Hube’s Racism Is Showing Again
Hube spews his racist venom on the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committe’s report, Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans. First off, Hube’s little racist rant is hat-tipped to News Busters which is basically run by Brent Bozell, one of the infamous smear-taticians of the Radical Right. The Times of India photo above was included in the hat-tipped story. Oh yeah, News Busters captioned the photo, Islamic Rage Boy. But I digress.
Hube quotes a Reuters story which he uses to back up his lame rants about the liberal media but, more importantly, tries to back up his falsifiability that the Radical Right is not racist. Hube writes:
Got that? Even though “many incidents did not begin with a clear motivation of bias,” since eventually a racial or ethnic slur was uttered, voilà —instant hate crime, according to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Utilizing this “definition,” my example from above has to be a “hate crime”: The initial motivation may be economic, but if a racial epithet is spewed in the process of the mugging, it’s now [also] a “hate crime.”
But as usual the Radical Right bloggers only tell you part of the story. Let me quote from the report which Hube has not read, since Hube was too lazy to do so.
First, the hate crimes did not always begin with a clear motivation of bias. Rather, they would develop in that direction as the altercation intensified. In numerous instances, racial, religious or ethnic slurs would be employed not at the outset but after a dispute leading to violence or threats of violence had already begun.
Hube instead of blogging about what your other Radical Right bloggers post about, you could have glanced at the report and actually read what the ADC wrote. They are saying, and I am typing very slowly for Hube right now, the ADC is saying that the crimes might not begin as a hate crime, but they would end that way. I am under no allusion illusion that Hube will understand the subtleties of their point.
Tags: Blogosphere, Delaware
oh there is nothing hube loves more than jumping all over the hate-crime topic.
Death to all Islamists !!!!!
It’s cause and effect dumbski.
If a guys car is rear ended and that guy get’s out of a car and punches the driver and calls the black driver a nigger it’s not a hate crime. The guy is just mad his car got hit and calling the guy a bad name.
see…..logic.
In all fairness that guy could be yelling to his cousin across the way too.
“HASSAN!!!! I’M OVER HERE!!! HASSSSANNNNN YOU IDIOT! I’M OVER HERE WITH MOM!”
I’m assuming Godefroy is being snarky. However it is Bouillon not Bouillion. Just saying.
DV, I’m trying to figure out if you’re being an idiot, an ass or both.
Hube will be along in a moment and zero in on the “allusion/illusion” thing, ignoring the rest of your point.
BOTH
Thanks anon and fixed.
I’m merely getting you ready for pube’s defense nemski.
Actually, I did write the following in my post:
Incidents tended to increase after other terrorist attacks, such as the 2005 London subway bombings, the group said. Many incidents did not begin with a clear motivation of bias, but assailants would use racial or ethnic slurs as the situation intensified, the group said.
Why did nemski say I didn’t bother to read it? Could it be b/c … he didn’t read MY OWN post thoroughly? And b/c he had to partake of the usual progressive penchant for calling anyone who disagrees with him “racist?” (Not to mention “evil”?)
I address the VERY POINT which numbskulli notes at the end of his post. IOW, try reading my WHOLE POST and you’ll see that what you claim I totally do not understand is precisely the very POINT of my WHOLE post!! If you can show any “racism” in my post, either you’re delusional or just playing silly games. Either one certainly isn’t beyond you.
I love that the name of the photo is “hube.jpg”
Blah blah blah blah blah. The point of your post Hube (and I notice I didn’t call you a name) is that you try to diminish any hate crime. Why? Because you’re a racist.
That’s all you got? How do I try to diminish ANY hate crime? I actually, unlike, say, Steve Newton, can see how they CAN be good law, but the key is motivation, which the Reuters article addresses, and which I ask questions about. IOW, (and you call me “slow” for not seeing while it flew directly over your own head) how exactly would it be a “hate crime” if, say, a black and white guy got into a scuffle initially unrelated to race, yet in the process of that scuffle, some racial epithets were spewed? Not to mention, that Arab Council dubs verbal insults as violent hate crimes.
getting popcorn
Nemski,
There is no better conversation-ender than throwing out the “racist” tag. Is that really necessary?
BTW, numbskulli, is your wife black? Half black? A quarter black? Just curious. My own falls into that category, so I’m wondering how you’d think a racist would willingly so tie the knot. Oh, not to mention the Hispanic factor.
If you’re married to a white woman, I think, then, you’re racist. Sound childish? Sorry — just using numbskulli “logic.” IOW, 2nd grade “thinking” skills.
