[quote=FlyerInHi]
But I know that if you put a group of young men together (no matter the race), if you wrong one of them, you fuck with all of them.
In a residential neighborhood if you swipe a child on a bicycle and drive off, even if the child was not injured, a mob might follow to your driveway and beat you to a pulp. I can picture it.
[/quote]
Yes, but you seem to be of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with that. You seem to suggest that mob beating is justified if someone steals your bike, (assuming that the person actually stole it which is a big assumption to begin with in this case), and that because he stole it, he deserves to get beaten by the mob. And the injuries sustained by the mob are somewhat justified because he “started it by stealing the bike”..
Don’t you think there’s something wrong with that? Don’t you think that if you had a kid that stole your neighbor’s bike, and your neighbor (an adult) and his friends decided to mob beat up your kid because he stole it, you think that is justified and should be excused because your kid caused it and stole the bike?
Because that’s what it sounds like you are saying..
And that is what is really twisted. See in this example action#A (stealing bike) and action#B (mob beating) are mutually exclusive. In a civilized society, action#A doesn’t give the right for the person to do action#B. A person that does action#B is held accountable for doing action#B and is punished in no less severe manner even if action#A occurred or not…There is no simple justification for a mob of adults beat your kid up for any reason, let alone for stealing your bike..
Right????? I mean that’s what most sane/decent people think…
Well step back a minute back to this particular thing. Proponents of these punks are trying to say “Yes, we beat alex, but he deserved to be beaten because he crashed into and caused an accident”… The implications is that IF he was driving like an asshat (and that’s questionable in itself), he deserved to get beaten…
That’s like saying, if you have a routine fender bender with another motorist and you’re at fault, it’s ok for the other motorist to beat you up because he’s pissed you ruined his car.
And using this sort of twisted, “mob beating is justified, if alex caused an accident”, same proponents have now basically calls into question whether alex caused the accident or not because people with this sick twisted logic think that whether Alex’s mob beating is “justified” or not depends on who can prove whether Alex caused the accident or not.
That’s where people are insane. The accident is a traffic accident. That’a a separate issue, no different then any other auto accident. Regardless of WHAT happened that led to the accident, what the mob did afterwards (beating up Alex and cutting his face) is inexcusable under any cirmcumstance..
Somehow, some people actually are trying to defend the biker’s action#B as justified because IF alex did action#A..
Same type of people trying to say that Bikers were the victims and Alex is the instigator since he caused the traffic accident….That’s ridiculous. Clearly, you can see that right?
[quote]
Why are you making this about race?
[/quote]
Regarding race….
MSM has been running articles portraying alex as the victimizer here. CNN for example has been running articles like “Alex versus Bikers. Who really is the victim here?”…. Suggesting that perhaps alex is the victimizer…
Come on now. Really? Besides the travesty of calling even to question whether a man that gets mob beaten isn’t a victim but possibly a victimizer….. They wouldn’t dare to do this if Alex was black. Why?
Because CNN would get a call from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson and a media firestorm would errupt with both accusing CNN of being racist, since in this case “how is it possible that a black man that gets beaten by a mob could possibly be a victimizer”? That’s like saying, because Rodney King was an asshat, drunk, disorderly, when he was arrested, he deserved to get beaten..Political suicide for CNN to do something like that.
Furthermore…If the bikers happened to be white, I’m sure CNN would run a headline along the line of “Black motorist assaulted by white mob, possible hate crime” instead of “alex versus biker, who is the real victim?” In this case, the mob (bikers that happen to be white) would automatically be put in a “victimizer” position, and the crime immediately be considered as a hate crime, simply because it’s white on one side versus black on the other..
Same event, same things happening, different skin colors..Different media portrayal…
Don’t you see the double standard that is going on here and why asians are (should be) pissed?
And frankly, that’s where my beef is. If you claim you want to be progressive/liberal and do these ridiculous ultra-PC sensitive gestures for specific race(s) (which personally I think is ridiculous), then you better apply it unilaterally to every other race in the same way. Don’t give me this lecture about how socially PC/accepting for certain races on one hand, and then turn around do this sort of shit to another race at the same time. Because then you’re a politician that’s just full of shit with a astonishing double standard.
