Fake Hate Crime
September 18, 2001 12:28 AM   Subscribe

Fake Hate Crime This doesn't help things. What was he thinking? (from fark)
posted by curiousg (24 comments total)
Tell people what they want to belive and they'll belive you, asking less questions, giving you less of a chance to slip up.

Or so the theory goes.
posted by jedrek at 12:41 AM on September 18, 2001

Of course there will always be those people who attempt to use a situation to their advantage.

Rare are the people willing to sacrifice everything to fix a situation.

Those are the ones that are remembered.
posted by bluesun at 2:16 AM on September 18, 2001

rather than contemplating every action in the context of 'tragedy' and continually plucking heart strings, I think in this instance we can sum up thus:

Incompetent shopkeeper, even more incompetent at insurance fraud. He is an oxygen thief and his punishment is that he now has no store, no cash and a criminal record pending.

serves the twat right.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:13 AM on September 18, 2001

I hope this receives as much attention in the media as the legitimate "hate" crimes we've been hearing so much about this this week...
posted by justkurt at 5:50 AM on September 18, 2001

I hope this receives as much attention in the media as the legitimate "hate" crimes we've been hearing so much about this this week...

Why would you hope such a thing? What good does this story do anyone? Discrimination against Arab-Americans has been a real problem the last week.
posted by glenwood at 6:29 AM on September 18, 2001

why would you want legitimate attacks on Arabs reported but NOT false reports? doesn't this illustrate that there are good and bad people of every race? or should the media only report on evil when it is perpetrated by whites? do you have some agenda to falsely inflate the problem of discrimination against Arabs? please explain.

I suspect that when there is a roundup of all the attacks on Arabs during this crisis, that if the media DOESN'T cover this false attack, it will simply be added to the tally of crimes by intolerant whites. is that what you want?
posted by justkurt at 6:42 AM on September 18, 2001

>> What good does this story do anyone?

are you suggesting here that the media be muzzled "for the good of the country"?

just checking.
posted by justkurt at 6:44 AM on September 18, 2001

isn't it anyway?
posted by Frasermoo at 6:48 AM on September 18, 2001

Frasermoo: please provide a link to the media clampdown you seem to be referencing. thanks.
posted by justkurt at 6:51 AM on September 18, 2001

i hadn't referenced, but if you want a link......
posted by Frasermoo at 7:25 AM on September 18, 2001

Frasermoo -- I don't see anything in your link implying that the government has clamped down on freedom of the press.

while your link did go on about the concentration of ownership, which no one would deny, the reality is that this concentration of ownership doesn't seem to have reduced our real choices. Judging by the variety of sources referenced on MeFi, there is an incredibly wide array of media options and viewpoints freely available, even with the rise of Big Bad Monster Media Inc. So, again, what's your point?
posted by justkurt at 8:09 AM on September 18, 2001

well the link was never intended to point to government intervention in press activity. if it had, that would have been nice. in fact i don't believe i have mentioned govt. as of yet.

muzzling of the press can take the form of conglomerate streamlining as my new found link shows. i am currently seeking a link to the UK magazine Private Eye who continually pick up on media giant incest.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:38 AM on September 18, 2001

frasermoo: Unless I misunderstood, your "isn't it anyway?" comment was in response to the question I posed to glenwood about the media being muzzled "for the good of the country. In response to your comment, I asked for a link to the US media clampdown you were referencing.

So I hope you understand why I am a little confused when why you say that your response wasn't intended to point to government intervention -- that was the whole point. Starting a discussion about concentration of ownership is fine, but to do it in response to a comment on an entirely different issue is really quite confusing, don't you think?
posted by justkurt at 9:03 AM on September 18, 2001

excuse me officer, but the original link question was

What was he thinking?

I think we have all strayed here. Now get off your horse and drink your milk.
posted by Frasermoo at 9:22 AM on September 18, 2001

Why should an insurance stunt get as much coverage as cold-blooded murder? 2 people have been shot to death because of their assumed race, and you think that somehow a slimy shop owner's actions is a counterbalance to that?

Justkurt, what do you mean to imply by putting 'hate' in quotation marks? I think you have some serious issues.
posted by eric anders at 9:40 AM on September 18, 2001

"What was he thinking?" greed and to pin it on an american(the whitey cut-out please, the red-neck one is in the shop)
posted by newnameintown at 9:45 AM on September 18, 2001

In answer to 'What was he thinking?' , I have sat here and I am dumfounded as to just that.

I mean, piggybacking your small-time insurance fraud onto the largest terrorist event in American (probably world) history.

They should profile him. Clinically fascinating.
posted by Frasermoo at 9:46 AM on September 18, 2001

eric anders: please don't project -- i put hate in quotes because a crime is a crime is a crime. if someone is assaulted or murdered, the perpetrator should be punished, period.

I never suggested that murder is the equivalent of fraud. I merely suggested that there be some balanced reporting in regard to how Americans of all races are reacting to the tragedy. of course I believe that any attack motivated by bias is unjustified, but its very tiring the way some on the left want to turn this horrible incident into another opportunity to characterize America as a "racist, xenophobic" nation.

They seem to want to focus their anger on the actions of a very small minority (the bias attackers) that affect another very small minority (bias victims) instead of on the other small minority (the terrorists) who attacked the vast majority (those killed, their families and the nation as a whole).
posted by justkurt at 11:40 AM on September 18, 2001

Frasermoo: it's very easy to determine what he was thinking -- he knew that as soon as he cried racism, all sensible discussion and scrutiny would end. that approach has always worked in the past -- in fact, many rich & powerful Americans have established their entire careers on this practice. why shouldn't he be entitled to grab a piece of the pie too?
posted by justkurt at 12:17 PM on September 18, 2001

Because, as I stated earlier, he is a twat.

Don't ask me to reference, don't ask me to justify.

Just accept. T-W-A-T

posted by Frasermoo at 7:13 AM on September 19, 2001

frasermoo: dude, you're the one who claimed to be "dumfounded" -- I was just trying to help clear it up for you.

btw, would you mind providing your particular definition of the word "twat" for the class? just curious.
posted by justkurt at 8:02 AM on September 19, 2001

no problem matey

1. Vulgar Slang. The vulva.
2. Offensive & Vulgar Slang. A woman or girl.
3. Incompetent fraudster, bottom feeder. One who tries to profit through unethical circumstances.
posted by Frasermoo at 12:35 AM on September 20, 2001

uh.. as an extra to the above, I don't believe I have ever heard the word twat used as a slang reference to a woman or girl.

a further definition can be found here along with a alot of laughs.
posted by Frasermoo at 12:38 AM on September 20, 2001

that's interesting. the first two definitions you offer are specific to females, yet you have never heard it used to refer to a woman. thanks for the information, matey.
posted by justkurt at 5:45 AM on September 20, 2001

« Older Afghanistan declares holy war....   |   Some thought-provoking journalism Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments