Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course it's relevant. But it's directly confounded with the type of business he targeted. So it could be a racial target or it could be the type of business being targeted that was the motive and so far there is more evidence for the latter. The bolded is scary and it is not consistent with living in a liberal society.

The type of business he targeted is heavily associated with a negative stereotype of Asian women. This is confounded by the fact that some owners and traffickers play into that stereotype by staffing these kinds of businesses with predominantly Asian women.

It's not either/or. It's complicated. You want to talk about Long's motives. Some people want to talk about the overall culture of anti-Asian bias, which is a contributing factor to why 6 Asian-American women were killed in a city with relatively few Asian-Americans. Whatever fetishes or biases that Long has are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO, to the bigger question questions of: i) why Asian-American women are associated with sex work, ii) why so many Asian women ending up working at these types of places, and iii) why someone decides that the best way to deal with their sex addiction is to commit mass murder. I think we can never know if the answer to iii might be linked to i and ii, to the extent that the people who are associated with sex work are also people who are viewed as "other" by American culture. But choosing not to talk about it is choosing to deny the potential harms of racism.

I have never in my life heard that Asian-American women are associated with sex work. But I do know that some sex workers are Asian and many massage parlors are Asian run or staffed. But no one I know, Asian or otherwise, generalizes these practices to all Asian women. I see you are interested in sex work and racial dimensions of it and I applaud you in learning about it and wanting to do something about it. I know for a fact that some trafficking of sex workers starts in China and the workers get sent here. The crime is horrible and we can't see eye to eye on how to view this specific event. That's OK. We seem to both agree that trafficking is wrong and this crime was horrific. That's good enough.

I don't know what to say about this. It's a common trope in Western media. It's even something Asian-American actresses talk about with respect to the roles they get to play. It's something that plays out in the data of, for example, dating sites and which people get responses and for what stated reasons. I don't really need you to "applaud" me for anything...but, thanks, I guess.

Anyway, I shared this earlier, maybe it would help: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

FWIW, it's not good enough for me that we both agree this was a bad crime. I don't know what you're trying to do, but you are playing into the hands of people who want to minimize the broader social implications of this crime by limiting it to the very detailed specifics of this one incident. That's how anti-BLM propaganda works as well. Point out the flaws in whatever most recent case has led to mass protests, ignore the broader patterns of police brutality. I wish that broad discussions about racism and bigotry didn't have to happen in the aftermath of horrific crimes, but it seems like the only time anyone is open to the discussion. But this pattern also leaves the discussions vulnerable to being too easily dismissed when the specifics of the crime turn out (as they always are) to be more complicated than, "I killed them, because I'm racist." Most mass murderers are not Dylann Roof, and their story is nuanced. If you don't want to see racism, you can easily dismiss it. If you do want to see racism, you can easily find it.

I don't care about Long. There is racism against Asians and Asian-Americans. This crime touches a nerve, because it is entangled with some of the ways that racism plays out in the US. If you can't see that, it's only because you don't want to see it.

That's western media, like Chinese fortune cookie. Fortune cookie is a SF invention. It's not Chinese.

And I don't know how much of western media is true or not. But in some parts of Taiwan, massage is a typical business, totally unrelated to sex. If you are looking for sex shops, the best ones are in Las Vegas. They are totally legal there.

Is America not a Western country? I'm so confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course it's relevant. But it's directly confounded with the type of business he targeted. So it could be a racial target or it could be the type of business being targeted that was the motive and so far there is more evidence for the latter. The bolded is scary and it is not consistent with living in a liberal society.

The type of business he targeted is heavily associated with a negative stereotype of Asian women. This is confounded by the fact that some owners and traffickers play into that stereotype by staffing these kinds of businesses with predominantly Asian women.

