The crime and the cover-up.
Thoughts:
I heard on Michael Savage's show yesterday that some professor of journalism had said that the Knoxville case was not newsworthy because it had "no catch" (or something to that effect). He admitted that a similar white-on-black crime would, because it would be so rare.
Actually, that is fair enough, in my opinion. I don't mind white-on-black crime getting more media attention, just as female statutory rapist teachers get more attention than male ones.
The problem, however, is that this is not how the disproportionate coverage is played in the media. Whenever there is a report of a white-on-black crime, we are told to believe that it typifies race relations in the U.S. and that "white privilege" and racism are to blame. The Duke Rape Accusations were not portrayed as "man bites dog." At least with the ephebophilic female teachers, there was some acknowledgment that these don't look like typical victimizers.
Also, Rachel S., at that bastion of everything dedicated to bringing down western society, Alas, says that:
It is also ridiculous to assume that this makes “homosexuals have more rights than others.” Why? Because the legislation targets all crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Crimes against heterosexuals (and men), however rare they are, would also be covered. The identity of the perpetrator is also irrelevant. LGBT folks could commite hate crimes against other LGBT folks and be prosecuted for hate crimes, and the same could be said for men and heterosexuals.
Well, it appears in the Knowville case that there is a strong prejudice against charging blacks with racial hate crimes. So whatever the law says in theory, want to bet that a gay-on-straight hate crime will be similarly "de-hatified?"
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment