Why won't people address the massage shootings as the mental health issue rather than racism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

Our society is totally obsessed by race. That may be natural in any society with a long history of racism, but it also means we unconsciously forcing racial narratives when the evidence doesn't warrant it. The only evidence we think we need is the race of the victims and that's that.

The killer allegedly shouted something to the effect, “I am gonna kill Asians.” This is from one of the witnesses.

That is an uncorroborate report from a Korean newspaper. Also, the narrative that this was racially motivated emerged before that Korean report. The point is that we immediately jump to race as the primary motivator before the facts come out. Most people on this are positive that this all about race. Even those who may admit misogyny are ignoring the very real connection among misogyny, sex addiction and mental health. And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?That's a story as old as Jack the Ripper, yet we are mostlt ignoring it.

Every story has multiple narratives. But we prefer racial narratives to dominate over others whenever possible.

Actually, Asian American advocates are clear that this is about race, gender, and class. Keep up.

People say a lot of things, but the racial is narrative is clearly dominant. I didn't say it was exclusive. Also when I said "who here?" I meant on this thread. Mostly posters are saying they were targetted for their race. Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes.

I didn't even say it's wrong to focus on race. I just think it's it important to notice when you are doing and the real reasons why. But you all seem to have a lot of resistance to doing that kind of work. Racial work is only for other people and only accepted when the "correct" conclusions are drawn.

Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank).

I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever.

Seems like you are dehumanizing the victims by giving voice to the killer. That’s been done before. Read Hanna Arendt, one of the greatest 20th century Jewish political philosophers whose lover was the great Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. She’ll tell you the horrible Nazi officers responsible for the atrocities were actually Ordinary Joes who worked 9-5 jobs - just like me and you. They had no particular motive or animosity for their actions. Hence the banality of evil.

Again, I did nothing of the kind.

I read Hannah Arendt and lots of other people too. Where does she say that discussing a killer's motivations dehumanizes the victims? And if she does say that, who says I have to agree with it? And if I did agree that the banality of evil applied to all Nazi soldiers, where does she say that it also applies to murderers who weren't paid to kill? And what did Arendt say about the banality of Hitler himself? I don't know the answer to that myself, if I read that I forgot it. But her personal library did include Mein Kampf and biographies about Hitler, so presumably she thought it worth it to consider what he had to say.

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hannah-arendt-collection-the-life-and-work-of-adolf-hitler-2015-04-24

I see in many of these posts Arendt’s own banality of evil analysis as applied to the killer, constantly asking for “proof” of this or that. Arendt’s analysis is not limited to Eichmann. Her analysis can be applied to anything - Holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow... According Arendt, you need not impute a particular evil motive bc in her analysis, you can always explain people’s action in practical and mundane way. Most people were simply going on about their daily lives doing their 9-5 job, pushing paper, reporting to their bosses, applying for promotion, etc. In the case of the Georgia killer, he might as well have been Camus’ stranger - someone detached, someone who just shot and killed people not knowing why, just going through his reflexive motions. And Yes, Camus’ Stranger straight up blamed the bright sunlight in the hot desert when he was asked why he killed an innocent man. In short, Camus’s Stranger was just having a bad day. There’s no reason to impute any motive beyond his reflexive motions. They just are.

Luckily for Arendt, despite her Nazi Heidegger lover, she was able to put sense in to her analysis. In the end, she was able to separate her need to analyze, constant need for facts, with Eichmann’s actions.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I think it started with a PP (you?) falsely attributing an absurd opinion to me. Now you are you quoting philosophers of the absurd and the evil about why you don't need facts or proof, you can just make assumptions based on whatever you see and take it from there. If that's what you think Arendt and Camus are all about, it's no wonder you think I'm absurd.

You were sounding a lot like Hannah Arendt in her insistence we need not read too much into Nazi's heinous crimes, that these people were mostly performing their 9-5 jobs as they were told, reporting to their bosses - not that they were anti-semites. I've bolded your statements above. And then you said, "I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever." That's when I first mentioned Arendt to show you the parallel in your thinking. You insisted no one has EVER held your view with respect to the nazis. One of the greatest 20th-century Jewish political philosophers Hannah Arendt did. She wrote a book to prove her point. Not surprisingly, she had a Nazi lover. And then there are other things: "And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?" And incredibly you went on, "Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes." So, it's not the race in this case. It seems you want to explore the prostitution angle to see what role this had in the Georgia killing. Your point is clear. It was the prostitutes' fault, they brought the violence onto themselves. And in Nazi Germany, it wasn't anti-Semitism, to begin with. You seem to suggest we need to be more open-minded to see what Jews must have done to deserve their fate. You didn't explicitly say these things. But it is clear you are victim-blaming and victim-shaming.

