fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story
Remember, Trump supporters are violent. Trump supporters are racist. It’s scary that Trump might not accept the results of the election, etc. etc.
Chicago is a shithole, avoid it at all costs.
Looks like typical high school shenanigans to me. You some kind of pansy?
Shit-cago…
It’s not a hate crime if the kidnapped physically tortured victim is white instead it’s just undisciplined youth (can’t say black youth as that’s not pc) acting inappropriately.
Can’t say it is Muslim or Middle Eastern youth rioting and burning cars in downtown Paris, France.
Can’t say it is Muslim or Middle Eastern men raping German women.
You see racism against white people is nonexistent as it isn’t real and can’t under any circumstances ever exist.
But what if it is for free?
They are trying to murder all Whites. They are the racists.
Simply for wanting to stop Aryans from being exterminated, I get called a racist.
I don’t see how the linked article, or the event it describes, is in any way in conflict with claims that Trump supporters are violent, racist, etc. etc.
Which isn’t to say they are, just that they can be violent etc. etc., and this event can still have taken place.
More generally, there’s a problem with statements of the sort “Large, disorganized group of individuals X has attribute Y”. Do we mean every member of X? Most members? The core members? That being in X entails Y, or otherwise has some logical or statistical relationship to Y? The claims are vague, so they permit of a lot of claims that seem to be contradictory but aren’t. For instance, for certain reasonable interpretations of the claim, it’s consistent to say that those who oppose Trump are peaceful, despite events like that described in the article.
That’s a problem because the claims appear to be empirical statements, but multiple listeners can hear them, interpret them differently, and, relying on the same evidence, validly accept or reject them.
As such, they are much closer to meaningless rhetoric than to actual statements of fact about the world.
[EDIT: clarification, grammar]
Ucci,
I think he might have a point here. Would you like to hear mine? 
“Trump Supporter Kidnapped, Tortured for 2 Days.”
The original headline reads:
“4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live”
Ucci, what information from the article you linked indicated the victim was a “Trump Supporter” as you have claimed in >your< title?
“Although President-elect Donald Trump was mentioned, Chicago Police do not believe the crime was politically motivated.”
Perhaps you have another source that indicates the victims political affiliation that you hadn’t posted.
In the video we have four black people kidnapping a white disabled teen where ephitets of “fuck Donald Trump” and “fuck white people” are all throughout the scene torturing him.
It was both politically and racially motivated attack possibly also motivated that he was mentally handicapped.
Only a fucking moron or liberal politically correct tool (racism against whites doesn’t exist!) would say otherwise.
Case closed asshats.
“It was both politically and racially motivated attack possibly also motivated that he was mentally handicapped.”
Odd sentence structure.
The victim knew at least one of his abductors. Sounds more like stupid fucking kids taking advantage of someone who couldn’t take care of himself. Thanks no, but I’ll place more stock in those who actually investigated the assault rather then someone who has an uniformed opinion and an axe to grind.
Let’s think of this thread itself as a learning experience.
Some things are difficult to accept about other people because you just don’t want them to be true.
The violence and danger of the Trump supporters never manifested, and that of his opponents does virtually every day. We were all told Trump supporters were dangerous and violent without evidence, but those of us who actually pay attention know it’s been the left who get violent all along.
Sure, but this is a problem adults actually have, or just one they pretend to have for the sake of winning political debates? For example, if I say to you “crows are black” are you thrown into confusion and disarray wondering if I am denying the existence of albino crows, or if I’ve considered that scientifically speaking perhaps crows are very very dark blue? Are you tempted to say ‘crows are black’ is mere meaningless rhetoric?
When I say ‘liberals are this’ or ‘black people are that’ or ‘Trump supporters are like so’, I see all sorts of faked confusion that simply doesnt occur when I say “Dogs have four legs” or whatever. So I don’t think it’s a problem with the statement at all. I think the problem is that people have learned that there’s a rhetorical advantage to be gained by pretending not to know how generalizations work.
