If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Advocate)   Everything you know about the Matthew Shepard murder is PC story embellishment, if not straight-up nonsense - so says a) Pat Robertson, b) Fred Phelps, or c) The Advocate?   (advocate.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Matthew Shepard, Mckinney, LGBT rights organizations, murders, Hate Crimes Prevention Act  
•       •       •

2603 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:33 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-16 10:13:39 AM
Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

Gay men and Tina. A deadly combination.
 
2013-09-16 10:31:14 AM

vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.


I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.
 
2013-09-16 10:35:16 AM
It's farking sad that this is on the politics tab.
 
2013-09-16 10:35:35 AM

dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.


Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.
 
2013-09-16 10:39:20 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.


If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?
 
2013-09-16 10:44:33 AM
 In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence

lol
 
2013-09-16 10:44:53 AM
Whether it was a hate crime, a drug crime, or a combination of the two, it's hard to shake the suspicion that self-hate and a misguided culture of masculinity, which taught McKinney to abhor in himself what Shepard had learned to embrace, was as complicit as anything else in the murder of Matthew Shepard.

That would still mean he was killed because he was gay. It hardly matters that the murderer might have been closeted.
 
2013-09-16 10:45:52 AM

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?


It does make me curious as to why the guys who are in prison for the murder are lying, as "it was a sex/drug binge spiraled out of control" is a hell of a lot better defense than "it was a hate crime".

But that's just me.
 
2013-09-16 10:46:06 AM

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?


After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.
 
2013-09-16 10:47:21 AM
I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.
 
2013-09-16 10:47:28 AM
I had to sit through a performance of "The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later" for a class, and it was insufferable. The whole play consisted of the worst stereotype of holier-than-thou out-of-town liberal college students acting all shocked and pearl-clutchy that locals weren't all onboard with the federal "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" they were pushing.
 
2013-09-16 10:52:22 AM

Cheron: I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.



Well, shooting a kid who once smoked pot has been ruled legal.
 
2013-09-16 10:52:43 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.


And you think the rights-holders to the Laramie Project don't get royalties every time some high school wants to do a production to show how thoughtful and compassionate they are and pay no mind to those 17-year-olds in their caps and gowns who can't tell their 'their' from their 'there' from their 'they're'?
 
2013-09-16 10:53:01 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.


Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?
 
2013-09-16 10:55:29 AM
Damn, Wyoming sounds farked up.
 
2013-09-16 10:56:08 AM
 In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Not just an oxymoron, but the only thing worse than "anecdotal evidence" are anecdotes told 15 years after the fact.

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).
 
2013-09-16 10:57:56 AM

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.

Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?


And there's the problem  -- it doesn't matter if they actually are right, it only matters if them being right would piss off the libtards.
 
2013-09-16 10:58:50 AM

lockers: Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?


Right about what? That maybe in this particular case they didn't kill him because he was gay? I don't understand what you're driving at.
 
2013-09-16 10:58:54 AM
I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.
 
2013-09-16 11:00:07 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.

Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.


First, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here because it's hard to parse the sentence.  Take a deep breath, let it out, and compose something that makes it clear who you mean.

Secondly, lying about something when you know it's not true, but you do it anyway for some kind of political gain, is still lying.  I don't care if it's in the service of what you believe to be the "right way", it's still lying.  It's still wrong.

From a political standpoint, it can even hurt you when it comes out that you were lying, and it almost always does, eventually.
 
2013-09-16 11:00:42 AM

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.
 
2013-09-16 11:02:31 AM

dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.


Isn't the CW that all crime is "hate" crime?

But I agree - the motivation for beating a 17-year-old bloody and leaving him tied to a fence to die of his wounds/exposure makes ALL the difference.
 
2013-09-16 11:03:39 AM

HeartBurnKid: lockers:
Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?

And there's the problem  -- it doesn't matter if they actually are right, it only matters if them being right would piss off the libtards.


I am probably to the left of you, but the original post I responded to was the definition of an axe to grind. Mathew Sheppard was a travesty regardless if this exploitative book is right or not. Even if it was true, it wouldn't for one second diminish the light shone upon the very real bigotry afflicting the LGBT community. There are plenty of examples and not enough action surrounding it.
 
2013-09-16 11:04:06 AM
OK, maybe I don't get it, but this article doesn't really seem to prove that "everything we thought we knew is wrong". It just presents a different side, and shows that maybe the killer was gay himself. That doesn't mean that he didn't kill Sheppard out of his own self loathing for what he perceived as "wrong" behavior. Also, just because meth may have been involved, it also doesn't mean that the drugs weren't just the device that finally made him act.