No, I didn't say anything like this and there is no reasonable way you got any of this out of what I did say. You've also grossly misinterpreted Hannah Arendt's thesis thereby ignoring what her actual contributions are to the understanding of genocide, racism, and totalitarianism. Kind of a weird thing to do to a refugee from the Nazis, but hey, far be it from you to victim shame or anything like that.

Dial it back a bit scholar. You're taking that stuff completely out of context. Arrendt's point was that they knew what they were doing but didn't care. They didn't need to enjoy it to willingly do it. Evil isn't torture and zyklon b. Evil is the railway dispatcher and the camp quartermaster. Evil isn't active it is indifferent. It lies in the banal. The mundane tasks of paperwork and logstics. The true horror of the Holocaust wasn't that it happened but that it happened so normally.

She raised that to prove that Eichmann knew. That he had to know. That his claim that he did not know was a lie. He knew. He just didn't care.

You dial it back yourself. You are way out of league. You wrote this:

"Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank)."

Answer: No I don't think that and I don't think anybody else does either.

That's a really simple answer to a strange comment and I don't have anything more to say about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to wade to far into the specific debate going on in this particular thread, but I think this piece on the history of fetishization of "Asian" women (in quotes, because "Asian" is such a broad, ill-defined term when people I think mean by it "Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Cambodian/Laotian/Japanese origin women who are petite and relatively light-skinned") is relevant: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

Maybe the mass murderer was a mentally ill sex-addict. Why he thought that the best way to deal with his addiction was to kill people and why he associated his specific victims with his addiction cannot possibly be disentangled from the history of sexual fetishization of women from certain parts of the Asian continent and the view of them as being simultaneously subservient and hyper-sexual.

I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia.

Whoosh! The words, "cannot possibly be disentangled" have a plain meaning. Perhaps you may find a dictionary useful: https://www.dictionary.com/

Or maybe PP thinks those things actually could be disentangled with a little more case-specific evidence?

Then maybe PP should say that? Or maybe, just maybe, PP should recognize that their perception that "a large number [of businesses that have sexual services as a side service] are Asian staffed and likely Asian run" might be fueled by a century-long history in bigotry, racism, and, yes, fetishization of "Asian" and "Asian"-American women...as the article from Vox discusses. This is why it can't be disentangled.

I think PP did say that and you are having a really hard time accepting that PP might have a point, so you are insisting that PP must be too stupid to understand yours.

Using which words did they say that? Also, even if they did, stating that they disagree with something someone else wrote is not making "a point". So, not sure why anyone would feel compelled to "accept" a counterpoint that wasn't even argued.

That's what the quote below means. It's not really hard to interpret at all unless you want it to mean something else.

"I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to wade to far into the specific debate going on in this particular thread, but I think this piece on the history of fetishization of "Asian" women (in quotes, because "Asian" is such a broad, ill-defined term when people I think mean by it "Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Cambodian/Laotian/Japanese origin women who are petite and relatively light-skinned") is relevant: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

Maybe the mass murderer was a mentally ill sex-addict. Why he thought that the best way to deal with his addiction was to kill people and why he associated his specific victims with his addiction cannot possibly be disentangled from the history of sexual fetishization of women from certain parts of the Asian continent and the view of them as being simultaneously subservient and hyper-sexual.

I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia.

Whoosh! The words, "cannot possibly be disentangled" have a plain meaning. Perhaps you may find a dictionary useful: https://www.dictionary.com/

Or maybe PP thinks those things actually could be disentangled with a little more case-specific evidence?

Then maybe PP should say that? Or maybe, just maybe, PP should recognize that their perception that "a large number [of businesses that have sexual services as a side service] are Asian staffed and likely Asian run" might be fueled by a century-long history in bigotry, racism, and, yes, fetishization of "Asian" and "Asian"-American women...as the article from Vox discusses. This is why it can't be disentangled.

I think PP did say that and you are having a really hard time accepting that PP might have a point, so you are insisting that PP must be too stupid to understand yours.

Using which words did they say that? Also, even if they did, stating that they disagree with something someone else wrote is not making "a point". So, not sure why anyone would feel compelled to "accept" a counterpoint that wasn't even argued.

That's what the quote below means. It's not really hard to interpret at all unless you want it to mean something else.

"I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia."

