Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like Osama

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

I dont think anyone would argue against the fact the people committing the acts are the ones responsible. Do you really believe a separation is created simply by advocacy of illegal activity? When Trump labeled Mexicans as rapists and criminals he finished off by saying some of them "are okay" but he made no distinction between legal or illegal immigrants and while he did not specifically request a criminal activity doesnt his rhetoric only provide the possibility of negativity? People have defended him by saying he was only referencing illegals but the transcript of his speech clearly proves there was no distinction.

Isnt there a parallel in this case where people do not understand the differences between Sikhs and others who wear attire similar in appearance yet act out of surface reactions?

Click to expand...

Negativity != Calls for violence. The recent lady "fat shaming" on YouTube is being negative, she's not advocating for people to go attack fat people.

I question the sincerity of your motives and your "Concern" over problematic speech given the extreme one sided nature of your concern, focused only at conservative targets. No concern for people who's language ACTUALLY DO call for illegal activity, such as those chanting for dead cops. No concern for other instances where a persons motivations could be traced back to rhetoric used by those on the left, such as the shooter on SML. I'd be much more open to believing and engaging in an honest discussion regarding the dangers of rhetoric if you had given any indication that you were actually interested in that as opposed to simply using it as a pathetic and thin veil hiding your true desire which is to simply stifle and penalize offensive speech that you find disagreeable.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

NonoBadDog said:

Then how do you propose we hold people accountable for hateful rhetoric and who gets to define hateful rhetoric? Let me offer an example of rhetoric used to control rhetoric. The term "trigger" was a buzz word about 6 months ago. People are still trying to push that term to attempt to control what other people say. If a person calls me a baby killer because I have guns is that hateful rhetoric? If I tell them that I am going to knock them into next week if they call me a baby killer again, is that hateful rhetoric?

I hollered at a kid that was doing twice the speed limit in our neighborhood. He stopped, opened his door and said, "Do I have to get out of my car and kick your ass old man?" I looked around and realized that I was the only old man around. I grinned at him and said, "Yeah, maybe you do." After all was said and done the cop told me that I actually threatened the kid by answering him that way. He advised me that next time I should not say a word and just kick his ass. If I just kicked his ass without saying anything because I "felt threatened" it would be self defense. It all worked out. The kid lost his license and his parents sold his car.

I understand what you are saying and I agree somewhat but that is usually set by social norms and right now our social norms are all hosed up.

Click to expand...

Forums would be a good place to start because even if you agree with views of another it does not mean you should ignore it when those views include references to xenophobia, hate and an all around disdain for communication.

One idea would be to start a website forum where its only purpose is to work together for solutions regardless of backgrounds. There are quite a few available for people to make observations and generally offer complaints but there are so few areas of actual progress or even a desire for progress. It may help to have a place to go where you cannot start a thread and highlight a problem without also providing some thoughtful solutions. A simple place to start would be the drinking age because it has to be one of the most asinine contradictions in US law. At 18 you can join an organization and get paid to fire automatic weapons at people you have never met, while 6,000 miles from home but if you come home on leave and have a beer you can be arrested.

The media, politicians, and corporations are the only victors in our current framework. Even when politicians lose elections they still win because they know there is no third party threat. That threat does not exist by our own actions and inactions.

We have to acknowledge the obvious and painful truth that no matter who "wins" on political message boards we are on the constant losing side because it is the only logical outcome of a system designed and controlled by less than 5% of our entire population.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Zyphlin said:

Negativity != Calls for violence. The recent lady "fat shaming" on YouTube is being negative, she's not advocating for people to go attack fat people.

I question the sincerity of your motives and your "Concern" over problematic speech given the extreme one sided nature of your concern, focused only at conservative targets. No concern for people who's language ACTUALLY DO call for illegal activity, such as those chanting for dead cops. No concern for other instances where a persons motivations could be traced back to rhetoric used by those on the left, such as the shooter on SML. I'd be much more open to believing and engaging in an honest discussion regarding the dangers of rhetoric if you had given any indication that you were actually interested in that as opposed to simply using it as a pathetic and thin veil hiding your true desire which is to simply stifle and penalize offensive speech that you find disagreeable.

Click to expand...

This is a good example of what I am talking about. I simply gave a current example and in my OP comments clearly highlighted this is a problem on all sides of the table but you wish to reduce it to partisanship because you personally do not like the style or exactly how it was presented. The beautiful part of this communication system is the ability to not respond to posts when it is clear they have an agenda beyond the OP.

Thanks for your feedback and have a great day.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Goshin said:

Lots of people don't know a Sikh from a Saudi...

Click to expand...

Your typical Sikh.



All joking aside, I condemn this violent act of course.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

in my OP comments clearly highlighted this is a problem on all sides of the table

Click to expand...

Oh really?

Could you quote me what part of your OP "clearly highlighted this as a problem on all sides of the table"?

I'd love to see it. Because looking back at your OP, all I see is a reference to this attack and to Trump; that's it. I see nothing talking about "all sides of the table", let alone doing it in a "clear" fashion.

