and let things be. I have never in my life seen 2 people stir up things more often than these two morons.

I agree. I generally consider myself to be pretty color neutral. I generally don't give a crap what color you are....

But Sharpton, and the way the majority of black journalists seem to repeat his oppinions/muck-stirring really makes me dislike most black journalists.

If Al Sharpton is so easily offended, maybe he should stop watching TV/reading magazines.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Asian people have been lynched.

We don't get lynched. We know kung fu, and people always go ninja one-on-one style against Asians, allowing us to take them one-by-one.

[rkmsuf]

"karate man bruise on the inside"

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by 14ers

Another Golf racist hate crime?


GolfWeek magazine editor fired over this cover.


It is getting harder and harder to enjoy sports now days. Maybe Star Trek was right; In the future there will be no sports or athletes.

But one out of every ten people will still talk about baseball.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

"karate man bruise on the inside"

OMFG. One of the best lines in one of Eddie Murphy's best movies.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I agree. I generally consider myself to be pretty color neutral. I generally don't give a crap what color you are....

But Sharpton, and the way the majority of black journalists seem to repeat his oppinions/muck-stirring really makes me dislike most black journalists.

If Al Sharpton is so easily offended, maybe he should stop watching TV/reading magazines.

Very true. Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda, and it is called "bring as much attention to myself as possible no matter who gets hurt."

Yes, there are racist people out there. Nothing any of us ever do will change that. But drawing attention to every little thing that happens and fueling the "PC Police" is not the way to go about ending racism. People say things every day that are dumb. Hell, I say at least 3 things every day that are just stupid. Not racist things, but stupid things nonetheless. The girl apologized, the magazine apologized, why can't they just drop it? The really sad thing is that when a black person says things about whites or even other blacks, nothing is made of it. As I stated in an earlier post, where were Sharpton and Jackson when the Duke LaCrosse players were under attack for what now was obviously a bunch of lies by a black stripper? They were nowhere to be found.

I am just tired of it all. We are all equal in regards to the color of our skin. It is what is inside that makes us each different.

[Pumpy Tudors]

OK, if it'll make things better in this country, I'll go lynch Tiger Woods and see what happens.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Very true. Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda, and it is called "bring as much attention to myself as possible no matter who gets hurt."

Yes, there are racist people out there. Nothing any of us ever do will change that. But drawing attention to every little thing that happens and fueling the "PC Police" is not the way to go about ending racism. People say things every day that are dumb. Hell, I say at least 3 things every day that are just stupid. Not racist things, but stupid things nonetheless. The girl apologized, the magazine apologized, why can't they just drop it? The really sad thing is that when a black person says things about whites or even other blacks, nothing is made of it. As I stated in an earlier post, where were Sharpton and Jackson when the Duke LaCrosse players were under attack for what now was obviously a bunch of lies by a black stripper? They were nowhere to be found.

I am just tired of it all. We are all equal in regards to the color of our skin. It is what is inside that makes us each different.

Sharpton and Jackson can post wherever they feel like.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Sharpton and Jackson can post wherever they feel like.

LOL.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

OK, if it'll make things better in this country, I'll go lynch Tiger Woods and see what happens.

It would be blamed on some white person.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It would be blamed on some white person.

In that case, I'll be back in like 25 minutes!!!

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

In that case, I'll be back in like 25 minutes!!!

25 minutes??? It takes you that long???

[larrymcg421]

To be affair, Sharpton did attack Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder for having Martin Luther King utter the N word in an episode.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

25 minutes??? It takes you that long???

This might be hard to believe, but I don't really have a lot of practice with lynching people... you know, with me being black and all.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

This might be hard to believe, but I don't really have a lot of practice with lynching people... you know, with me being black and all.

I love you Pumpy, and not in a gay kind of way either.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I love you Pumpy, and not in a gay kind of way either.

What, you can't love him in a gay way because of his race?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

I love how this point is completely ignored in all this, especially with the Jim Rome/Oilers9911 metaphor about using the word "gas" towards a jew.

Tiger Words is not black!

This would be an awesome name for the next Scrabble champion. Kind of like Chris Moneymaker for poker!

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

What, you can't love him in a gay way because of his race?

See what I mean?? This always comes back to race. Are you Al Sharpton????

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To be affair, Sharpton did attack Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder for having Martin Luther King utter the N word in an episode.

IIRC, Sharpton also slams rappers for using the n word and advocating violence in their lyrics. So he does go after black people plenty of times as well.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by 14ers

Another Golf racist hate crime?


GolfWeek magazine editor fired over this cover.


It is getting harder and harder to enjoy sports now days. Maybe Star Trek was right; In the future there will be no sports or athletes.

I find it interesting that the magazine cover depicts the virtual "lynching" that the announcer got for her comment, yet that still somehow got turned into a racist picture. Apparently you can't even use the word as you are being lynched.

[st.cronin]

I really don't get what's wrong with that magazine cover.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I wish as a society we could just get over all this crap and stand together against common problems like hunger, child porn, terrorism, and poverty. Instead, we continue to bicker over stuff and promote the very problems that we are seeking to resolve. Everytime people like Sharpton and Jackson speak, the fires of racism are stoked anew.

It is all too bad.

Child porn and global terrorism will go away once Sharpton and Jackson shut up? Who knew?

Maybe the money and resources going to the GWOT really are misspent!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I really don't get what's wrong with that magazine cover.

(me neither other than the crass commercialization of trying to cash in on hype, kindof like advertising for Christmas stuff in October)

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I really don't get what's wrong with that magazine cover.

I'm not personally offended (I fortunately wasn't born with a sense of offensiveness).

BUT, it's just funny that it's apparently offensive to say a word with no racial intent whatsoever, and then a magazine thinks it's OK to display a image SOLELY for it's racial shock value.