Special Needs Man Tortured and Beaten For 24-48 Hours

A sickening news story is blowing up on social media and the mainstream media is sluggishly beginning to report on it.

A special needs man was kidnapped and held hostage for 24-48 hours. He was cut, beaten, and made to drink from a dirty toilet, while being live streamed on Facebook:

The suspects — two men and two women — allegedly assaulted the victim and then broadcast it “for the entire world to see,” said Johnson.

Video of the violent assault shows a white man with his mouth taped shut as his captors repeatedly torture him. Someone is heard yelling, “F—- white people.”

At one point, the victim was threatened with a knife and told to curse President-elect Donald Trump.

“Say f— Donald Trump,” someone is heard saying.

“F— Donald Trump,” the victim says.

And:

The suspects, three of whom are Chicago residents, are expected to be charged in the next 24 hours, Cmdr. Duffin said. Police will determine whether kidnapping or hate crime charges will be given to the suspects, who he described as “young adults.” They have all given video statements.

When I first heard this story on social media last night, I tried finding it on major news networks because I thought it might be a hoax. There have been several fake hate crimes reported since the election of Donald Trump, but this one seems to be the real thing.

Last night I was able to find a story on CBS but other mainstream news channels have begun to report on it this morning.

I think it should definitely be classified as a hate crime. It was racially and politically motivated and they have video evidence of the attackers yelling racial and political slurs.

The reason why I’ve written so much about ideologies lately on this blog is because of identity politics and how dangerous I believe it to be. I think this is another direct result of that.

We put people into racial and gender categories instead of treating them like individuals and then we teach some of those categories that other groups are oppressing them. We even teach people that some groups are incapable of being racist, when that (power + prejudice = racism) clearly isn’t true.

I think these types of events will continue to escalate as long as we go down the insidious path of identity politics.

We need to stop playing identity politics now.

Edit: Hate crime charges have been laid.

My video below.

 

Advertisements

47 Comments

  1. You declare a cause and assume it is linked to this effect. I can do that, too:

    “The reason why I’ve written so much about Facebook lately on this blog is because of social media and how dangerous I believe it to be. I think this is another direct result of that.

    I think these types of events will continue to escalate as long as we go down the insidious path of using Facebook and giving audience to various types of social media.”

    Declaring it doesn’t make it so.

      • As ridiculous as you think I am, do you think this would have happened if there was no easy audience for it?

        You’re trying to have it both ways, GC.

        Sure, on the one hand you can blame identity politics but by doing so you are breaking your own cardinal rule: insist there are only individual people so there can only be individual responsibility for individual actions based on individual motivations.

        But you know perfectly well there are other factors involved here. Selecting your pet peeve – identity politics – and assigning to it as the only cause I think is ridiculous. That’s why I pointed out one could just as easily and flippantly decry social media’s role as the main cause. That doesn’t make it so.

        • “As ridiculous as you think I am, do you think this would have happened if there was no easy audience for it?”

          What are you talking about?

          “Sure, on the one hand you can blame identity politics but by doing so you are breaking your own cardinal rule: insist there are only individual people so there can only be individual responsibility for individual actions based on individual motivations.”

          Identity politics isn’t a group. It’s an ideology that anyone can take up. It’s not based on arbitrary traits but on ideologies and belief structures perpetuated by people.

          So no. Not breaking the cardinal rule.

          And yes, I think it quite obvious that it contributes to crimes such as these.

          Funny that you’re more worried about how someone might be against the ideology you belong to but haven’t commented at all on the torture that this individual went through based on the color of his skin and supposed political affiliation.

          “and assigning to it as the only cause I think is ridiculous.”

          Straw man #1 has reared its ugly head.

          I didn’t say it was the only cause. I think it’s a large part of the problem though.

          • Whatever other causes you may think played a part, you haven’t mentioned them here. The only cause you’ve mentioned here is identity politics, as if understanding social frameworks in which all of us live matters not a tinker’s damn and seems to bring about this kind of crime.

            My point has been to clarify that one can select certain related ideas and simply claim them to be causal. This is what you’ve done so I raised the analogy of likewise blaming ‘social media’ to demonstrate the danger of making such a simplistic and motivated claim. This is painting of the worst kind you are doing because you are implying that those who understand identity politics are somehow culpable. This is not just most disagreeable; it’s vilification. You’re using this terrible crime to advance your own ideology at the expense of those with whom you disagree.

            • A) Yes. You made an inaccurate comparison.

              B) I still see you’re more concerned with your ideology than the victim.