It's not either/or. It's complicated. You want to talk about Long's motives. Some people want to talk about the overall culture of anti-Asian bias, which is a contributing factor to why 6 Asian-American women were killed in a city with relatively few Asian-Americans. Whatever fetishes or biases that Long has are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO, to the bigger question questions of: i) why Asian-American women are associated with sex work, ii) why so many Asian women ending up working at these types of places, and iii) why someone decides that the best way to deal with their sex addiction is to commit mass murder. I think we can never know if the answer to iii might be linked to i and ii, to the extent that the people who are associated with sex work are also people who are viewed as "other" by American culture. But choosing not to talk about it is choosing to deny the potential harms of racism.

I have never in my life heard that Asian-American women are associated with sex work. But I do know that some sex workers are Asian and many massage parlors are Asian run or staffed. But no one I know, Asian or otherwise, generalizes these practices to all Asian women. I see you are interested in sex work and racial dimensions of it and I applaud you in learning about it and wanting to do something about it. I know for a fact that some trafficking of sex workers starts in China and the workers get sent here. The crime is horrible and we can't see eye to eye on how to view this specific event. That's OK. We seem to both agree that trafficking is wrong and this crime was horrific. That's good enough.

I don't know what to say about this. It's a common trope in Western media. It's even something Asian-American actresses talk about with respect to the roles they get to play. It's something that plays out in the data of, for example, dating sites and which people get responses and for what stated reasons. I don't really need you to "applaud" me for anything...but, thanks, I guess.

Anyway, I shared this earlier, maybe it would help: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

FWIW, it's not good enough for me that we both agree this was a bad crime. I don't know what you're trying to do, but you are playing into the hands of people who want to minimize the broader social implications of this crime by limiting it to the very detailed specifics of this one incident. That's how anti-BLM propaganda works as well. Point out the flaws in whatever most recent case has led to mass protests, ignore the broader patterns of police brutality. I wish that broad discussions about racism and bigotry didn't have to happen in the aftermath of horrific crimes, but it seems like the only time anyone is open to the discussion. But this pattern also leaves the discussions vulnerable to being too easily dismissed when the specifics of the crime turn out (as they always are) to be more complicated than, "I killed them, because I'm racist." Most mass murderers are not Dylann Roof, and their story is nuanced. If you don't want to see racism, you can easily dismiss it. If you do want to see racism, you can easily find it.

I don't care about Long. There is racism against Asians and Asian-Americans. This crime touches a nerve, because it is entangled with some of the ways that racism plays out in the US. If you can't see that, it's only because you don't want to see it.

That's western media, like Chinese fortune cookie. Fortune cookie is a SF invention. It's not Chinese.

And I don't know how much of western media is true or not. But in some parts of Taiwan, massage is a typical business, totally unrelated to sex. If you are looking for sex shops, the best ones are in Las Vegas. They are totally legal there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course it's relevant. But it's directly confounded with the type of business he targeted. So it could be a racial target or it could be the type of business being targeted that was the motive and so far there is more evidence for the latter. The bolded is scary and it is not consistent with living in a liberal society.

The type of business he targeted is heavily associated with a negative stereotype of Asian women. This is confounded by the fact that some owners and traffickers play into that stereotype by staffing these kinds of businesses with predominantly Asian women.

It's not either/or. It's complicated. You want to talk about Long's motives. Some people want to talk about the overall culture of anti-Asian bias, which is a contributing factor to why 6 Asian-American women were killed in a city with relatively few Asian-Americans. Whatever fetishes or biases that Long has are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO, to the bigger question questions of: i) why Asian-American women are associated with sex work, ii) why so many Asian women ending up working at these types of places, and iii) why someone decides that the best way to deal with their sex addiction is to commit mass murder. I think we can never know if the answer to iii might be linked to i and ii, to the extent that the people who are associated with sex work are also people who are viewed as "other" by American culture. But choosing not to talk about it is choosing to deny the potential harms of racism.

I have never in my life heard that Asian-American women are associated with sex work. But I do know that some sex workers are Asian and many massage parlors are Asian run or staffed. But no one I know, Asian or otherwise, generalizes these practices to all Asian women. I see you are interested in sex work and racial dimensions of it and I applaud you in learning about it and wanting to do something about it. I know for a fact that some trafficking of sex workers starts in China and the workers get sent here. The crime is horrible and we can't see eye to eye on how to view this specific event. That's OK. We seem to both agree that trafficking is wrong and this crime was horrific. That's good enough.