You quote their entire post, which begins with an implicit assumption that the article was intended to be helpful for "figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue". This was in response to a post that stated these things were impossible to disentangle. So, basically:
A: I think it's impossible to separate the chocolate from marble cake. This article provides some insight into why.
B: I didn't find this article helpful for explaining how to extract chocolate from marble cake.
A: Uh...
C: It's so obvious what "B" meant!
A: Uh...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

Our society is totally obsessed by race. That may be natural in any society with a long history of racism, but it also means we unconsciously forcing racial narratives when the evidence doesn't warrant it. The only evidence we think we need is the race of the victims and that's that.

The killer allegedly shouted something to the effect, “I am gonna kill Asians.” This is from one of the witnesses.

That is an uncorroborate report from a Korean newspaper. Also, the narrative that this was racially motivated emerged before that Korean report. The point is that we immediately jump to race as the primary motivator before the facts come out. Most people on this are positive that this all about race. Even those who may admit misogyny are ignoring the very real connection among misogyny, sex addiction and mental health. And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?That's a story as old as Jack the Ripper, yet we are mostlt ignoring it.

Every story has multiple narratives. But we prefer racial narratives to dominate over others whenever possible.

Actually, Asian American advocates are clear that this is about race, gender, and class. Keep up.

People say a lot of things, but the racial is narrative is clearly dominant. I didn't say it was exclusive. Also when I said "who here?" I meant on this thread. Mostly posters are saying they were targetted for their race. Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes.

I didn't even say it's wrong to focus on race. I just think it's it important to notice when you are doing and the real reasons why. But you all seem to have a lot of resistance to doing that kind of work. Racial work is only for other people and only accepted when the "correct" conclusions are drawn.

Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank).

I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever.

Seems like you are dehumanizing the victims by giving voice to the killer. That’s been done before. Read Hanna Arendt, one of the greatest 20th century Jewish political philosophers whose lover was the great Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. She’ll tell you the horrible Nazi officers responsible for the atrocities were actually Ordinary Joes who worked 9-5 jobs - just like me and you. They had no particular motive or animosity for their actions. Hence the banality of evil.

Again, I did nothing of the kind.

I read Hannah Arendt and lots of other people too. Where does she say that discussing a killer's motivations dehumanizes the victims? And if she does say that, who says I have to agree with it? And if I did agree that the banality of evil applied to all Nazi soldiers, where does she say that it also applies to murderers who weren't paid to kill? And what did Arendt say about the banality of Hitler himself? I don't know the answer to that myself, if I read that I forgot it. But her personal library did include Mein Kampf and biographies about Hitler, so presumably she thought it worth it to consider what he had to say.

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hannah-arendt-collection-the-life-and-work-of-adolf-hitler-2015-04-24

I see in many of these posts Arendt’s own banality of evil analysis as applied to the killer, constantly asking for “proof” of this or that. Arendt’s analysis is not limited to Eichmann. Her analysis can be applied to anything - Holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow... According Arendt, you need not impute a particular evil motive bc in her analysis, you can always explain people’s action in practical and mundane way. Most people were simply going on about their daily lives doing their 9-5 job, pushing paper, reporting to their bosses, applying for promotion, etc. In the case of the Georgia killer, he might as well have been Camus’ stranger - someone detached, someone who just shot and killed people not knowing why, just going through his reflexive motions. And Yes, Camus’ Stranger straight up blamed the bright sunlight in the hot desert when he was asked why he killed an innocent man. In short, Camus’s Stranger was just having a bad day. There’s no reason to impute any motive beyond his reflexive motions. They just are.

Luckily for Arendt, despite her Nazi Heidegger lover, she was able to put sense in to her analysis. In the end, she was able to separate her need to analyze, constant need for facts, with Eichmann’s actions.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I think it started with a PP (you?) falsely attributing an absurd opinion to me. Now you are you quoting philosophers of the absurd and the evil about why you don't need facts or proof, you can just make assumptions based on whatever you see and take it from there. If that's what you think Arendt and Camus are all about, it's no wonder you think I'm absurd.

You were sounding a lot like Hannah Arendt in her insistence we need not read too much into Nazi's heinous crimes, that these people were mostly performing their 9-5 jobs as they were told, reporting to their bosses - not that they were anti-semites. I've bolded your statements above. And then you said, "I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever." That's when I first mentioned Arendt to show you the parallel in your thinking. You insisted no one has EVER held your view with respect to the nazis. One of the greatest 20th-century Jewish political philosophers Hannah Arendt did. She wrote a book to prove her point. Not surprisingly, she had a Nazi lover. And then there are other things: "And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?" And incredibly you went on, "Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes." So, it's not the race in this case. It seems you want to explore the prostitution angle to see what role this had in the Georgia killing. Your point is clear. It was the prostitutes' fault, they brought the violence onto themselves. And in Nazi Germany, it wasn't anti-Semitism, to begin with. You seem to suggest we need to be more open-minded to see what Jews must have done to deserve their fate. You didn't explicitly say these things. But it is clear you are victim-blaming and victim-shaming.