              C) Opposing an ideology doesn’t make an ideology. Opposing religion, for example, doesn’t make an ideology. You are part of an ideology. Not me. I oppose identity politics because I think it’s dangerous and we are seeing why with thus story and many others.

              D) Yes, preaching identity politics and lumping people together based on skin color and sex leads to things like this.

              Beliefs have consequences. Who knew, right?

  2. No one is a greater supporter of individual rights in law than I. It is a bedrock principle of who and what I am. But I also know there are systemic problems of unfairness in our social environment based on perceived differences of various identities. Reality backs me up. From job interviews to housing, discrimination on identity is a well documented fact. Recasting this fact as if it’s an ideology that belongs to others is quite dishonest and immature of you.. when you’re only too willing to vilify others on your recasting of reality.

    For example, when most people can look at a man and woman and see the individual first and foremost and not take into consideration the gender construct – which is an imported ideology whose source is one’s self and not the Other – then we’re getting somewhere. How to achieve this awareness and make it ingrained behaviour is the issue I think is central to identity politics. It’s not the re-framing you like to do to it into different versions of discriminatory ‘ideology’ in order to condemn others and avoid taking responsibility for your own contrafactual opinion (that we have no need for this awareness because you don’t see it).

    Vilifying identity politics because you fail to perceive the injustices and inequalities that is based on identity by using this kind of crime to support your poor opinion of those who recognize its role in the social environment is rather deplorable and underhanded I think.

        • “GC, you’ve lost me here… other than calling me an idiot. Really? You honestly think I’m an idiot?”

          No. I think the ideology your defending is idiotic. Just like I don’t think all Christian’s are idiots, but I think their dogma is nonsensical and often idiotic.

          “Where am I discriminating?”

          Identity politics is discrimination. Defending an ideology that continually perpetuates grouping people into categories and then giving them an oppression rating and making other groups enemies is a form of discrimination. It has terrible consequences and you’re seeing it over and over again. You have to be willfully blind not to see it – from racist MTV videos to people being kidnapped, beaten and tortured because of the color of their skin.

  3. I point out you could blame Facebook for creating the platform used here. But you don’t. You could blame social media for creating the audience. But you don’t. You select only identity politics and then vilify it on the basis of this crime. I criticize you for making this connective causal claim because you don’t provide the necessary link to demonstrate causality.

    Your response is to call me names, to accuse me of promoting discrimination, of advancing an ideology you call identity politics with so much contempt. What you don’t do is address my criticism.

    If you want to compare me to religious people who hold faith-based opinions then that is patently unfair because I offer good reasons based on compelling evidence for my criticism. Your response to this is to slot me into the stupid category. Fuck off with this bullshit. That’s why I called your response to my criticism immature and dishonest… because it is.

    Unlike you, if I find I am wrong, I admit it and move on. You know this. So is it too much to ask to have you demonstrate the causal link you claim exists between this crime and identity politics as I describe it to be? Or is your impulse to simply sling shit my way and think yourself above such trivialities as having to defend your claim that vilifies people like me because, well, because it’s just a stupid request as deemed by the all-knowing, all-powerful GC?

    • “I point out you could blame Facebook for creating the platform used here.”

      Facebook is not an ideology.

      “But you don’t. You could blame social media for creating the audience. But you don’t. ”

      Social media is not an ideology.

      ” But you don’t. You select only identity politics and then vilify it on the basis of this crime. ”

      That’s where the evidence points. Over and over again it points in that direction.

      Identity politics is an ideology.

      “I criticize you for making this connective causal claim because you don’t provide the necessary link to demonstrate causality.”

      How many anti-white links you want me to give you? Want the racist MTV video? Schools teaching that minorities can’t be racist? white people being beaten in the streets? Videos of people screaming that their opinion doesn’t matter because they’re white males? Links on a site that has a course on toxic whiteness? Maybe some tweets on killing white people? Or the CNN interview where someone defended the attackers in this story? Videos preaching that only white people can be racist?

      “Your response is to call me names, to accuse me of promoting discrimination, of advancing an ideology you call identity politics with so much contempt. What you don’t do is address my criticism.”

      I didn’t call you names. I addressed every point. You just don’t like what I said.

      I do hold identity politics in contempt. You’re right about that much.

      “Your response to this is to slot me into the stupid category.”

      Please re-read my response.

      Are you ever going to say anything about the victim or is your ideology still more important?

      “Unlike you, if I find I am wrong, I admit it and move on. ”

      That’s true. I’ll give you that. That’s when you think you’re wrong and you clearly back identity politics and don’t think you’re wrong. So of course, you’re not going to admit you’re wrong.

      And that’s fine. But I don’t have to pretend I think you’re right either.