I don't know what to say about this. It's a common trope in Western media. It's even something Asian-American actresses talk about with respect to the roles they get to play. It's something that plays out in the data of, for example, dating sites and which people get responses and for what stated reasons. I don't really need you to "applaud" me for anything...but, thanks, I guess.

Anyway, I shared this earlier, maybe it would help: https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting

FWIW, it's not good enough for me that we both agree this was a bad crime. I don't know what you're trying to do, but you are playing into the hands of people who want to minimize the broader social implications of this crime by limiting it to the very detailed specifics of this one incident. That's how anti-BLM propaganda works as well. Point out the flaws in whatever most recent case has led to mass protests, ignore the broader patterns of police brutality. I wish that broad discussions about racism and bigotry didn't have to happen in the aftermath of horrific crimes, but it seems like the only time anyone is open to the discussion. But this pattern also leaves the discussions vulnerable to being too easily dismissed when the specifics of the crime turn out (as they always are) to be more complicated than, "I killed them, because I'm racist." Most mass murderers are not Dylann Roof, and their story is nuanced. If you don't want to see racism, you can easily dismiss it. If you do want to see racism, you can easily find it.

I don't care about Long. There is racism against Asians and Asian-Americans. This crime touches a nerve, because it is entangled with some of the ways that racism plays out in the US. If you can't see that, it's only because you don't want to see it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's true, I didn't. That's because you are both(all?) so remarkably off base you basically get the same kind of response. Neither of you saw fit to correct me, and that's fine, you don't have to. Or maybe I really am stupid. That's okay too, it doesn't hurt me to think that.

I made a certain very simple claim about my own personal opinion. That's was my entire point. Everything you wrote seems to be about something else that you are really angry about. I don't know what that is.

Keep dancing little bird. The passive agressive insults arent as distracting as you believe. Please restate your simple claim clearly since we are all so beneath your genius that it flew over our heads.

No. Is that active aggressive enough for you?

Yes. Thank you Mother Goose. Frustrating innit?

No, not really. Just stupid. But we already covered that.

Oh Mother, duck duck go. It had its intending effect so I'm happy. Stupid but happy amirite? Like the circles that you find...

Umm, ok? Would you like to tell me what you were intending? If not, congratulations on your success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most crimes show indifference to the victims humanity and subjectivity. PP are you saying they’re all unconscious hate crimes? And if you believe it’s unconscious does it meet the legal standard of a hate crime?

Some posters here think of you believe and intellectually justify assumptions, even logical suppositions, enough they will become facts. Maybe so the narrative fits a larger agenda. I don’t understand why the agenda is so important but it won’t be deterred by logic apparently.

Others need evidence to accept something as fact. We won’t agree. Maybe it’s just different ways of thinking about things but a court of law requires a fairly strict standard of truth.

I don't think we are talking about a court of law. That's a different matter cuz it has its own legal standard. If the court doesn't certify this as a hate crime, it only means the evidence is insufficient to clear the high bar. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a hate crime.

But this conversation is related to how it’s charged. And certainly how the public talks about it. Some posters want to shoehorn this case into historical racism when this case fits no precedent. It’s not even clear who the shooter’s targets were. Seems to me it was the businesses themselves given that customers were also victims. Not enough is known but it sounds like investigators have tried to look for a racial angle and not come up with anything (made public) yet.

People come in and out of these threads, so I am not sure of the flow of the thread.

In truly random shootings, as it was in Beltway sniper attacks in 2002, (shooting spree in the Washington, D.C., area that killed 10 people and injured 3 over a three-week period), all people lived in fear not knowing if they'll be the next target. Random shooting is frightening in a different way bc anyone can be next in line. It didn't matter if you were white, black, or Asian. It was random.