No, I didn't say anything like this and there is no reasonable way you got any of this out of what I did say. You've also grossly misinterpreted Hannah Arendt's thesis thereby ignoring what her actual contributions are to the understanding of genocide, racism, and totalitarianism. Kind of a weird thing to do to a refugee from the Nazis, but hey, far be it from you to victim shame or anything like that.

Dial it back a bit scholar. You're taking that stuff completely out of context. Arrendt's point was that they knew what they were doing but didn't care. They didn't need to enjoy it to willingly do it. Evil isn't torture and zyklon b. Evil is the railway dispatcher and the camp quartermaster. Evil isn't active it is indifferent. It lies in the banal. The mundane tasks of paperwork and logstics. The true horror of the Holocaust wasn't that it happened but that it happened so normally.

She raised that to prove that Eichmann knew. That he had to know. That his claim that he did not know was a lie. He knew. He just didn't care.

By banality, she meant the "normalization" of what is a horrific crime. It's like saying a racist killer was just having a "bad day" at the office - nothing that Zoom telehealth can't solve. Banality means becoming numb, a normalization of a horrific crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to wade to far into the specific debate going on in this particular thread, but I think this piece on the history of fetishization of "Asian" women (in quotes, because "Asian" is such a broad, ill-defined term when people I think mean by it "Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Cambodian/Laotian/Japanese origin women who are petite and relatively light-skinned") is relevant: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

Maybe the mass murderer was a mentally ill sex-addict. Why he thought that the best way to deal with his addiction was to kill people and why he associated his specific victims with his addiction cannot possibly be disentangled from the history of sexual fetishization of women from certain parts of the Asian continent and the view of them as being simultaneously subservient and hyper-sexual.

I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia.

Whoosh! The words, "cannot possibly be disentangled" have a plain meaning. Perhaps you may find a dictionary useful: https://www.dictionary.com/

Or maybe PP thinks those things actually could be disentangled with a little more case-specific evidence?

Then maybe PP should say that? Or maybe, just maybe, PP should recognize that their perception that "a large number [of businesses that have sexual services as a side service] are Asian staffed and likely Asian run" might be fueled by a century-long history in bigotry, racism, and, yes, fetishization of "Asian" and "Asian"-American women...as the article from Vox discusses. This is why it can't be disentangled.

I think PP did say that and you are having a really hard time accepting that PP might have a point, so you are insisting that PP must be too stupid to understand yours.

Using which words did they say that? Also, even if they did, stating that they disagree with something someone else wrote is not making "a point". So, not sure why anyone would feel compelled to "accept" a counterpoint that wasn't even argued.

That's what the quote below means. It's not really hard to interpret at all unless you want it to mean something else.

"I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia."

You quote their entire post, which begins with an implicit assumption that the article was intended to be helpful for "figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue". This was in response to a post that stated these things were impossible to disentangle. So, basically:
A: I think it's impossible to separate the chocolate from marble cake. This article provides some insight into why.
B: I didn't find this article helpful for explaining how to extract chocolate from marble cake.
A: Uh...
C: It's so obvious what "B" meant!
A: Uh...

Right, because the article didn't explain why the things couldn't be disentangled. It just said it couldn't be done. Well it could be done if he didn't have the fetish described in the article. So whoosh yourself.

[Anonymous]

Because there isn’t information publicly available, or possibly available at all that would make this as “clear” as the OP seems to believe it is.

Because more than one thing can be possible. Someone can be both racist and mentally ill.

A Mental Health Professional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

That’s just stupid. He drove miles to three spas where he knew Asian women worked and he shot Asian women there. The non-Asians he shot just happened to be either getting a massage by an Asian woman he killed or speaking with the Asian woman owner he killed. There are millions of people in metro Atlanta and you think he only shot people in up Asian spas. It’s obvious who were the intended targets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to wade to far into the specific debate going on in this particular thread, but I think this piece on the history of fetishization of "Asian" women (in quotes, because "Asian" is such a broad, ill-defined term when people I think mean by it "Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Cambodian/Laotian/Japanese origin women who are petite and relatively light-skinned") is relevant: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

Maybe the mass murderer was a mentally ill sex-addict. Why he thought that the best way to deal with his addiction was to kill people and why he associated his specific victims with his addiction cannot possibly be disentangled from the history of sexual fetishization of women from certain parts of the Asian continent and the view of them as being simultaneously subservient and hyper-sexual.