      I’m honestly flabbergasted that you can take in modern media and not see it, but there it is.

      “yourself above such trivialities as having to defend your claim that vilifies people like me ”

      It’s not about you. It’s about an ideology that has taken over the mainstream media. That pushes classifications on people and is discriminatory in nature.

      • You equate and conflate overt racism to be an expression of an ideology you call ‘identity politics’. That is you claim. You then claim this must be the cause for this crime BECAUSE it’s an ideology you assume fits the crime and (apparently) only an ideology called ‘identity politics’ can cause this expression of overt racist. Oh, but you have already said you don’t think ‘identity politics’ is the sole cause so, when I raise the idea that Facebook and social media could be equivalently assigned causation (in the same way you have assigned to only ‘identity politics’ in this case), you call such an assignment stupid. But that’s what you’ve done: assigned the cause and then vilified those who understand the role identity politics plays in bringing about equality of opportunity.

        To defend your claim requires… let me slow this down for you because you seem to have a problem with the concept… requires you to demonstrate a LINK between cause and effect, a specific and demonstrated LINK between supporting equality of opportunity (that is to say, ‘identity politics’ properly understood) and the commission of this crime.

        As hard as it for you to imagine, You Have Not Done This. You just wave at examples of overt racism and claim these are examples of an ideology in action, namely, something you call ‘identity politics’.

        No, GC, they’re examples of overt racism. They have nothing to do with raising issues of equality of opportunity. Your examples don’t do the job linking this crime to identity politics.

        What you offer to my criticism is a diversion. It’s an avoidance tactic. It’s a way of vilifying ‘identity politics’ to be treated as if there are those among us who favour overt racism BECAUSE it is an acceptable expression of a favoured ideology (over and above the welfare of real people in real life) and then assign that gross misunderstanding to me. This assignment by you is unmitigated bullshit and an attack on my character. That’s why I defend myself from your scurrilous charges.

        • “You equate and conflate overt racism to be an expression of an ideology you call ‘identity politics’. That is you claim. ”

          No. I think it’s part of the problem. A large part of the problem.

          “You then claim this must be the cause for this crime BECAUSE it’s an ideology you assume fits the crime”

          Not the only cause but I think it contributes to these types of instances.

          ” only an ideology called ‘identity politics’ can cause this expression of overt racist. ”

          No. But it has become trendy to be overtly racist towards white people. You want that link to the MTV video or the other things I pointed to?

          I didn’t say only this one ideology can cause this. I believe it adds to the overall atmosphere that eases the path towards people doing things like this.

          “Oh, but you have already said you don’t think ‘identity politics’ is the sole cause so, when I raise the idea that Facebook and social media could be equivalently assigned causation”

          Yes. Then you make a false equivalence as I’ve pointed out several times.

          “you call such an assignment stupid. But that’s what you’ve done: assigned the cause and then vilified those who understand the role identity politics plays in bringing about equality of opportunity.”

          Yes. I think those who push this agenda are wrong to do so and that when you separate people into groups based on arbitrary traits and then vilify certain groups, nothing good comes from it.

          “To defend your claim requires… let me slow this down for you because you seem to have a problem with the concept…”

          Right. But you say I think you’re stupid and then treat me as if I’m stupid.

          Irony. lol

          “requires you to demonstrate a LINK between cause and effect, a specific and demonstrated LINK between supporting equality of opportunity (that is to say, ‘identity politics’ properly understood) and the commission of this crime.”

          No it doesn’t. That’s why I said ‘I believe’. It’s what I believe based on what I see and what many others are starting to see. It’s not as if I’m the only one, and it’s not like there is no evidence to support that position either. We see it over and over again.

          “No, GC, they’re examples of overt racism.”

          Yes. Overt racism based on identity politics. Who would think that overt racism normalized would or might lead to some people being racist and that sometimes, racist people act on that racism in harmful ways?

          “They have nothing to do with raising issues of equality of opportunity.”

          I’m all for equality of opportunity. You’ve said before that you’re for equality of outcome. Or did you change your stance on that?

          “It’s a way of vilifying ‘identity politics’ to be treated as if there are those among us who favour overt racism BECAUSE it is an acceptable expression of a favoured ideology”

          Well if you base an ideology on separating people based on arbitrary traits, you end up with a discriminatory ideology.

          “and then assign that gross misunderstanding to me. This assignment by you is unmitigated bullshit and an attack on my character. That’s why I defend myself from your scurrilous charges.”

          I said nothing about you in this article. Not one thing. It wasn’t about you. It was about this crime and how I think if we continue to play identity politics these crimes will continue to escalate as they have throughout 2016 into 2017. I wasn’t attacking your character.

