Spa Shootings, Hate Crimes, and the NYT

[SGOS]

I like the New York Times.  It's a welcome relief from right wing media, and  there is no doubt that its coverage is more in depth than most other news papers.  They know how to cover a story without leaving out important details. And they are less inclined to give slippery politicians the benefit of the doubt than network news.  But I've got reservations about the way they have been covering the Atlanta Spa shootings.  They continually use it as a launch pad for articles and opinion pieces about hate crimes, so much so that this morning, I ended going to Snopes to check this out.  As I suspected, there is as yet no evidence that the shootings were hate crimes. 

On reading the Times closer, I have not found any of the articles to actually say "The shootings were hate crimes," but they seem to be unable to talk about the shootings without getting heavily involved in hate crimes, and if they want to talk about hate crimes they cannot help but reference Atlanta's Spas.  They are so blatant about this that I'm thinking they are putting the two together to influence public thought in a pre-planned and unethical way.

Now public thought should be influenced just to counter Fox News and the usual internet sources, but it seems like the times is creating imaginary connections to support a particular position.  Furthermore, I don't think their position on hate crimes needs to rely on approaching it this way.  On gun laws, the connection is obvious.  But the Atlanta killer was a nut job obsessed with his inability to control his sex urges, or so he has confessed.  Undoubtedly I don't know all the right facts to date, and maybe I'm wasting my time here.

[GSOgymrat]

I subscribe to the New York Times because they do have a relatively higher standard of reporting. I understand your concern regarding framing the Atlanta spa shootings as a hate crime because I consider labeling his actions a hate crime an oversimplification. I'm just speculating based on what I have read but I think the Atlanta spa shooter's motivations are somewhat different than the motives behind some other hate crimes. For example, the Pulse Nightclub shooter explicitly targeted LGBTQ people because they were LGBTQ where the Atlanta spa shooter didn't appear to be targeting Asians because they were Asian. He appeared to be targeting sex workers who work at massage parlors because he had frequented massage parlors-- this appeared to be as much about sex and misogyny as race. There is a measurable rise in violence targeting Asian Americans since the start of the pandemic and an impulse to use the Atlanta spa shooting as part of a narrative that racially motivated violence against Asians is real. I don't think a hate crime classification in the Atlanta spa shooting is strictly accurate but given the overall situation I'm not going to be picky. 

When I first heard about Asians being assaulted because COVID originated in China my immediate thought was, "That makes zero sense. People are not that stupid."

My next thought was, "Of course they are."

[Cassia]

My sweetheart says just 5 minutes Fox news gives him various psychosomatic illnesses.

I also give the NYT some credit for being more old school in their verification than most. Bill Maher and Sam Harris have been on rampages against liberal virtue signaling and I think they are correct about a lot of it.

[Shiranu]

As I suspected, there is as yet no evidence that the shootings were hate crimes. 

Counter-point; unless the shooter explicitly states it was a hate crime, it is pretty much impossible to prove it is, and while I think his hate crime was more against women than Asians... sexualization of Asian Women (both sexist and racist) is huge in WASP culture.

The fact of the matter is he did specifically target these shops, and the fact that they are Asian run and operated likely did have influence on his decision. But unless he explicitly stated, it's impossible to prove.

Also, the reason Asian-Americans are stereotyped as running brothel/massage parlors (though it's nowhere near as common as it use to be) is because of a racist history where that was the only type of work many AAPI could find after fleeing poverty and war in South East Asia, China and the Pacific Islands.

So even if we say that racism cannot be proven, or go further and say since it cannot be proven it can't be stated as why he did it... the entire situation exists precisely because of systemic racism and sexism within this country.

[GSOgymrat]

Bill Maher and Sam Harris have been on rampages against liberal virtue signaling and I think they are correct about a lot of it.

True but let's not forget that conservatives virtue signal almost all the time. I don't know if one can even be conservative without expressing judgment and dissatisfaction about certain people's choices or expressing patriotism. In my experience, conservatives are not laid-back, "live and let live" kind of people. Ideologues are the problem.

[Cassia]

True but let's not forget that conservatives virtue signal almost all the time. I don't know if one can even be conservative without expressing judgment and dissatisfaction about certain people's choices or expressing patriotism. In my experience, conservatives are not laid-back, "live and let live" kind of people. Ideologues are the problem.

True on both sides of the aisle. The pendulum swings too far. What ever happened to moderates?

