OT - Black woman beats 91 year old Mexican man with a brick

I knew my post would trigger you.

I feel better knowing that crimes are punished.

Of course you wouldn't. And that's because you're trying to conflate and compare to completely different, unrelated things.

That fact was never in dispute. The question was why reports mentioned his affiliation to white supremacy, and why doing so was not in and of itself racist (since that was relevant to the charges). Nice goal post shift though.

That fact was also never in dispute.

No. That would be your straw man argument. My argument is that the article you cited didn't need to mention her race, because her race wasn't relevant to the story. You made her race relevant because you wanted to attack a straw man. The straw man was this notion that "black people can't be racist" is some sort of widely held ideology of the left (for which there is zero evidence of). Nobody on these boards (to my knowledge) has ever made this argument. No civil rights organization or leaders have ever made that argument. There are no political movements expressing that idea. And none of the major media outlets (that you associate with the left or right) have reported such a thing. You've posted a minority opinion from some fringe individuals, trying to pass that off as a position held by the left. It's a false narrative that YOU created (a racist one at that). You MAY have heard people suggesting that systemic racism is not a problem faced by white people as it is for minorities (because that is true). And you may have also heard that white privilege protects white people from racism in a way that it does not protect minorities (because that is also true). The fact that minorities are adversely affected by systemic racism in ways that white people are not is demonstrably true. That does not translate to "black people can't be racist"! It just means there is no systemic racism against white people.

In addition, the woman pictured in the article isn't even mentioned as being a suspect, nor is the "victim's" claims verified. We don't know who she is, and the cops don't know who they are looking for. So far, we have one version of a STORY. We don't know WHO attacked him, why he was attacked, or even IF he was attacked. He doesn't even seem to speak English. So it's a very incomplete story so far that you seemed to have already determined positive identity, guilt, motive, etc. How about you let the actual investigators do their jobs BEFORE drawing conclusions that haven't been validated? Nobody has been charged with a crime, much less a hate crime yet. So comparing this to Dylann Roof who was guilty of hate crimes is ridiculous. If your intent was merely to point out that black people can be racist, fine. Nobody here has ever argued to the contrary. If your intent is to paint black people as violent thugs (which wouldn't surprise me), then its another example of your racism. And if your intent was to suggest that the liberal left denies that black people can be racist, then you have failed.

Nope. Straw man argument! My actual argument is that you decided to inform upon the race of an alleged attacker in a post in which you cite an article that doesn’t mention the race of an unknown, alleged attacker where a motive is unknown. If the article had called attention to the race of a known assailant and then you repeated what the article actually said, it’s not racist. The fact that you chose to make it about race ABSENT of such claims from the article you were citing makes you the racist! Especially when the crux of your argument is a false narrative about race that attacks a supposed liberal left position that doesn’t really exist.

Where is that written in the article?

And yet despite this supposed obviousness, you still felt the need to further illustrate it for everyone by pointing out the race anyway, and then assuming motive for everyone else. And that really says so much more about you than I think you’re willing to acknowledge.

Well usually when people try to make arguments based on stories they cite, they don’t introduce new facts from other sources that they don’t. I can only argue the evidence you actually present here. Perhaps you’ll consider that next time you start a thread.

By the way, I don’t want to continue playing a role in bumping this stupid thread back up to relevance over and over again. I think it’s run its course, so my next response will be my last one. Consider anything further you want me to specifically address on this thread very carefully.