I lived through that and saw the general fear of random killing that gripped the entire city. This one is confined to the Asian communities. Non-Asians know they are not the target, so they can nonchalantly debate academic points, hairsplitting whether this is racial or mental. For Asians, they have targets on their backs. They'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise cuz their life may depend on their judgment.

This crime is confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors, not the broader Asian community so here it was not random. Still, it's upsetting and frightening that someone can have a grievance, buy a gun, and kill innocent people.

All I got to say is if you truly believe this is a random act of violence, you would be living in fear not knowing whether you are next in line. You wouldn't be coming here trying to win debating points. You know you are not in the line of fire.

How does my saying the crime was confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors equivalent to saying it was a random act of violence? I keep responding because people keep saying illogical things, like your point.

I jumped the gun. There are so many posts on here insisting they need more facts, that this is all in people's heads, etc. If it's in people's heads, there's a real reason for that. It's not imagination.

No worries. But yes I am one of the people saying we need more facts to separate out whether the target of the crime is race or massage parlor. It's not imagination to wonder, but it is if you take your guesses as fact when the evidence isn't there yet. At some point it may be clearer. Take care.

That's not how people think. Lawyers, of course, need facts because they need to know if they can meet a certain legal standard. That's different. In everyday life, or even in science, it's not the facts that inform people's generalizations. It's the other way around. In everyday reasoning, people, even scientists, bring in their perspective, a theory, or a hunch, and they deal with facts within that framework. See Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's true, I didn't. That's because you are both(all?) so remarkably off base you basically get the same kind of response. Neither of you saw fit to correct me, and that's fine, you don't have to. Or maybe I really am stupid. That's okay too, it doesn't hurt me to think that.

I made a certain very simple claim about my own personal opinion. That's was my entire point. Everything you wrote seems to be about something else that you are really angry about. I don't know what that is.

Keep dancing little bird. The passive agressive insults arent as distracting as you believe. Please restate your simple claim clearly since we are all so beneath your genius that it flew over our heads.

No. Is that active aggressive enough for you?

Yes. Thank you Mother Goose. Frustrating innit?

No, not really. Just stupid. But we already covered that.

Oh Mother, duck duck go. It had its intending effect so I'm happy. Stupid but happy amirite? Like the circles that you find...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This racist and mentally ill dude should not have had gun access.

That's true but it seems like the left has given up on gun control as a leading issue.

Dude, the House just passed a gun control bill on MARCH 11. LAST WEEK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most crimes show indifference to the victims humanity and subjectivity. PP are you saying they’re all unconscious hate crimes? And if you believe it’s unconscious does it meet the legal standard of a hate crime?

Some posters here think of you believe and intellectually justify assumptions, even logical suppositions, enough they will become facts. Maybe so the narrative fits a larger agenda. I don’t understand why the agenda is so important but it won’t be deterred by logic apparently.

Others need evidence to accept something as fact. We won’t agree. Maybe it’s just different ways of thinking about things but a court of law requires a fairly strict standard of truth.

I don't think we are talking about a court of law. That's a different matter cuz it has its own legal standard. If the court doesn't certify this as a hate crime, it only means the evidence is insufficient to clear the high bar. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a hate crime.

But this conversation is related to how it’s charged. And certainly how the public talks about it. Some posters want to shoehorn this case into historical racism when this case fits no precedent. It’s not even clear who the shooter’s targets were. Seems to me it was the businesses themselves given that customers were also victims. Not enough is known but it sounds like investigators have tried to look for a racial angle and not come up with anything (made public) yet.

People come in and out of these threads, so I am not sure of the flow of the thread.

In truly random shootings, as it was in Beltway sniper attacks in 2002, (shooting spree in the Washington, D.C., area that killed 10 people and injured 3 over a three-week period), all people lived in fear not knowing if they'll be the next target. Random shooting is frightening in a different way bc anyone can be next in line. It didn't matter if you were white, black, or Asian. It was random.