What I see is you focusing exclusively on "rhetoric" towards Muslims and the Trump comment, while actively telling people to "start another thread" when they've brought up other "current examples" of potential rhetoric that spurred violence.

Indeed, both the recent murder of a Police Office at a gas station AND the Smith Mountain Lake shooting outside of Roanoke Virginia are both newer, ie more "current", examples you could have used. Both occurred AFTER the individual beaten in Boston. Yet you chose to focus on Trump and have either failed to address, or actively attempted to remove, similar examples put forth from the other angle.

Language that actually transcends the boundary of legality and actively incites or encourages people to engage in illegal activity should have action taken against it. Language that some simply deem to be "insulting", "hateful", or "offensive" should not in any way be legally stifled nor do I think most instances that people point to on either side need to have a concerted societal effort to somehow stifle, beyond what naturally occurs. And I do not believe that said individuals and their rhetoric should be "held responsible" for acts they are in no way accountable for.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

The attackers did not know the victim is a Sikh. Pretty clear they believed they were beating up a Muslim.

Click to expand...

What networks are calling for people to beat up Muslims?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

rcart76 said:

They are not calling for people to beat anyone up. It's their constant demonization of a particular group of people that is causing conflict. Lets put it in a conservative perspective to make this fair. Fox news and many conservatives have been on record blaming MSM for stoking the fire under a lot of the hate that cops are getting today.

Click to expand...

So it's Fox News' fault that some dumbass beat up a Sikh, thinking he was a Muslim?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Moon said:

So it's Fox News' fault that some dumbass beat up a Sikh, thinking he was a Muslim?

Click to expand...

Not for the act of beating up a Sikh but for him going out looking for a Muslim to beat up. Also, they are part of the bigger problem.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Moon said:

What networks are calling for people to beat up Muslims?

Click to expand...

I did not say networks called for people to beat up Muslims. You are doing nothing but trying to create a problem based off of something I did not say. Do you have an actual response to the OP?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

rcart76 said:

Not for the act of beating up a Sikh but for him going out looking for a Muslim to beat up. Also, they are part of the bigger problem.

Click to expand...

How is it Fox News' fault, exactly? What Fox News shows did this guy watch? How many hours a bday did he watch Fox News?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

I did not say networks called for people to beat up Muslims. You are doing nothing but trying to create a problem based off of something I did not say. Do you have an actual response to the OP?

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you decide to answer a question not directed at you.

Actual response? If the guy is found guilty, put him in jail.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

I did not say networks called for people to beat up Muslims. You are doing nothing but trying to create a problem based off of something I did not say. Do you have an actual response to the OP?

Click to expand...

The OP? Do you mean your inference that Republicans/Conservatives (Right Wingers?, Trump) are responsible for inciting violent attacks from what you perceive is hateful rhetoric?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

....
At what point should we hold each other accountable on a moral and ethical level for the hateful rhetoric that is clearly contributing to these violent attacks?

Click to expand...

Simply put: never. Getting into dangerous waters when wanting to take legal action on "moral" grounds.

For instance: many people think abortion itself is immoral. How would you feel if I asked: "When are we going to start holding women morally accountable for having abortions?" Granted - I went a little extreme with the example, but I do feel it equates. And in regards to law, a lot is based on past decisions, or an already set precedent. Once you open a can of worms, it's very very hard to get the lid back on.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Moon said:

How is it Fox News' fault, exactly? What Fox News shows did this guy watch? How many hours a bday did he watch Fox News?

Click to expand...

You can use the same argument with the lunatic that killed the cop in Houston. Fox and most conservatives were blaming Obama, MSM, and BLM for what this guy did.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

rcart76 said:

You can use the same argument with the lunatic that killed the cop in Houston. Fox and most conservatives were blaming Obama, MSM, and BLM for what this guy did.

Click to expand...

Of course they were.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

DannyRux said:

Simply put: never. Getting into dangerous waters when wanting to take legal action on "moral" grounds.

For instance: many people think abortion itself is immoral. How would you feel if I asked: "When are we going to start holding women morally accountable for having abortions?" Granted - I went a little extreme with the example, but I do feel it equates. And in regards to law, a lot is based on past decisions, or an already set precedent. Once you open a can of worms, it's very very hard to get the lid back on.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about taking legal action and in fact would be the first to oppose any sort of legislation. I specifically said moral and ethical forms of accountability.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

ocean515 said:

The OP? Do you mean your inference that Republicans/Conservatives (Right Wingers?, Trump) are responsible for inciting violent attacks from what you perceive is hateful rhetoric?

Click to expand...

In the OP I highlighted all groups as no group is innocent of this but thank you for another example of the problem with current rhetoric. Your immediate reaction is simply to look for divides based on right or left views and that is a serious problem.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Moon said:

That's what happens when you decide to answer a question not directed at you.

Actual response? If the guy is found guilty, put him in jail.

Click to expand...