I did not find this article helpful to figuring out if this was a hate crime or a mental health issue. There are few types of businesses in the U.S. that have sexual services as a side service. Of the ones that are, a large number are Asian staffed and likely Asian run. If someone wants that service, it's not necessarily because they fetishize Asian women, though that might be true for some customers. It could be because that's who offers the service. If you don't like the association, take it up with the business owners and local governments to stop the practice and stop trafficking. At least some of the trafficking starts in Asia.

Whoosh! The words, "cannot possibly be disentangled" have a plain meaning. Perhaps you may find a dictionary useful: https://www.dictionary.com/

Or maybe PP thinks those things actually could be disentangled with a little more case-specific evidence?

Then maybe PP should say that? Or maybe, just maybe, PP should recognize that their perception that "a large number [of businesses that have sexual services as a side service] are Asian staffed and likely Asian run" might be fueled by a century-long history in bigotry, racism, and, yes, fetishization of "Asian" and "Asian"-American women...as the article from Vox discusses. This is why it can't be disentangled.

PP back from baking a marble cake. What’d I miss?

My perception of the existence of these places is fueled by their existence. The people exploiting any preferences or fetishization of Asian women are the people making money off of providing these services first and foremost. You need to take it up with these oppressors who fetishize and commodify the workers more than any customers. No one is forcing them to run these businesses or traffick women. I suspect most people going for “enhanced” massage are there for the service more than for a racial preference, but of course some probably do have a preference. I don’t know enough to know whether this industry is racially diverse or not. Frankly I find it distasteful to talk about fetishizing women in this context. And I certainly don’t want to reinforce any stereotypes or objectify anyone.

I’m waiting for facts and praying for the victims’ families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

That’s just stupid. He drove miles to three spas where he knew Asian women worked and he shot Asian women there. The non-Asians he shot just happened to be either getting a massage by an Asian woman he killed or speaking with the Asian woman owner he killed. There are millions of people in metro Atlanta and you think he only shot people in up Asian spas. It’s obvious who were the intended targets.

These were massage places he frequented that provided extra sex services. Maybe those tend to be Asian owned and/or staffed in that area. There is more evidence that his actions had to do with sex services than with race thus far but time will tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

Our society is totally obsessed by race. That may be natural in any society with a long history of racism, but it also means we unconsciously forcing racial narratives when the evidence doesn't warrant it. The only evidence we think we need is the race of the victims and that's that.

BS. We are "obsessed" by race because of the resurgence of racism we are seeing. Are you really blind to what is happening in this country. You like to make fun of the "woke" culture but you refuse to admit what it is. People are not looking away from what has been going on. Are you aware of the issues people of color are having with the police? Are you really going to pretend that the orange idiot and his host of followers didn't foment more racism? It's in your interest if the black people just calm down and act like nothing is going on, am I right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself to be pretty sensitive to issues of racism. But I think it is important to be careful about attributing the crime to racial hatred before we know more.

First, there is a better and more obvious motive: sex. Either that he wanted to kill sex workers due to his internal sexual conflict, or perhaps he had a dispute with them arising from an encounter there.

Second, there is another important issue: that these women may have been victims of sex trafficking. And if so, they are the victims of two crimes and that there is another set of criminals who should be brought to justice. It's going to be tough if we mistakenly turn the human traffickers into the victims of a hate crime.

If it turns out that the motive isn't racial, we will have done an injustice by diverting attention away from other important issues, and it will be used to discredit future allegations of hate crimes. We still hear about the Duke Lacrosse scandal after fifteen years, because the prosecutor jumped the gun and the public wasn't sufficiently skeptical.

Are you really comparing a case where college kids were falsely accused of rape to a case where eight women were gunned down - murdered - and six of them Asian? There’s no parallel. Sure, superficially, race. But there are murdered people in the Atlanta case, not simply unsubstantiated accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was mental illness, then why don't we have similar mass shootings with mentally ill black/hispanic/asian gunmen killing large groups of white people?

Instead, it's a white guy aiming at a group of:
-Black parishoners at their Bible study (Dylan Roof)
-Hispanic/Latino families shopping at Wal-Mart (Patrick Crusis)
-Asian massage parlor workers (Robert Long)

Most mass shooters aim indiscriminately - Las Vegas shooting, Columbine, etc.

