Anyone who has spent much time on internet discussion groups has certainly by now heard of Godwin's Law, which states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The result has been to discredit anyone who can not win an arguement without resorting to calling their oponents Nazis, with the tradition that whoever first mentions Nazis loses whatever debate was in progress. One reason behind the Law is that such comparisons with Hitler should be avoided because it robs valid comparisons of their impact.

Perhaps what we need is a Godwin's Law of Racism, with the same understanding that the first person to play the race card loses the debate.

What about an actual charge of racism (like James Byrd being dragged behind a truck)? Does that count as racism or "the race card"? How do you define "race card" as opposed to a legitmitmate charge of racism?

The Byrd case was not about racism, it was about murder.

A group of black men recently held a young white male and female, raped him and tortured him and then murdered him in front of her and then proceeded to do the same with wher.

That was muder too, or would, as you argue,the race card be apprpriate?

I'd add another Godwin's law: when ever there is a serious discussion,that posters are ill-equipped to enter,they will bring up an inapproriate, imflammatory subjed to side track the discssion. (see the post on my thread where someone brought up cannabilism and Jeffrey Dalmer).

The use of the Byrd case in the 2000 election was repulsive,but I guess people liked it so much they bring it out 8 years later.

I guess, drwinter, in your mind murder and racism are mutually exclusive. To the rest of the known world, that's not the case.

What exactly has to transpire for something to be called "racist" these days? Is it that you think racism doesn't exist anymore or are you simply against labeling anything "racist"?

BTW dumbass

"King, Berry, and Brewer dumped their victim's mutilated remains in the town's black cemetery, and then went to a barbecue. A wrench with Lawrence Brewers name was found within the area along with a lighter that had the KKK symbol on it. [2].

The next morning, Byrd's limbs were scattered across a very little used road. The police found 75 places littered with Byrd's remains. State law enforcement officials and Jasper’s District Attorney Guy James Gray determined that since King and Brewer were well-known white supremacists, the murder was a hate crime, and decided to bring in the FBI less than 24 hours after the discovery of Byrd’s remains. One of Byrd's murderers, John King, had a tattoo depicting a black man hanging from a tree, and other tattoos such as Nazi symbols, the words "Aryan Pride," and the patch for the Confederate Knights of America, a gang of white supremacist inmates. [3] In a jailhouse letter to Brewer which was intercepted by jail officials, King expressed pride in the crime and said he realized he might have to die for committing it. "Regardless of the outcome of this, we have made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!", King wrote. [1]"

<link>

oh, yes. The personal attacks.

My point was that any "racism" is beside the point and a pime example of using the race card. It was murder and the guilty received just punishment.

Nothing I wrote implied that they're mutually exclusive.

Since you lack a basic knowledge of logic, it's no wondor you have to rely on personal attacks. It was your motivation by your inappropriate use of the Byrd case to divert the thread that you were incapable of dealing with intelligently.

Your tactics are what is ruining sensible discussion.

"What exactly has to transpire for something to be called "racist" these days? Is it that you think racism doesn't exist anymore or are you simply against labeling anything "racist"?"

You're actually both right.......

I think he's against so many things "racist" that the word gets dumbed down to the point where it no longer has any meaning.

Your point with regards to Byrd remains spot on, however, Tubbs. That was a prime case in point of a hate crime. The crime itself and its perpetrator it are every bit deserving of the label.

It has bearing on the discussion.

"My point was that any "racism" is beside the point and a pime example of using the race card. It was murder and the guilty received just punishment."

Why is racism in the Byrd example beside the point? Beside what point? And how is identifying a racist act, playing the race card? Do I have something to gain by pointing to a historical fact and accurately stating what happened?

Documented white supremecists murder a black man in the most henious fashion imaginable and stating this fact is now somehow "playing the race card"?!?

Wow.

I think your convoluted nonsensical point is that murder is murder and discussing any racial motivation to it is "playing the race card" or unfairly using race to put someone at a disadvantage. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, I would note that murder is differentiated in the law in a number of different ways (felony murder; murded with malice, manslaughter, etc.). The law differentiates between different classes of murder because as a society we place different degrees of punishment on crimes to distinguish their severity and to discourage people from engaging in the most heinous behaviors.

So, by your "logic" we should do away with felony murder. I mean, murder is murder right? And it really doesn't make sense to charge someone for murder just because they were a part of a crime that lead to a death. But, apparently our society (voters, legislators, judges, etc) have determined that we really don't want people to commit felonies and we will be especially hard on you if someone is killed while you are committing a felony.

Your comments, drwinter, indicate igonorance of the laws of this country and an extraordinary depth of stupidity.

I don't believe that when racism is the motivation behind the crime that it is "besides the point." It is, in fact, the very central point that the perpretator is trying to make. By selecting someone based on an outside characteristic, the perpetrating is saying "We are different. Your value is less than mine because you are (black/gay/female/etc.)." Whether it is murder, assault or vandalism, when the racial identity is the sole reason for the perpetrator's selection of them, how can it be considered outside the realm of discussion?

Just because sometimes racism is believed to be the reason when it is not, does not mean that it is should be ignored when there is insurmountable evidence pointing to it as motivation.

Tubbs. I've read your other posts and you use tthe same twisted logic here as there. Your verbal repetoire is the same: evyone's a "dumbass" or "idiot." Your tactic is the same, attribute evil to those who disagree with you. You entered this thread with the inapproprate raising of the Byrd case so that you could derail the logic of the original thread, something your limited grey matter leaves you ill equipped to do.

As to my knowledge of law, I know enough to recognize that thought crimes are not yet a criminal offense in this country much to your dismay.

Therefore, racism WAS irrelevent in the Byrd case. The viscious murderers were tried, convicted, and condemned to death for their acts, not their thoughts.

I'm mot sure whether you need psychiatric help or a high school education. Perhaps less hip hop?

Can you seriously say, with a straight face, that those cockroaches would have done the same thing if Byrd had been white? I think it's pretty apparent that his race was, in this case THE motivating factor, and I think we can safely say that racism is a tag that can be applied.

I've read your other posts and you use tthe same twisted logic here as there. Your verbal repetoire is the same: evyone's a "dumbass" or "idiot."

Actually drwinter not everyone's a dumbass or an idiot, just a couple of people like yourself.

You entered this thread with the inapproprate raising of the Byrd case so that you could derail the logic of the original thread

How is raising a case of a racist act inappropriate in a discussion about racism and playing the race card??? See, this is where the "dumbass" and "idiot" remarks start to wander into the conversation.

As to my knowledge of law, I know enough to recognize that thought crimes are not yet a criminal offense in this country much to your dismay

O.k., it appears that my examples of different types of murder seemed to be outside the scope of your understanding. Let me leave it at this: racism was not beside the point in the Byrd murder because we, as a society have determined that certain crimes (like those predicated on race or sexuality or in concurrence with a felony) are deserving of stiffer penalities than murder that occurrs in the absence of these additional factors. So, no, thought crimes are not a crime in this country, but committing a murder motivated by racial bias IS a crime.

I'm mot sure whether you need psychiatric help or a high school education. Perhaps less hip hop?

That was funny. Especially coming from a person who can't tell the difference between murder one and murder two. All the best to you and your inbred family!