I lived through that and saw the general fear of random killing that gripped the entire city. This one is confined to the Asian communities. Non-Asians know they are not the target, so they can nonchalantly debate academic points, hairsplitting whether this is racial or mental. For Asians, they have targets on their backs. They'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise cuz their life may depend on their judgment.

This crime is confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors, not the broader Asian community so here it was not random. Still, it's upsetting and frightening that someone can have a grievance, buy a gun, and kill innocent people.

All I got to say is if you truly believe this is a random act of violence, you would be living in fear not knowing whether you are next in line. You wouldn't be coming here trying to win debating points. You know you are not in the line of fire.

How does my saying the crime was confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors equivalent to saying it was a random act of violence? I keep responding because people keep saying illogical things, like your point.

I jumped the gun. There are so many posts on here insisting they need more facts, that this is all in people's heads, etc. If it's in people's heads, there's a real reason for that. It's not imagination.

No worries. But yes I am one of the people saying we need more facts to separate out whether the target of the crime is race or massage parlor. It's not imagination to wonder, but it is if you take your guesses as fact when the evidence isn't there yet. At some point it may be clearer. Take care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course it's relevant. But it's directly confounded with the type of business he targeted. So it could be a racial target or it could be the type of business being targeted that was the motive and so far there is more evidence for the latter. The bolded is scary and it is not consistent with living in a liberal society.

The type of business he targeted is heavily associated with a negative stereotype of Asian women. This is confounded by the fact that some owners and traffickers play into that stereotype by staffing these kinds of businesses with predominantly Asian women.

It's not either/or. It's complicated. You want to talk about Long's motives. Some people want to talk about the overall culture of anti-Asian bias, which is a contributing factor to why 6 Asian-American women were killed in a city with relatively few Asian-Americans. Whatever fetishes or biases that Long has are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO, to the bigger question questions of: i) why Asian-American women are associated with sex work, ii) why so many Asian women ending up working at these types of places, and iii) why someone decides that the best way to deal with their sex addiction is to commit mass murder. I think we can never know if the answer to iii might be linked to i and ii, to the extent that the people who are associated with sex work are also people who are viewed as "other" by American culture. But choosing not to talk about it is choosing to deny the potential harms of racism.

I have never in my life heard that Asian-American women are associated with sex work. But I do know that some sex workers are Asian and many massage parlors are Asian run or staffed. But no one I know, Asian or otherwise, generalizes these practices to all Asian women. I see you are interested in sex work and racial dimensions of it and I applaud you in learning about it and wanting to do something about it. I know for a fact that some trafficking of sex workers starts in China and the workers get sent here. The crime is horrible and we can't see eye to eye on how to view this specific event. That's OK. We seem to both agree that trafficking is wrong and this crime was horrific. That's good enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most crimes show indifference to the victims humanity and subjectivity. PP are you saying they’re all unconscious hate crimes? And if you believe it’s unconscious does it meet the legal standard of a hate crime?

Some posters here think of you believe and intellectually justify assumptions, even logical suppositions, enough they will become facts. Maybe so the narrative fits a larger agenda. I don’t understand why the agenda is so important but it won’t be deterred by logic apparently.

Others need evidence to accept something as fact. We won’t agree. Maybe it’s just different ways of thinking about things but a court of law requires a fairly strict standard of truth.

I don't think we are talking about a court of law. That's a different matter cuz it has its own legal standard. If the court doesn't certify this as a hate crime, it only means the evidence is insufficient to clear the high bar. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a hate crime.

But this conversation is related to how it’s charged. And certainly how the public talks about it. Some posters want to shoehorn this case into historical racism when this case fits no precedent. It’s not even clear who the shooter’s targets were. Seems to me it was the businesses themselves given that customers were also victims. Not enough is known but it sounds like investigators have tried to look for a racial angle and not come up with anything (made public) yet.

People come in and out of these threads, so I am not sure of the flow of the thread.

In truly random shootings, as it was in Beltway sniper attacks in 2002, (shooting spree in the Washington, D.C., area that killed 10 people and injured 3 over a three-week period), all people lived in fear not knowing if they'll be the next target. Random shooting is frightening in a different way bc anyone can be next in line. It didn't matter if you were white, black, or Asian. It was random.