But in cases where all the victims are of predominantly one ethnic group and the shooter is of a different ethnicity, you need to first look at ethnic/racial hatred. There's not much of another explanation.

Further, if it was due to mental illness, we should see mass shooters of other races/ethnicities. We know mental illness is prevalent in those populations too. But we don't!

Virginia Tech. 2007. Asian gunman killed 32 people. Clearly mental illness, and discussed as so in the media.
Every shooting isn't racially motivated.

This one was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

Our society is totally obsessed by race. That may be natural in any society with a long history of racism, but it also means we unconsciously forcing racial narratives when the evidence doesn't warrant it. The only evidence we think we need is the race of the victims and that's that.

The killer allegedly shouted something to the effect, “I am gonna kill Asians.” This is from one of the witnesses.

That is an uncorroborate report from a Korean newspaper. Also, the narrative that this was racially motivated emerged before that Korean report. The point is that we immediately jump to race as the primary motivator before the facts come out. Most people on this are positive that this all about race. Even those who may admit misogyny are ignoring the very real connection among misogyny, sex addiction and mental health. And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?That's a story as old as Jack the Ripper, yet we are mostlt ignoring it.

Every story has multiple narratives. But we prefer racial narratives to dominate over others whenever possible.

Actually, Asian American advocates are clear that this is about race, gender, and class. Keep up.

People say a lot of things, but the racial is narrative is clearly dominant. I didn't say it was exclusive. Also when I said "who here?" I meant on this thread. Mostly posters are saying they were targetted for their race. Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes.

I didn't even say it's wrong to focus on race. I just think it's it important to notice when you are doing and the real reasons why. But you all seem to have a lot of resistance to doing that kind of work. Racial work is only for other people and only accepted when the "correct" conclusions are drawn.

Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank).

I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever.

Seems like you are dehumanizing the victims by giving voice to the killer. That’s been done before. Read Hanna Arendt, one of the greatest 20th century Jewish political philosophers whose lover was the great Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. She’ll tell you the horrible Nazi officers responsible for the atrocities were actually Ordinary Joes who worked 9-5 jobs - just like me and you. They had no particular motive or animosity for their actions. Hence the banality of evil.

Again, I did nothing of the kind.

I read Hannah Arendt and lots of other people too. Where does she say that discussing a killer's motivations dehumanizes the victims? And if she does say that, who says I have to agree with it? And if I did agree that the banality of evil applied to all Nazi soldiers, where does she say that it also applies to murderers who weren't paid to kill? And what did Arendt say about the banality of Hitler himself? I don't know the answer to that myself, if I read that I forgot it. But her personal library did include Mein Kampf and biographies about Hitler, so presumably she thought it worth it to consider what he had to say.

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hannah-arendt-collection-the-life-and-work-of-adolf-hitler-2015-04-24

I see in many of these posts Arendt’s own banality of evil analysis as applied to the killer, constantly asking for “proof” of this or that. Arendt’s analysis is not limited to Eichmann. Her analysis can be applied to anything - Holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow... According Arendt, you need not impute a particular evil motive bc in her analysis, you can always explain people’s action in practical and mundane way. Most people were simply going on about their daily lives doing their 9-5 job, pushing paper, reporting to their bosses, applying for promotion, etc. In the case of the Georgia killer, he might as well have been Camus’ stranger - someone detached, someone who just shot and killed people not knowing why, just going through his reflexive motions. And Yes, Camus’ Stranger straight up blamed the bright sunlight in the hot desert when he was asked why he killed an innocent man. In short, Camus’s Stranger was just having a bad day. There’s no reason to impute any motive beyond his reflexive motions. They just are.

Luckily for Arendt, despite her Nazi Heidegger lover, she was able to put sense in to her analysis. In the end, she was able to separate her need to analyze, constant need for facts, with Eichmann’s actions.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I think it started with a PP (you?) falsely attributing an absurd opinion to me. Now you are you quoting philosophers of the absurd and the evil about why you don't need facts or proof, you can just make assumptions based on whatever you see and take it from there. If that's what you think Arendt and Camus are all about, it's no wonder you think I'm absurd.