In other words, I see nothing here that convinces me that Sheppard still wasn't killed because of his homosexuality. Drugs being a part of the equation doesn't change that. Somebody's getting paid money to tell you they're here to "set things straight", and then not doing any of that. I just can't figure out if it's the author of TFA, or the author of TFB.
 
2013-09-16 11:05:25 AM

Cheron: I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.


Being beaten and slowly left to die isn't normal.
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-16 11:05:28 AM

FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.


He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.
 
2013-09-16 11:06:59 AM

FarkedOver: lockers: Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?

Right about what? That maybe in this particular case they didn't kill him because he was gay? I don't understand what you're driving at.


I am driving at that he instantly, without even bothering to read the article, tried to discredit the author by comparing him to the knuckle dragging apologists that forwarded a similar theory without research. That is axe grinding if I have ever seen it.
 
2013-09-16 11:07:47 AM

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


I take it you're against the difference between homicide and first-degree murder as well, then?
 
2013-09-16 11:08:17 AM
The defendant initially tried to use the Gay Panic defense; they were driven to the point of temporary insanity at the idea that Shepherd might be hitting on them and had to kill him. That's not a hate crime?
 
2013-09-16 11:08:32 AM

lockers: I am probably to the left of you, but the original post I responded to was the definition of an axe to grind. Mathew Sheppard was a travesty regardless if this exploitative book is right or not. Even if it was true, it wouldn't for one second diminish the light shone upon the very real bigotry afflicting the LGBT community. There are plenty of examples and not enough action surrounding it.


So should we have waited around for the black woman who wasn't a pregnant, unmarried teenager before we started our bus boycott?
 
2013-09-16 11:08:39 AM

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


It's when they ACT on it that it becomes a crime. They can think whatever they want, otherwise, people like Fred Phelps would have been locked up years ago. You're thinking of Germany, where it's actually illegal to just be racist. Here in the US, being a bigot is still perfectly legal.

 The idea behind 'hate crimes' laws are to prevent crimes from being focused on specific groups based on nothing more than them belonging to the groups they are a part of. The idea is that if someone is beating up Jews, for example, you have thousands of targets in a city that single people or large groups may hunt down and commit crimes against, and they could be victimized as a group. It's a rather subjective thing sometimes, but I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.
 
2013-09-16 11:10:30 AM

thornhill:  In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Not just an oxymoron, but the only thing worse than "anecdotal evidence" are anecdotes told 15 years after the fact.

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).


Well the phone records are unlikely to still be around 15+ years later.

Meth is a huge problem in the gay community and it would not be the first time a person connected to meth has met a terrible end.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the article but it is plausible. Not that it makes what they did right, either.
 
2013-09-16 11:11:35 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.


Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."
 
2013-09-16 11:11:50 AM

FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.


It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.
 
2013-09-16 11:12:41 AM

Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.


Likewise with hate crimes.  You can hate gay people all you want, but if you put your hatred into action, that's a crime.
 
2013-09-16 11:13:45 AM

Mikey1969: It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.


What the fark does that have to do with what I said?
 
2013-09-16 11:14:08 AM

FarkedOver: It's farking sad that this is on the politics tab.


This.
 
2013-09-16 11:15:18 AM

Dwight_Yeast: So should we have waited around for the black woman who wasn't a pregnant, unmarried teenager before we started our bus boycott?


Are you high? Look, despite whether the allegations are true or not, the response was positive. It doesn't matter if it was warranted or not. In the same way WW1 wasn't really about an archduke, the cause for ending LGBT bigotry is not about Matthew Shepard. What I am saying is you have an agenda and you are reactionary because of it.
 
2013-09-16 11:16:46 AM

Dwight_Yeast: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

It does make me curious as to why the guys who are in prison for the murder are lying, as "it was a sex/drug binge spiraled out of control" is a hell of a lot better defense than "it was a hate crime".

But that's just me.


The former defense would have involved admitting to voluntarily doing gay stuff. In 1998, the "gay panic" defense was considered a halfway plausible explanation for attacking someone. If there's any truth to this article, there was a whole lot of self-loathing going on.
 
2013-09-16 11:16:53 AM

Dr Dreidel: dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.

Isn't the CW that all crime is "hate" crime?


No.   CW is the most perfect form of communication to ever grace the aether with the imprint of its signal.