Save the popcorn dimwitty. I don’t plan to dignify this garbage any more than necessary.
My own falls into that category, so I’m wondering how you’d think a racist would willingly so tie the knot. Oh, not to mention the Hispanic factor.
jefferson had slaves too you know.
Kinda like referring to my and Cassandra’s argument with Nancy as a “cat fight,” Mike?
Nice, dimmy! I wonder if nemski will delete that for its obvious inappropriateness. He sure wasted no time when I asked a question about “your” kid….
Save the popcorn dimwitty. I don’t plan to dignify this garbage any more than necessary.
you will and you have. Your pathetic site constantly engages in this crap. Wahhhhh, you came up against someone will to argue with you.
Run away pansy.
you are a fraud. spare me.
I don’t know who is and who is not a racists.
But I do know that it is a leitmotif in Hube’s body of work that there is no such as a “hate crime.”
I love the arguement that because you married a black person it null and voids being a racist though. That is priceless.
But I do know that it is a leitmotif in Hube’s body of work that there is no such as a “hate crime.”
Yet another DL lie.
There is no better conversation-ender than throwing out the “racist” tag. Is that really necessary?
I thought going the Nazi route was supposed to be….
Pandora,
Was it me who said the tiff between you and Cassandra and Nancy was a cat fight? I honestly don’t think so. Of course, a link to the comment would help.
And there’s a difference between referring (obviously) comically to that as a cat fight and outright ENDING the conversation by referring to someone as a racist.
That’s the other one, DV.
MM, Pandora is referring to our conversation on DTR last night. Go to the tapes…
The cat fight reference was on your program last night.
And since the conversation here isn’t ended, your presumption is wrong too.
Cassandra,
Yes, on the program I said that, but it was clearly in jest. I would hope you and Pandora would have “gotten it.”
And, when I say “conversation-ender,” don’t mean it literally. Tactically, throwing out the “racist” label IS a conversation-ender, because how does someone comeback from that. It’s bullshit and even this bleeding-heart liberal realizes it.
What exactly was the racist venom? I saw none. Whether or not one believes in “hate crime” legislation as opposed to punishing people for committing crimes is not racist venom. You demean the struggle for equality by tossing such terms around so lightly.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with David Anderson on something. Read and re-read his last sentence in #33.
I find the term “Hate Crime” redundant.
Best moment in this thread: Hube uses the “some of my best friends are black” defense in comment #17.
DG,
Hube does no such thing in comment 17. He’s saying that nemski’s “conversation-ender” of calling him a racist is just ridiculously dumb because, well, Hube’s married to an Hispanic woman.
Honestly, Hube should just quit now. As I said, nemski has already ended the conversation by calling Hube a “racist.” There’s no way Hube can come back from that because nemski’s already made up his mind.
No, I think the being married to a minority is a real defense. The “some of my best friends defense” works if it is true; usually those people can’t name someone let alone share their life and love.
My point is that you all pick a picture that is not part of his post, act as if it has anything to do with Hube and then accuse him racist venom when he said nothing about racial, ethnic, or other designation of people. That is just wrong.
What’s the purpose of imposing less punishment for killing a man for his wallet than killing a man for a color of his skin?
To the dead, and family & friends of the deceased, the end result is the same….
Agree 100% VC.
As I said, nemski has already ended the conversation by calling Hube a “racist.” There’s no way Hube can come back from that because nemski’s already made up his mind.
Just because you’ve said it doesn’t mean you are right. Hube has certainly been here making his case, contra your new cliche. “Racism” is only a conversation killer among those who won’t engage with why folks might think them so.
Cassandra,
Is Hube a racist? Is it appropriate to use that term so loosely without further delving into debate, as nemski did above? I stand by my “new cliche.”
ok, Hube isn’t a racist. He’s just a bulging asshole.
can we agree on that?
Nemski provided some rationale for his thinking here — dealing with what he has actually said is what’s on order. And I’d remind you need more than one person for a debate.
“Honestly, Hube should just quit now. As I said, nemski has already ended the conversation by calling Hube a “racist.” There’s no way Hube can come back from that because nemski’s already made up his mind.”
That would work real well for Nemski, et al, but it wouldn’t rectify the fact that he is just wrong in resorting to that cowardly offense. Mike, I commend you on your stand on this issue.
You’re still a pussy.