  4. I want to point out that tildeb has made some very valid arguments and your ongoing disagreement with each other is merely a failure of communication.

    GC you say there is plentiful examples in current media of identity politics playing a role in publicized bad behavior, such as this despicable act of abuse. There is also extensive examples of people doing idiotic, dangerous, and unlawful acts on video tape and publicizing them on social media platforms. Social media attention is in practice an enormous motivator for individuals with good (or bad) intentions.

    This act of abuse was live streamed– that is very strong evidence that social media attention was the primary motivator behind the crime. Racial profiling and racial slurs that took place during the commission of the crime may have been incidental.

    But in fairness, tildeb was not trying to prove that social media was the primary motivator behind the crime. Tildeb merely gave an example of another potential causative factor as an alternative to identity politics. I think that is a very reasonable point of debate.

    GC, you said that social media is not an “ideology” but that is just semantics. The impetus of social media is a very strong factor now. It should not be ignored or marginalized.

    Consider that identity politics, social media attention, and crimes of abuse all have something in common: POWER IMBALANCE. It is all about one individual or group attempting to either level out the power imbalance, or exert more power over another individual or group.

    How will we ever know WHY these horrible people abused this disadvantaged man in this story? We won’t, not really. We can only speculate.

    It is clear, though, that they seeking to exert their power. Hurting someone else gave them (temporarily) greater power. (Now they will go to jail, where the state/the guards will exert power over them, ironic, yes?)

    Did they chose to exert power over someone else because of race? Maybe. Did they do it out of a desire for attention? Maybe. Is there another motivating factor that we haven’t considered? Probably.

    Anyway, how does anyone know WHY except by asking the perpetrators? And then, they may or may not tell the truth. They will do what benefits themselves.

    Phew! I got a little carried away there – ha! Sorry! =)

    • “This act of abuse was live streamed– that is very strong evidence that social media attention was the primary motivator behind the crime. Racial profiling and racial slurs that took place during the commission of the crime may have been incidental.”

      I’ll take them at their word. They were screaming Fuck Trump and Fuck white people. They weren’t shouting ‘In the name of Facebook.’

      “GC, you said that social media is not an “ideology” but that is just semantics. The impetus of social media is a very strong factor now. It should not be ignored or marginalized.”

      I agree that it’s a powerful tool. Tools are in the control of the wielders. That’s why the comparison is not an apt one.

      ISIS beheads people and puts it on YouTube. Is it YouTubes fault that those people were beheaded or the ideologies that convinced those people that beheading was a good thing to do?

      YouTube wasn’t wielding the sword.

      ” It is all about one individual or group attempting to either level out the power imbalance, or exert more power over another individual or group.”

      I’m with you here. That’s a fair point.

      “How will we ever know WHY these horrible people abused this disadvantaged man in this story? We won’t, not really. We can only speculate.”

      They told you. Fuck Trump. Fuck White people. When one of the attackers said their sister was saying it wasn’t funny, the one administering the torture said he thought it was funny and tell Trump how funny it was.

      Seems pretty clear to me.

      “Did they chose to exert power over someone else because of race?”

      Yes.

      ” Did they do it out of a desire for attention?”

      Likely.

      “Is there another motivating factor that we haven’t considered?”

      There are probably many reasons that contributed. That doesn’t get the ideologies off the hook though.

      “Anyway, how does anyone know WHY except by asking the perpetrators?”

      They tell you in the video tape. Just like the racist Dylan Roof told the court that he killed 9 African American parishioners because they were black.

      Were there other mitigating factors?

      Yeah, most likely. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a racist and that’s why he committed that crime.

      “Phew! I got a little carried away there – ha! Sorry! =)”

      Never be sorry! Share your opinion. It’s awesome that you took the time to do so. 🙂

      • “They tell you in the video tape.”

        Oh. Good call. I couldn’t bring myself to watch it, so I was just commenting on all the comments. Maybe not the smartest move. I stand corrected.

        And I’m beginning to understand why you are specifically targeting the ideology of identity politics as it relates to this incident.

        Because even if the reasons why these abusive individuals feel powerless are very complex, the media portrayal of identity politics has people believing that is the primary reason that power is unevenly distributed. And so when they committed this horrible crime, that was what they attributed it to.

        So I think I understand your point. My point is this: without identity politics, this crime still gets committed. The perpetrators are in a position of powerlessness. They lack the life skills to gain power in a positive way, so instead they commit a violent act.

        Identity politics is a scapegoat.

  5. Pingback: Tribalism or identity politics | Random thoughts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s