I lived through that and saw the general fear of random killing that gripped the entire city. This one is confined to the Asian communities. Non-Asians know they are not the target, so they can nonchalantly debate academic points, hairsplitting whether this is racial or mental. For Asians, they have targets on their backs. They'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise cuz their life may depend on their judgment.

This crime is confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors, not the broader Asian community so here it was not random. Still, it's upsetting and frightening that someone can have a grievance, buy a gun, and kill innocent people.

All I got to say is if you truly believe this is a random act of violence, you would be living in fear not knowing whether you are next in line. You wouldn't be coming here trying to win debating points. You know you are not in the line of fire.

How does my saying the crime was confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors equivalent to saying it was a random act of violence? I keep responding because people keep saying illogical things, like your point.

I jumped the gun. There are so many posts on here insisting they need more facts, that this is all in people's heads, etc. If it's in people's heads, there's a real reason for that. It's not imagination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course it's relevant. But it's directly confounded with the type of business he targeted. So it could be a racial target or it could be the type of business being targeted that was the motive and so far there is more evidence for the latter. The bolded is scary and it is not consistent with living in a liberal society.

The type of business he targeted is heavily associated with a negative stereotype of Asian women. This is confounded by the fact that some owners and traffickers play into that stereotype by staffing these kinds of businesses with predominantly Asian women.

It's not either/or. It's complicated. You want to talk about Long's motives. Some people want to talk about the overall culture of anti-Asian bias, which is a contributing factor to why 6 Asian-American women were killed in a city with relatively few Asian-Americans. Whatever fetishes or biases that Long has are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO, to the bigger question questions of: i) why Asian-American women are associated with sex work, ii) why so many Asian women ending up working at these types of places, and iii) why someone decides that the best way to deal with their sex addiction is to commit mass murder. I think we can never know if the answer to iii might be linked to i and ii, to the extent that the people who are associated with sex work are also people who are viewed as "other" by American culture. But choosing not to talk about it is choosing to deny the potential harms of racism.

This. People want to separate out the sexism from the racism. It is BOTH. It has a deep history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most crimes show indifference to the victims humanity and subjectivity. PP are you saying they’re all unconscious hate crimes? And if you believe it’s unconscious does it meet the legal standard of a hate crime?

Some posters here think of you believe and intellectually justify assumptions, even logical suppositions, enough they will become facts. Maybe so the narrative fits a larger agenda. I don’t understand why the agenda is so important but it won’t be deterred by logic apparently.

Others need evidence to accept something as fact. We won’t agree. Maybe it’s just different ways of thinking about things but a court of law requires a fairly strict standard of truth.

I don't think we are talking about a court of law. That's a different matter cuz it has its own legal standard. If the court doesn't certify this as a hate crime, it only means the evidence is insufficient to clear the high bar. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a hate crime.

But this conversation is related to how it’s charged. And certainly how the public talks about it. Some posters want to shoehorn this case into historical racism when this case fits no precedent. It’s not even clear who the shooter’s targets were. Seems to me it was the businesses themselves given that customers were also victims. Not enough is known but it sounds like investigators have tried to look for a racial angle and not come up with anything (made public) yet.

People come in and out of these threads, so I am not sure of the flow of the thread.

In truly random shootings, as it was in Beltway sniper attacks in 2002, (shooting spree in the Washington, D.C., area that killed 10 people and injured 3 over a three-week period), all people lived in fear not knowing if they'll be the next target. Random shooting is frightening in a different way bc anyone can be next in line. It didn't matter if you were white, black, or Asian. It was random.

I lived through that and saw the general fear of random killing that gripped the entire city. This one is confined to the Asian communities. Non-Asians know they are not the target, so they can nonchalantly debate academic points, hairsplitting whether this is racial or mental. For Asians, they have targets on their backs. They'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise cuz their life may depend on their judgment.