But I agree - the motivation for beating a 17-year-old bloody and leaving him tied to a fence to die of his wounds/exposure makes ALL the difference.

It does, but only if you are trying to make political hay out of the murder.

If these guys actually killed Mr. Shepard largely because of drug use, and not because he was gay, than Shepard's status as a martyr is diminished because he wasn't killed for that reason.   That doesn't make his killing any less bad.

I mean, if a Christian in Ancient Rome were thrown to the lions not because of his religion, but in reality because he threatened a Roman Senator (who was a closet Christian), then they could hardly be considered a martyr for Christ, could they?  I'm sure that sort of thing actually happened, and more than once, it's just that we can't really go back in time and call "bullshiat!" on them.

Personally, I would rather the objective truth be known, then to try and hide it away and hope that no one finds out the whole reason legislation got passed was based on a lie.  After all, it's not like the law is going to be repealed.
 
2013-09-16 11:20:15 AM

someonelse: Dwight_Yeast: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

It does make me curious as to why the guys who are in prison for the murder are lying, as "it was a sex/drug binge spiraled out of control" is a hell of a lot better defense than "it was a hate crime".

But that's just me.

The former defense would have involved admitting to voluntarily doing gay stuff. In 1998, the "gay panic" defense was considered a halfway plausible explanation for attacking someone. If there's any truth to this article, there was a whole lot of self-loathing going on.


Yeah, if the killer identified himself as a "straight hustler" who turned tricks for drugs, there's probably a pretty deep well of homophobic self-loathing to draw from.
 
2013-09-16 11:21:37 AM
So Mathew Shepherd was a druggie so it's okay to kill him for being a gay man?

I thought the reason so many people thought it was a hate crime was because the two men who committed the murder when asked why told everyone they did it because he was gay. I would think they would know best why they killed him.
 
2013-09-16 11:24:41 AM

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."


And that's the whole point: people like Debeo want to be able to use crimes as a way of instilling fear in groups of people they don't like without any great legal repercussions.  They want to be able to say "[insert minority here] aren't really people, so it doesn't matter legally what sort of crimes we commit against them"
 
2013-09-16 11:25:16 AM
This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.
 
2013-09-16 11:27:16 AM

Dwight_Yeast: They want to be able to say "[insert minority here] aren't really people, so it doesn't matter legally what sort of crimes we commit against them"


People say a lot of stupid, hateful things.  I'm just not comfortable with putting them in jail for it.
 
2013-09-16 11:27:19 AM

FarkedOver: Mikey1969: It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

What the fark does that have to do with what I said?


Wow, now you need people to quote your own posts for you? Here you go: "We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1."I merely pointed out that you are NOT prosecuted based on the "thought", buit on acting on that thought to plan out your murder. There is a difference between thinking about how you would hurt someone and acting on impulses. There is also a difference between a death happening due to negligence and one that you planned.
 
2013-09-16 11:27:36 AM

someonelse: The former defense would have involved admitting to voluntarily doing gay stuff. In 1998, the "gay panic" defense was considered a halfway plausible explanation for attacking someone. If there's any truth to this article, there was a whole lot of self-loathing going on.


They picked him up from a gay bar, IIRC, so either they were there with the intention of committing a hate crime or they were looking to get laid.  Personally, as one of those options would have probably led to an acquittal, I would have sucked it up and skipped the "gay panic" defense. Because the only rational reason to use it in that situation was because you were in that bar looking to commit a hate crime.
 
2013-09-16 11:30:06 AM

GoldSpider: This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.


Well, actually the perpetrator's OWN WORDS do that just fine...
At trial, McKinney offered various rationales to justify his actions. He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#Arrests_and_trial
 
2013-09-16 11:30:37 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Personally, as one of those options would have probably led to an acquittal, I would have sucked it up and skipped the "gay panic" defense.


Sad that an attorney considered that a better defense than "meth-fueled rage".
 
2013-09-16 11:31:32 AM

Mikey1969: FarkedOver: Mikey1969: It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

What the fark does that have to do with what I said?

Wow, now you need people to quote your own posts for you? Here you go: "We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1."I merely pointed out that you are NOT prosecuted based on the "thought", buit on acting on that thought to plan out your murder. There is a difference between thinking about how you would hurt someone and acting on impulses. There is also a difference between a death happening due to negligence and one that you planned.


No you just explained yourself in a shiatty manner the first go 'round.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report