Don’t be daft Mike. The Radical Right is filled with racists. And if you do not call them put on it, you’re aiding and abetting them.
No, but that’s better! Now you are getting back to your normal disagreeable self. (Just Kidding)
Nemski,
The radical left is filled with racists, too. How about the gay activists throwing their hissy fits after Prop 8 passed and [some] referring to Blacks using that oh-so-friendly six-letter term?
Miscreant, are you fucking dense? I was being sarcastic in that comment you bomb-throwing dumb fuck.
Nemski,
I call them out on it when I see it. However, knowing Hube personally and having been following his writing for four years, I think I may be a better judge than you. Hube’s not a racist. End of story.
The radical right is not Hube. There are racists on the left and racists on the right and in the middle. Racism is America’s original sin and infects more than one group in society.
The good news is that most people have moved beyond it. That is why the charge of racism is so powerful. That is also why your misuse of it must be condemned. There are rapists out there, you would not call some one that because they are opposed to comparable worth. That is the equivalent of what you did. That does nothing to help the struggle for equality.
That was obvious to me, and I was merely commending you on your sense of fairness, you moron.
So the pussy comment was sarcastic? You have an odd way of showing sarcasm. Or perhaps it just doesn’t translate via keyboard. Either way, you’re still an obnoxious fuck. And that’s a compliment.
Thanks, asshole.
Calling Hube a racist because he sees the importance of intent in identifying hate crimes is disingenuous, if not outright moronic. It’s a pretty harsh term to throw about so casually, and to try to support so weakly.
What happened to liberals being the intellectual elite? Can you throw that out the door just to shit on someone who disagrees with you politically?
This could have been a good conversation if this reactionary post wasn’t so obviously a way to call Hube out over here so the DL crew could all gang up on him at once. Very disappointing.
Setting aside the whole racism thing for a second, I do think that it is possible that a crime can change from a robbery to a hate crime during the incident. For example, a criminal breaks into a house to rob it. upon realizing that he has stumbled into a (insert ANY ethnic group here) the crime escalates into teaching “those people” a lesson.
So if I take a mans wallet it is a crime. If I take the mans wallet, then shoot him for being black, that is a crime and a hate crime.
The article that Hube linked to does not acknowledge that this is a possibility, nor does Hube. This does not make Hube a racist. It does point to an incomplete job while extrapolating from a Reuters story on the part of the guy that Hube linked to.
I agree joe, pube’s just an asshole, he’s no racist.
What upsets me more than the Hube’s (and the Radical Right’s) covert racism is the apologists for said blogger. Your culpability is more disconcerting.
Yes, disconcerting that I’m using my brain rather than indulging in blind, ignorant rage.
We can debate that. 😉
No thanks, I prefer not to be called a racist or nazi. You can keep your “debate”.
Wow, how soon we forget Hube’s infamous Crime Reports series.
I had to make a nice neat flow chart to help figure out any future race fighting issues.
Is there anything wrong with those crime reports, nemski? I’m sorry, but fuck political correctness. When reporting on a suspect involved in a crime, skin color most certainly should be divulged.
are you like hube’s butt boy today?
Only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. So, to answer your question, yes. I guess I just get tired of reading stupidity no matter which side is engaging in it.
hube is plenty capable of defending himself is my point. He does his fare share of flame throwing and rarely if ever backs off
Unless they are writing for DWA… 🙂
Good points in both 67 and 68!
boooyah! woohooo!
Let me just say, in defense of Mike, that on the program last night, the reference to a “cat fight” came from the haiku poem that I wrote and sent him via email to read on-air.
It was a joke. A humorous haiku.
Although I will say, sometimes, when I do witness women fighting in the streets, I swear, I actually *hear* cat noises coming from the combatants.
“What happened to liberals being the intellectual elite?”
Actually, that’s never really been the case. The liberals aggressively lay claim to that title, but perpetually fail to live up to it.
This PIGFROY de BUILLION is a NEO NAZI IDIOT!
The guy on a picture is no movie star, but it looks like he is in his own country protesting some kind of problem or issue. The fact that there is a woman without a headscarf behind him, indicates that these people are not even Radicals. Shame on PIGFROY!
On a more positive note it was interesting to see that the Business Week (Nov 24) published an article starting with the following sentence: “This might be a good time for investors to pick up a copy of the Koran. Stocks and other investments that adhere to sharia, or Islamic law—though hardly unscathed—have fared better than the broader market”. In the same article Arne Lindman, CEO of Prudential Fund Management in Asia, tells that Muslims are “ethical investors”.