This crime is confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors, not the broader Asian community so here it was not random. Still, it's upsetting and frightening that someone can have a grievance, buy a gun, and kill innocent people.

All I got to say is if you truly believe this is a random act of violence, you would be living in fear not knowing whether you are next in line. You wouldn't be coming here trying to win debating points. You know you are not in the line of fire.

How does my saying the crime was confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors equivalent to saying it was a random act of violence? I keep responding because people keep saying illogical things, like your point.

Anonymous wrote:
Of course it's relevant. But it's directly confounded with the type of business he targeted. So it could be a racial target or it could be the type of business being targeted that was the motive and so far there is more evidence for the latter. The bolded is scary and it is not consistent with living in a liberal society.

The type of business he targeted is heavily associated with a negative stereotype of Asian women. This is confounded by the fact that some owners and traffickers play into that stereotype by staffing these kinds of businesses with predominantly Asian women.

It's not either/or. It's complicated. You want to talk about Long's motives. Some people want to talk about the overall culture of anti-Asian bias, which is a contributing factor to why 6 Asian-American women were killed in a city with relatively few Asian-Americans. Whatever fetishes or biases that Long has are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO, to the bigger question questions of: i) why Asian-American women are associated with sex work, ii) why so many Asian women ending up working at these types of places, and iii) why someone decides that the best way to deal with their sex addiction is to commit mass murder. I think we can never know if the answer to iii might be linked to i and ii, to the extent that the people who are associated with sex work are also people who are viewed as "other" by American culture. But choosing not to talk about it is choosing to deny the potential harms of racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most crimes show indifference to the victims humanity and subjectivity. PP are you saying they’re all unconscious hate crimes? And if you believe it’s unconscious does it meet the legal standard of a hate crime?

Some posters here think of you believe and intellectually justify assumptions, even logical suppositions, enough they will become facts. Maybe so the narrative fits a larger agenda. I don’t understand why the agenda is so important but it won’t be deterred by logic apparently.

Others need evidence to accept something as fact. We won’t agree. Maybe it’s just different ways of thinking about things but a court of law requires a fairly strict standard of truth.

I don't think we are talking about a court of law. That's a different matter cuz it has its own legal standard. If the court doesn't certify this as a hate crime, it only means the evidence is insufficient to clear the high bar. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a hate crime.

But this conversation is related to how it’s charged. And certainly how the public talks about it. Some posters want to shoehorn this case into historical racism when this case fits no precedent. It’s not even clear who the shooter’s targets were. Seems to me it was the businesses themselves given that customers were also victims. Not enough is known but it sounds like investigators have tried to look for a racial angle and not come up with anything (made public) yet.

People come in and out of these threads, so I am not sure of the flow of the thread.

In truly random shootings, as it was in Beltway sniper attacks in 2002, (shooting spree in the Washington, D.C., area that killed 10 people and injured 3 over a three-week period), all people lived in fear not knowing if they'll be the next target. Random shooting is frightening in a different way bc anyone can be next in line. It didn't matter if you were white, black, or Asian. It was random.

I lived through that and saw the general fear of random killing that gripped the entire city. This one is confined to the Asian communities. Non-Asians know they are not the target, so they can nonchalantly debate academic points, hairsplitting whether this is racial or mental. For Asians, they have targets on their backs. They'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise cuz their life may depend on their judgment.

This crime is confined to Asian-staffed massage parlors, not the broader Asian community so here it was not random. Still, it's upsetting and frightening that someone can have a grievance, buy a gun, and kill innocent people.

All I got to say is if you truly believe this is a random act of violence, you would be living in fear not knowing whether you are next in line. You wouldn't be coming here trying to win debating points. You know you are not in the line of fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btxEOr34nw8

Here's the trailer to the Beltway Snipers movie. If you read some of the comments, you can see different reactions. Those who lived through it remember the fear they were in, even after all these years. Those who were born after, you can also see in their comments. Their reactions are completely different.

The difference in opinion in this thread is a reflection of whether they believe they are in the line of fire or not.