[GSOgymrat]

True on both sides of the aisle. The pendulum swings too far. What ever happened to moderates?

So far, President Biden appears to be addressing problems with a moderate, measured approach. For example, he's not giving blanket student loan forgiveness but rolling out billions of dollars in cancelations of federal student loans that target the neediest students first. His infrastructure plan is expensive but, from what I have read, addresses problems that most Americans would agree need attention. The extremes like to portray moderates as ineffectual or needlessly compromising but prioritizing problems that affect the majority and being solution-focused, e.g. vaccine distribution, is a sensible approach.

[Cassia]

So far, President Biden appears to be addressing problems with a moderate, measured approach. For example, he's not giving blanket student loan forgiveness but rolling out billions of dollars in cancelations of federal student loans that target the neediest students first. His infrastructure plan is expensive but, from what I have read, addresses problems that most Americans would agree need attention. The extremes like to portray moderates as ineffectual or needlessly compromising but prioritizing problems that affect the majority and being solution-focused, e.g. vaccine distribution, is a sensible approach.

Fingers crossed on that infrastructure plan. Lets get in the friggin' game !

[SGOS]

The term virtue signaling is a pejorative, and has no value beyond that. It's a term used when someone disapproves of value you communicate.  But signaling, is the whole point of communication.  We signal/communicate our sexual needs, hunger, annoyance, success, and basically everything about ourselves that we want others to know.

Baruch loved that pejorative because he misunderstood the word as applying only to liberals making it an unfair attack on his conservative values.  So when Shiraru stated that he approves of civil rights or some other social value, Baruch would accuse him of virtue signaling, while Baruch himself constantly signaled to those around him that he was an asshole, something he apparently held as a virtue. Call it signaling or communication.  They are the same thing and tell others information about ourselves.

On the other hand, if virtue signaling is a special type of communication, like a secret code that only insiders supposedly understand, then the very act of accusing another of virtue signaling is an act of signaling code to a hip few that you seek their approval for condemning the views of another.

It's basically cowardly passive aggression with a little extra asshole thrown in for good measure.  But it has value in that people buy into it, and it has political value.  Perhaps the greatest virtue signaler of the century was Donald Trump.  He loved signaling his contempt and disdain for outsiders, the poor, blacks, liberals and his opponents.  He considered these things as important virtues, and he signaled those virtues to gain mega approval from his supporters.

More thoughts on the term:
https://theconversation.com/virtue-signalling-a-slur-meant-to-imply-moral-grandstanding-that-might-not-be-all-bad-145546

[Cassia]

I remember how Sam Harris and Ben Affleck got into it on Bill Maher's show. Personally I think Islamophobia is real, there are hate crimes against innocent Muslims and people suffer for it. That said, I do agree with Bill and Sam that Islam can certainly bring bad ideas to life and condemning bad ideas that arise from Islam is not hate speech.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

ST. LOUIS — A 17-year-old was arrested and charged in connection with the deadly shooting of 9-year-old Caion Greene.

According to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department,17-year-old Darryl Williams was arrested Wednesday. Thursday morning, the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office charged Williams with first-degree murder, first-degree assault, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon.

The shooting happened at around 10 p.m. on March 7 in the area of Ninth Street and Lasalle Park Court, south of downtown St. Louis.

According to a police source, the child was sitting in the back seat of his mother’s car when two people began shooting at the car, hitting the boy in the chest. The boy’s mother and a friend took him to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.

According to charging documents, witnesses saw Williams approach the victims’ car and fire several shots inside the car before fleeing the area. During an interview, Williams admitted to being at the scene at the time of the shooting.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/deadly-shooting-9-year-old-st-louis-arrest/63-345b63b8-f2a7-4e09-be15-0f8e913059d7

[SGOS]

I remember how Sam Harris and Ben Affleck got into it on Bill Maher's show. Personally I think Islamophobia is real, there are hate crimes against innocent Muslims and people suffer for it. That said, I do agree with Bill and Sam that Islam can certainly bring bad ideas to life and condemning bad ideas that arise from Islam is not hate speech.

I remember it from a few years ago.  I was embarrassed for Ben Afleck.  He appeared to go to the discussion with an agenda, but it's like the discussion wasn't about what he thought, but he couldn't put his agenda aside to participate in the discussion.  He was too angry to understand that the topic was not "All Muslims are Bad."  I would have expected him to be a guy who was highly capable at discourse. Why?  I don't know.  Because I think he's a good actor?