search results matching tag: Hate Crimes

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (36)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (1)     Comments (218)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Today’s MAGA domestic terrorist.
Thomas Howard, caught vandalizing his town because he had to leave Trump stickers at the scenes of your crimes. Police tracked the sticker and only one set had ever been sold. Led straight to the Maggot who admitted to the full year of terrorizing their town with hateful MAGA graffiti, destroying private property, and more.

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/jefferson-park-man-hate-crime-homophobic-vandalism/

Today’s bonus MAGA election fraud CONVICTION… Douglass Mackey convicted of suppressing the vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 by using Twitter to mimic the Clinton campaign and con women and minorities to believe that Clinton wanted them to “vote by text” or social media instead at the ballot box.

EMTs charged with murder

newtboy says...

I think it’s not uncalled for to throw in hate crime enhancements and go for the death penalty. Let them prove their murderous callous behavior wasn’t racially driven.

Their training means they absolutely knew what they did would kill someone in his condition. No question. This wasn’t even depraved indifference, it was pure premeditated callous torturous murder. My absolute worst nightmare death.

The only truly just reward is to slowly suffocate them by compression…compassionately offering them a light sedative to speed things up slightly. A lot of tragic things happen in life, and I think they need a little tragedy in theirs.

What they’re going to get won’t come close to justice.

Just disgusting.

Surveillance Video Shows Kids Set School Bus Ablaze

eoe says...

Pretty spectacular that in the age of cellphones, no one thought to contact the fire department earlier. All people care about is me and mine.

I'd say this was likely a hate crime, but kids do stupid shit because kids are stupid.

Jury finds 3 men guilty for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery

newtboy says...

Apparently their deal with federal prosecutors to plead guilty and admit they murdered Ahmaud Arbery as a hate crime, only killing him because of his skin color is being temporarily rejected by the judge.

Somehow federal prosecutors thought it was acceptable to offer them their choice of their preferred prisons, including the most cushy “club fed” prisons, for the first 30 years of their life sentences as reverse punishment for the hate crime enhancement…lying to the judge and claiming the family agreed to this gift to the murderers. When the family found out and strongly objected, the plea deal was rejected by the judge at the last second.

WTF is this outrageousness!? A federal prosecutor offered not only no extra time, but a massive gift of unheard of preferential treatment for 30 years specifically because these racists murdered a man over his skin color….and almost got away with it even on a highly public case like this one….and the right still denies systemic racism.

I’m not hopeful for any repercussions whatsoever for the prosecutor that tried to help these racist murderers out….but there should be. WTEverlovingF?

Uber driver speaks out after passenger mask confrontation

Doc Rivers

newtboy says...

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

Doc Rivers

Mordhaus says...

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

newtboy said:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

It sure didn't sound like she publicly posted the personal info of any right wing artists. She would never have another event if she had....and the gallery would probably have been firebombed.
She's a liar, one who bitches and moans when her lies are exposed. I don't trust a self serving word she says, she's a proven liar.

Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA. Some ideologies don't deserve any help spreading their message, even though they have a right to. When you offer your soapbox and amplifier to them, you become complicit in their support for hate crimes.

Sorry, but I've seen far too much alt-right lies and misdirection to buy it, and plenty of evidence that the gallery is abusing support for free speech to support and spread racist, racist alt-right ideologies, and blatantly lying about it. Their actions prove it to me. Pro-racist mass murderer speakers at events open only to alt-right listeners and kept secret from the public = rally, not roundtable.
Alt-right IS code for Nazi or white power, their own code. I'll just call them nazis, KKK, and random white power fans.

I'm still waiting for an admission that the title and description are bullshit, lies, and right wing propaganda. Can you be that honest please?

bcglorf said:

I did read about 'doxxing' those artists but the owner of the Gallery is also quoted as saying she did NOT send it to Amerika, but published the list for everyone, and sounded like it was what she always did.

I am a skeptic, and I've too often seen people just lumping others into camps of either friend/foe, and then accelerating the process by identifying anyone that associates with a foe is obviously now a foe too.

I'm sorry, but evidence against the gallery and the guy in the video here looks pretty limited. Might be right, but also might be wrong and I've seen too much witch hunting in Canada where anyone not on board is automatically alt-right, and alt-right is really just code for nazi, and if you've called them alt-right long enough then you can just start calling them a nazi.

It's dishonest, divisive and dangerous.

2 Convicted of rape. One gets 6 months the other 15 years

Mordhaus says...

I don't think any prosecutor wants to be the first one to put a person of non-Caucasian ethnicity on the stand for a hate crime, even when it clearly should have been counted as one.