You were sounding a lot like Hannah Arendt in her insistence we need not read too much into Nazi's heinous crimes, that these people were mostly performing their 9-5 jobs as they were told, reporting to their bosses - not that they were anti-semites. I've bolded your statements above. And then you said, "I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever." That's when I first mentioned Arendt to show you the parallel in your thinking. You insisted no one has EVER held your view with respect to the nazis. One of the greatest 20th-century Jewish political philosophers Hannah Arendt did. She wrote a book to prove her point. Not surprisingly, she had a Nazi lover. And then there are other things: "And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?" And incredibly you went on, "Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes." So, it's not the race in this case. It seems you want to explore the prostitution angle to see what role this had in the Georgia killing. Your point is clear. It was the prostitutes' fault, they brought the violence onto themselves. And in Nazi Germany, it wasn't anti-Semitism, to begin with. You seem to suggest we need to be more open-minded to see what Jews must have done to deserve their fate. You didn't explicitly say these things. But it is clear you are victim-blaming and victim-shaming.

No, I didn't say anything like this and there is no reasonable way you got any of this out of what I did say. You've also grossly misinterpreted Hannah Arendt's thesis thereby ignoring what her actual contributions are to the understanding of genocide, racism, and totalitarianism. Kind of a weird thing to do to a refugee from the Nazis, but hey, far be it from you to victim shame or anything like that.

Dial it back a bit scholar. You're taking that stuff completely out of context. Arrendt's point was that they knew what they were doing but didn't care. They didn't need to enjoy it to willingly do it. Evil isn't torture and zyklon b. Evil is the railway dispatcher and the camp quartermaster. Evil isn't active it is indifferent. It lies in the banal. The mundane tasks of paperwork and logstics. The true horror of the Holocaust wasn't that it happened but that it happened so normally.

She raised that to prove that Eichmann knew. That he had to know. That his claim that he did not know was a lie. He knew. He just didn't care.

You dial it back yourself. You are way out of league. You wrote this:

"Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank)."

Answer: No I don't think that and I don't think anybody else does either.

That's a really simple answer to a strange comment and I don't have anything more to say about it.

I didnt write that pampelmousse. Stop the sanctimonious parsimony you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because there isn’t information publicly available, or possibly available at all that would make this as “clear” as the OP seems to believe it is.

Because more than one thing can be possible. Someone can be both racist and mentally ill.

A Mental Health Professional

Couldn’t they also simply be evil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent wave of crimes against Asians is the worst in the last thirty years as far as I remembered. Yet very few of these crimes are classified as hate crimes. I have yet to see an announcement from FBI that they are investing the massage shooting to find out if this is a hate crime.

Aren’t there certain markers of hate crimes that need to be in evidence to classify? Are all crimes hate crimes?

In order to control public outrage, isn’t it better to say there is no evidence of a hate crime if it’s the truth? It doesn’t mean they won’t bring evidence to light if it’s found.

You mean, it’s better for white audiences to hear that a white man doesn’t seem to have committed a racially motivated crime? Because that is not what Asian Americans and women want to hear.

Not saying that. But why do groups *want* to hear their group is a target of something if the evidence isn’t there (yet)? I can’t understand that.

Our society is totally obsessed by race. That may be natural in any society with a long history of racism, but it also means we unconsciously forcing racial narratives when the evidence doesn't warrant it. The only evidence we think we need is the race of the victims and that's that.

The killer allegedly shouted something to the effect, “I am gonna kill Asians.” This is from one of the witnesses.

That is an uncorroborate report from a Korean newspaper. Also, the narrative that this was racially motivated emerged before that Korean report. The point is that we immediately jump to race as the primary motivator before the facts come out. Most people on this are positive that this all about race. Even those who may admit misogyny are ignoring the very real connection among misogyny, sex addiction and mental health. And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?That's a story as old as Jack the Ripper, yet we are mostlt ignoring it.

Every story has multiple narratives. But we prefer racial narratives to dominate over others whenever possible.

Actually, Asian American advocates are clear that this is about race, gender, and class. Keep up.

People say a lot of things, but the racial is narrative is clearly dominant. I didn't say it was exclusive. Also when I said "who here?" I meant on this thread. Mostly posters are saying they were targetted for their race. Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes.

I didn't even say it's wrong to focus on race. I just think it's it important to notice when you are doing and the real reasons why. But you all seem to have a lot of resistance to doing that kind of work. Racial work is only for other people and only accepted when the "correct" conclusions are drawn.

Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank).

I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever.

Seems like you are dehumanizing the victims by giving voice to the killer. That’s been done before. Read Hanna Arendt, one of the greatest 20th century Jewish political philosophers whose lover was the great Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. She’ll tell you the horrible Nazi officers responsible for the atrocities were actually Ordinary Joes who worked 9-5 jobs - just like me and you. They had no particular motive or animosity for their actions. Hence the banality of evil.

Again, I did nothing of the kind.