I guess there are a few good things we can learn from Muslims.
Cheers,
Dave
Just askin’–but isn’t calling someone a racist kinda racist?
A racist: Someone who assumes that a person has certain traits just because the person in question has a given racial background. Examples: If you assume that someone who is white must be rich, or assume that someone who is of Asian ancestry must be good at math and bad at English, or assume that someone who is black must be a good basketball player.
A “hate crime”, conventional definition:
When a crime is committed because the victim is of a certain race, sexual orientation, or gender, such that the attacker feels the crime is “justified” due to wrongs committed by the victim’s group or due to the victim’s inherently “rich” or “sinful” or “ignorant” status. Basically, someone sees a person, judges that person based upon his ethnicity / sexual orientation / religion / gender, and comes to the conclusion that it is “okay” or even “correct” to commit a crime against that person.
Examples: Throwing bricks into the windows of someone’s house in order to say “we don’t want any [insert racial, gender, sexual orientation, or religion-based epithet here] in this neighborhood.”
Beating up or raping a person because they belong to a particlular group.
New definition of “hate crime”: If, during a crime, insults are exchanged which imply that one of the parties may be a racist person (or otherwise -ist, such as sexist), then that party may be charged with a hate crime.
Example: A man tries to grab a woman’s purse and nearly gets away with it, but she pulls her purse back at the last minute. In his anger, he calls her a “bitch” and a “ho”.
Two girls at a high school get into a fight over a boy they both fancy. One girl is black, the other is Hispanic. After nearly twenty seconds of exchanging words and blows, the black girl calls the Hispanic girl a “Mexican bitch.”
I believe the controvery, where it exists, focuses on three main areas. First, some ask, “Why should we expand the definition when the current working definition already covers the worst offenders?” Second, others ask, “Isn’t this new definition likely to mistakenly classify many more crimes as ‘hateful’ when racism may not actually have been a factor in the original conflict?” Third, many wonder, “Is this new classification likely to skew the numbers of racist and hate-motivated crimes?”
I submit under the name “Tired of Idiocy” because both parties are acting like very small children here. Hube at Colossus appears to have overgeneralized; he has assumed that prosecutors are likely to apply the “hate crime” label to altercations in which both parties were using the worst “bad names” they can think of, some of which are racial in nature. Meanwhile, Nemsky has fallen for the fallacy of “If someone overgeneralizes when writing about a race-related matter, then that person was subconsciously motivated by racism rather than human error.”
Neither of these are childlike. The fight afterwards is childlike. You’ve seen two dogs trying to fight through a fence? That’s a pretty good metaphor for this post and the subsequent commentary. What’s amusing is the disconnect between this and reality. Most people who trade insults online are quite polite in reality, and I see no reason not to assume that this is true of both Nemski and Hube.
Disclaimer: I do not regularly read either the Deleware Liberal blog nor the Colossus of Rhodey blog and have no particular reason to favor one writer over the other. I do, however, find it amusing that the first time I come here, I get to see two grown folks acting immature. Hopefully this is unusual. If it isn’t, well . . . I likely won’t return.
Thanks you for setting everyone straight. This thread is highly unusual.
Usually the Marquess of Queensberry rules prevail and after a good dust up we shakes hands, retire to the library to smoke cigars, drink port and talk about how hard it is to get good help nowadays.
Tired of Idiocy writes over 600 words and she/he won’t be coming back. That’s rich.
“Tired of Idiocy writes over 600 words…”
You counted, Nemski?
Rich? Nah…..Epic!
Miscreant, you should know by now that I’m way too lazy to post coherently, let alone count 600 words. It was sort of a Jelly Bean Guess Thing.
Rich? I was pointed out to your blog by another site. Regrettably, in the first post of yours I see, you use logical fallacies, respond to another blogger with “blah blah blah . . . you try to diminish any hate crime,” which is not true from the text of the other blogger’s post, and then resort to name calling.
It’s entirely possible this is a particularly sensitive topic for you or that you had a bad day. That’s fine. I’m just pointing out that you’re going to lose out if you consistently write posts that misrepresent the other guy and resort to name calling.
Note that I’m not saying the other blogger was right; in fact he’s also annoyed at me for posting, because I didn’t agree with his conclusions. I’m just saying that the appeal of many blogs is the quality of the thoughtful answers provided by their readership, and if your blog frequently gives in to online fighting, you will chase away less patient readers and your blog will suffer.