That said, Turner was most likely under-sentenced. Not 'just' because he was white, but because he was from a rich family. In addition, he was lucky because, at the time, California law did not consider digital penetration rape. If you did not penetrate the woman's body with your penis, the most they could charge you with was assault with the intent. They also managed to tack on sexual penetration by a 'foreign' object.

On the other hand, you have a gang rape that there was photo and video evidence of. Evidence that showed that the defendant mentioned in the video not only participated in the rape, but urinated on the victim and told her "That was for 400 years of slavery, you bitch."

Finally, this is a hot issue. There will always be disagreements. @C-note linked a high rated video featuring someone we would 'expect' to be racist, due to stereotyping, confirming that racism still does exist and that racial privilege does as well. I agree that there are still racist issues in our society, although I personally feel we are moving more towards privilege based on monetary worth than racial worth. However, the simple fact of the matter is, this video is playing hard AND loose with the facts to skew the opinion of the viewer. A lot of videos do that. One of the good things about the sift is they WILL call people out on it, usually gently at first but with more force if it is repeated.

newtboy said:

Batey, aggravated rape and other (unlisted) charges...I think not hate crimes because....well, no reason, this was a clear hate crime, but he wasn't charged as such or sentenced for the other convictions..... Black privilege?
Tennessee-Class A Felony - 15-60 years in prison and a fine not more than $50,000 (aggravated rape, rape of a child)
"There were five acts of sexual assault and rape committed by [Batey] and him alone, and there were seven acts of violence he was found guilty of committing against me.
But sexual assault was not where the attack ended."
They also kidnapped her to take her unconscious body to the raping place.

Turner, 3 cases of felony sex assault for one act. It seems the prosecutor was asking for 1/2 the max of 12 years.
Felony Sexual Battery: This has a range of punishments. The defendant could receive a term of imprisonment in county jail for up to 1 year and a fine of up to $2,000. However, California state laws also allows for imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years as well as a fine of up to $10,000.

Keep in mind, different states have different laws and sentences.

2 Convicted of rape. One gets 6 months the other 15 years

newtboy says...

Batey, aggravated rape and other (unlisted) charges...I think not hate crimes because....well, no reason, this was a clear hate crime, but he wasn't charged as such or sentenced for the other convictions..... Black privilege?
Tennessee-Class A Felony - 15-60 years in prison and a fine not more than $50,000 (aggravated rape, rape of a child)
"There were five acts of sexual assault and rape committed by [Batey] and him alone, and there were seven acts of violence he was found guilty of committing against me.
But sexual assault was not where the attack ended."
They also kidnapped her to take her unconscious body to the raping place.

Turner, 3 cases of felony sex assault for one act. It seems the prosecutor was asking for 1/2 the max of 12 years.
Felony Sexual Battery: This has a range of punishments. The defendant could receive a term of imprisonment in county jail for up to 1 year and a fine of up to $2,000. However, California state laws also allows for imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years as well as a fine of up to $10,000.

Keep in mind, different states have different laws and sentences.

eric3579 said:

Curious what the charges were that Batey was convicted of and the range of penalties for those charges? What was the possible range of penalties of Turners conviction (i think the prosecutor wanted six years).

2 Convicted of rape. One gets 6 months the other 15 years

newtboy says...

Yep, exactly the same crimes.....

Victims testimony....after describing the impacts of the brutal racially motivated gang rape by 4 men that Batey pled guilty to, which they filmed and posted online to haunt her for life....
“Mr. Batey continued to abuse and degrade me, urinating on my face while uttering horrific racial hate speech that suggested I deserved what he was doing to me because of the color of my skin. He didn’t even know who I was.”
Batey was then sentenced to the MINIMUM sentence possible for just one of his many convictions.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/07/14/cory-batey-faces-least-15-years-friday-sentencing/86953944/?from=new-cookie

Turner was convicted of fingering a drunk maybe unconscious girl, felony sexual assault not gang rape as a hate crime, disgusting to be sure but hardly a brutal, violent, racially motivated degrading gang rape and violent attack filmed so as to continue the attack for life, and Turner was sentenced based on the probation departments recommendations which were actually longer than the minimum, and also include registration for life as a sex offender.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

Stop being a race baiter crying wolf, I'll call you on it every time.
Downvote

Liberal Redneck - Virginia is for Lovers, not Nazis

newtboy says...