I read Hannah Arendt and lots of other people too. Where does she say that discussing a killer's motivations dehumanizes the victims? And if she does say that, who says I have to agree with it? And if I did agree that the banality of evil applied to all Nazi soldiers, where does she say that it also applies to murderers who weren't paid to kill? And what did Arendt say about the banality of Hitler himself? I don't know the answer to that myself, if I read that I forgot it. But her personal library did include Mein Kampf and biographies about Hitler, so presumably she thought it worth it to consider what he had to say.

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hannah-arendt-collection-the-life-and-work-of-adolf-hitler-2015-04-24

I see in many of these posts Arendt’s own banality of evil analysis as applied to the killer, constantly asking for “proof” of this or that. Arendt’s analysis is not limited to Eichmann. Her analysis can be applied to anything - Holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow... According Arendt, you need not impute a particular evil motive bc in her analysis, you can always explain people’s action in practical and mundane way. Most people were simply going on about their daily lives doing their 9-5 job, pushing paper, reporting to their bosses, applying for promotion, etc. In the case of the Georgia killer, he might as well have been Camus’ stranger - someone detached, someone who just shot and killed people not knowing why, just going through his reflexive motions. And Yes, Camus’ Stranger straight up blamed the bright sunlight in the hot desert when he was asked why he killed an innocent man. In short, Camus’s Stranger was just having a bad day. There’s no reason to impute any motive beyond his reflexive motions. They just are.

Luckily for Arendt, despite her Nazi Heidegger lover, she was able to put sense in to her analysis. In the end, she was able to separate her need to analyze, constant need for facts, with Eichmann’s actions.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I think it started with a PP (you?) falsely attributing an absurd opinion to me. Now you are you quoting philosophers of the absurd and the evil about why you don't need facts or proof, you can just make assumptions based on whatever you see and take it from there. If that's what you think Arendt and Camus are all about, it's no wonder you think I'm absurd.

You were sounding a lot like Hannah Arendt in her insistence we need not read too much into Nazi's heinous crimes, that these people were mostly performing their 9-5 jobs as they were told, reporting to their bosses - not that they were anti-semites. I've bolded your statements above. And then you said, "I said nothing of the kind and neither did anyone else anywhere, ever." That's when I first mentioned Arendt to show you the parallel in your thinking. You insisted no one has EVER held your view with respect to the nazis. One of the greatest 20th-century Jewish political philosophers Hannah Arendt did. She wrote a book to prove her point. Not surprisingly, she had a Nazi lover. And then there are other things: "And who here even considered the class implications of low income sex workers forced into illegal activities to pay the rent while dealing with abusive men?" And incredibly you went on, "Very little discussion about violence against prostitutes." So, it's not the race in this case. It seems you want to explore the prostitution angle to see what role this had in the Georgia killing. Your point is clear. It was the prostitutes' fault, they brought the violence onto themselves. And in Nazi Germany, it wasn't anti-Semitism, to begin with. You seem to suggest we need to be more open-minded to see what Jews must have done to deserve their fate. You didn't explicitly say these things. But it is clear you are victim-blaming and victim-shaming.

No, I didn't say anything like this and there is no reasonable way you got any of this out of what I did say. You've also grossly misinterpreted Hannah Arendt's thesis thereby ignoring what her actual contributions are to the understanding of genocide, racism, and totalitarianism. Kind of a weird thing to do to a refugee from the Nazis, but hey, far be it from you to victim shame or anything like that.

Dial it back a bit scholar. You're taking that stuff completely out of context. Arrendt's point was that they knew what they were doing but didn't care. They didn't need to enjoy it to willingly do it. Evil isn't torture and zyklon b. Evil is the railway dispatcher and the camp quartermaster. Evil isn't active it is indifferent. It lies in the banal. The mundane tasks of paperwork and logstics. The true horror of the Holocaust wasn't that it happened but that it happened so normally.

She raised that to prove that Eichmann knew. That he had to know. That his claim that he did not know was a lie. He knew. He just didn't care.

You dial it back yourself. You are way out of league. You wrote this:

"Yes, and according to you, Hitler was just having a bad day when he was at the end of the rope. According to you, you just need to see what Hitler had to say, that abhorring to H, he felt he needed to eliminate the problem because these people were.... (you fill in the blank)."

Answer: No I don't think that and I don't think anybody else does either.

That's a really simple answer to a strange comment and I don't have anything more to say about it.

I didnt write that pampelmousse. Stop the sanctimonious parsimony you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

If you really thought I was that stupid, you'd be a lot more forgiving of my simplicity.