Well, those investigating the issue have decided to treat this as a hate crime and charges are being filed as such. chicago.suntimes.com/news/black- … -cpd-says/
Why pretend to be retarded? Seriously, what did you gain out this “Gee, well, boys will be boys, no way to know their motivations” horseshit that none of us believed, and I have to think that even you didn’t believe as you were saying it?
The outrageous hatred and violence generated by this election has been direct at Trump supporters, not from them. Deal with it.
Ucci, where did you get the idea the victim was a trump supporter? That was my question. You didn’t answer.
Did you just make it up?
Well, the attackers screamed ‘fuck Donald Trump’ the whole time, and forced their victim to denounce him. I’ve heard reports that this all started when the victim said something positive about Trump, and there are multiple news sources characterizing him as a Trump supporter, but even if not, that wouldn’t change the fact that this was a hate crime motivated by racism and anti-Trump sentiment. If a black person was kidnapped and tortured by a bunch of whites screaming “Fuck Barack Obama”, nobody would be asking “yeah but did their victim actually support Obama though?” I mean what’s your point, that if their victim didn’t actually support Trump but they merely thought he did that would make it less politically motivated somehow?
Who the hell doesn’t have an ax to grind against racism? Are you saying you’re fine with racist violence against whites, that it’s no big deal to you?
If you think this guy being a Trump supporter is ‘me making shit up up’, then it’s transparently obvious that you haven’t done even a basic amount of looking into this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for hurling such accusations despite your astounding ignorance. Seriously- have you put any of this into a Google search and spend even 30 fucking seconds looking into it before you asked me questions that you presumed I had no answer to?
Anyway, the experts that you were relying on have declared this a hate crime. Are you still placing your stock in them, or have you invented some new standard?
The violence stirred up by this election has been almost universally coming from anti-Trump people. Deal with it.
I don’t think that’s the case. I expect that it’s much easier to identify Trump supporters when they are targeted for being Trump supporters than when they are targeting others for their race, ethnicity, or gender. My perception is that when people attack others in this way, they say things like “I am attacking you because you are this”, rather than “I am attacking you because I am this.” So, when a Trump supporter is the victim, that’s easy to see (“I am attacking you because you are a Trump supporter!”); when a racist Trump supporter is doing the attacking, that’s harder to see (“I am attacking you because you are Mexican!”).
So we have some reason to think racist violence and hate crimes are up post-Trump. We have good reason to think that many of the perpetrators are Trump supporters (or is there some doubt that Trump got the white nationalist vote?), and if the number of incidents has increased (and I acknowledge that it’s not clear; it may just be that they’re being reported more frequently or taken more seriously), a plausible explanation is that Trump’s election played a causal role.
I acknowledge there is some conjecture involved in this narrative, even though I think it’s probably that that’s happening. Still, I think the case is strong enough to rule out a strong claim that the violence by Trump supporters “never manifested”. We have good reason to think otherwise, even if the case is not air-tight.
It doesn’t seem like adults do have this problem, but they absolutely should.
Look, nearly 63 million people voted for Trump. When someone says “Trump supporters are violent racists”, it doesn’t seem like their claim is that 63 million people are in the streets beating up Arabs. It’s not anything like the claim that “Crows are black”, because blackness is strongly correlated attribute of being a crow. In the former case, the claim can only be reasonably understood to mean that a few percent are violent racists (or a few percent more than non-Trump supporters). In the latter, it’s only a fraction of a percent for which the claim is false.
I find your rejection of this point funny, because I’d be willing to bet that at some point you’ve read some feminist casually dismissing the point that ‘#notallmen’ and had basically the same idea that I’m expressing in your head. Maybe I’m wrong?
You’re the one making shit up and I should be ashamed?
I’ve given you the opportunity to provide your source and you haven’t. That much remains clear. Where do you get your vision prescription filled anyway? That’s pretty cool how you only see what you want to.
Carleas, I’m still not sure what you think qualifies Ucci as a moderator. Certainly he doesn’t provide an example of intellectual pursuit of truth. He’s great at personal attacks and emotional pandering, not quite the qualifications for a philosophy board moderator. Even for a member his standards are pretty low.