In post #31 you quoted me and asked:

"What networks are calling for people to beat up Muslims?"

Is this a magic trick where you quote someone, ask them a question, then try to use Jedi mind powers to make them believe otherwise?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

In the OP I highlighted all groups as no group is innocent of this but thank you for another example of the problem with current rhetoric. Your immediate reaction is simply to look for divides based on right or left views and that is a serious problem.

Click to expand...

BS. You did no such thing. Your statement focused on one thing:

"...beating in Boston where an innocent Mexican-in-appearance victim was beaten as a tribute to Trump's wise words...", "At what point should we hold each other accountable on a moral and ethical level for the hateful rhetoric that is clearly contributing to these violent attacks"

The only "group" you mentioned involved Trump. Perhaps you should check your own rhetoric before suggesting others check theirs.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

rcart76 said:

The epic center for a lot of this hateful rhetoric comes from 24 hours cable news networks.

Click to expand...

24 hours is alot of air time to fill. As a result, both CNN and FOX constantly rehash the same material while spinning it. This gives the casual viewer that "X" is happening again, and again.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

ocean515 said:

BS. You did no such thing. Your statement focused on one thing:

"...beating in Boston where an innocent Mexican-in-appearance victim was beaten as a tribute to Trump's wise words...", "At what point should we hold each other accountable on a moral and ethical level for the hateful rhetoric that is clearly contributing to these violent attacks"

The only "group" you mentioned involved Trump. Perhaps you should check your own rhetoric before suggesting others check theirs.

Click to expand...

Thank you for another demonstration in seeking only to cause strife and invent division. I cited two recent attacks and for some reason you disagree with them. Fine.

Your post does absolutely nothing to address the primary question:

"At what point should we hold each other accountable on a moral and ethical level for the hateful rhetoric that is clearly contributing to these violent attacks?"

See that in quotation? See how it includes everyone?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Cryptic said:

24 hours is alot of air time to fill. As a result, both CNN and FOX constantly rehash the same material while spinning it. This gives the casual viewer that "X" is happening again, and again.

Click to expand...

Are you saying there are more hours in any given day than events and that is the reason the same stories are repeated?

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

ttwtt78640 said:

Bigoted morons committing violent acts (hate crimes) predates cable news. I have not seen any increase in these sorts of criminal acts (except for labeling them as hate crimes) since the introduction of cable news channels.

Click to expand...

Why I hate hate crimes. They attempt to delve into a person's intent. How is the law gonna delve into a person's intent? The law wants to prosecute intent in order to eliminate the intent. Obviously.
A second fallacy of hate crimes is politically incorrect intent is prosecuted but NOT politically correct intent. Sometimes the same intent is lauded in one instance and prosecuted via a hate crime in another. Case in point: The rioters in Ferguson, Missouri are not prosecuted for the damage they create but in almost any other circumstance, they would be prosecuted.

Another case in point: Could the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples eventually be charged with a hate crime? You betcha. Those who proposed hate crimes laws are searching for ways, no doubt.
Not only is US government attempting to erase the distinction people have for man/woman couples versus same sex couples but it is a crime in Kim Davis' situation (anyone heard of the first amendment?) and could become a second crime for Kim Davis with hate crimes legislation.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

cabse5 said:

Why I hate hate crimes. They attempt to delve into a person's intent. How is the law gonna delve into a person's intent? The law wants to prosecute intent in order to eliminate the intent, obviously.

Case in point. Could the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples eventually be charged with a hate crime? You betcha. Those who proposed hate crimes laws are searching for ways, no doubt.
Not only is US government attempting to erase the distinction people have for man/woman couples versus same sex couples but it is a crime in Kim Davis' situation and will become a second crime for Kim Davis with hate crimes legislation.

Click to expand...

Based on what information did you reach this conclusion of hate crimes legislation?

Davis is no where near in danger of being charged with a hate crime. There is a larger risk of me using Pluto as a q-tip than her being charged with a hate crime and it is this type of hyperbolic rhetoric that does nothing but cause strife.

Re: Inderjit Singh Mukker Beaten In Chicago Over 9/11? Sikh Called A Terrorist Like O

Brischera said:

Thank you for another demonstration in seeking only to cause strife and invent division. I cited two recent attacks and for some reason you disagree with them. Fine.

Your post does absolutely nothing to address the primary question:

"At what point should we hold each other accountable on a moral and ethical level for the hateful rhetoric that is clearly contributing to these violent attacks?"

See that in quotation? See how it includes everyone?

Click to expand...

BS. You singled out one "group": Trump. You then asked, in effect, at what point should people hold Trump accountable on a moral and ethical level. The example in the article you posted had no direct reference to any group. So, the only identifiable group you cited involved Trump. You qualified who you were referring to in the statement you posted before your question. Why did you leave that statement out?

If you meant to include "all" as you clearly don't intend to, you would have included an example from someone opposite in ideology from Trump, or you wouldn't have mentioned Trumps name at all. You didn't, you failed.