KKK, alt-right, nazi party, white nationalists, and generic right wing racists, all under the banner 'Unite the right' (meaning right wing, not the correct). That's not one radical group it's a conglomeration of many, all of which are firmly on your 'team', and the counter protesters were not so organized and were mostly non-affiliated locals protesting a hate march/rally in their town.

The right wingers came armed, in riot gear, with shields, clubs, and mace. The anti protesters had cardboard and sticks they picked up on site when confronted, and mace. The right marched, without permits, all weekend. (the one event they had a permit for was canceled due to repeated violence in each of those unsanctioned marches) The right wingers were 90%+ non residents that came to start a fight, the anti-protesters were, from what I've seen, nearly 100% locals.
The right wingers committed actual murder and uncountable attempted murders and assaults. I didn't hear of or see a single right winger being killed or even hospitalized.

With the right as one of those extremist groups, I expect violence, no matter the circumstances and I'm rarely disappointed.

But yeah...like your president, feel free to continue deflect blame from your team and keep trying to pretend it's all the "other's" fault and they are responsible for your team's hate crimes and racism. That's working so well for him...and you....winning.

*Facepalm*

Way to stand with the Nazis, Bob. Nice job.

PS: It's ANTIFA, not ANFTA. It's short for ANTIFACIST. Know your enemy.

bobknight33 said:

1 radical group VS other radical groups (BLM ANFTA).
1 group had a permit and the others did not.

What did you expect to happen?

Rex Murphy | Free speech on campus

Imagoamin says...

I never claimed to or would say I speak for all of any group. Congrats on assuming.

I fail to see how fighting against equal protection for trans people under hate crime laws isn't transphobic. And his flimsy defense of "it will force me to call someone something i dont want to" isn't true of the bill in the slightest if you read the thing and mostly a smoke screen for his distaste for trans acceptance. The place where Peterson works adopted almost identical protection for trans individuals in 2014. But he hasn't noticed or been effected... because it doesn't do what he thinks.

And your analogy is stupid and reductive. Someone being upset they can't call people "faggot" anymore because of PC nonsense doesn't put you on the same level of marginalized groups fighting for basic rights anymore than his refusal to accept that trans people get to self identify / get equal protection puts him anywhere close to the trans and gay people fighting at Stonewall for the right to exist.

Regardless of all of that, I wasn't talking to you and I was offering someone who seemed genuinely interested in the other side some view of that side. I'm not interested in the vitriol from some rando on the internet who has made being "anti-sjw/anti-feminist" an identity.

Asmo said:

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

Canada's new anti-transphobia bill

Chairman_woo says...

For those not in the know, Canada apparently just passed a bill that makes "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” legally prosecutable.

i.e. calling someone He or She when they would prefer xe, ve, per, ae, zie (or anything else they care to make up), that is now legally actionable.

I suspect however the reality of the situation may be overblown. Some people are claiming it's now a hate crime which seems a little misleading.
Though that it is technically somewhat correct, the law really just added gender identity to the existing list of classes protected from "hate speech". That is to say, a legal offence predicated on apparent prejudice or hatred towards a specific minority group.

Now the idea of hate speech laws themselves is another can of worms (I have my misgivings). But as far as I can tell the law isn't really about casual use of pronouns, so much as institutional prejudice against said groups, or extremist rhetoric ("Kill all the queers" or whathaveyou).

Still strikes me as questionable, but it's the precedent of having hate speech law in general that concerns me (or rather the ripe potential for misuse).

IDK, complicated issue.

Edit: To be clear that's context for the joke, not the content

6 phrases with racist origins you may have been unaware

Babymech says...

It's worth noting though that in Europe the word Gypsy, or variants of Zigane / Zigeuner, is a racial slur and used in modern times in actual, horrifying violence against minorities. I mean to the point where it's used by the same people who paint swastikas on walls before they raze tent villages.

http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2014/04/why-europe-failing-protect-its-roma-population-hate-crimes

In the US this is obviously not a thing, and it still doesn't make sense to me to start writing G*p*y (I just see 'guppy' when I read that) but there is a history of racism against the Romani going back centuries, as well as a modern culture of extreme marginalization and exclusion.

I don't want Europeans to go around casually using the N-word and thinking that that's only a disgusting term when it's used in the US, so I guess I wouldn't want Americans going around casually saying Gypsy either, if it can be avoided?

newtboy said:

You mean like accidentally calling a person from Central America a Mexican? Yeah, that's because they're racist and assume they're SO much better than a Mexican (or Romani in your friends cases)....edut:at least that's how it looks to me.

I never thought "gypsy" was a slur, any more than Romani is. How would your 'friends' react to being called Romani I wonder?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon