Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Texas MoMe 2026: 10/16/2026-10/17/2026 Corsicana,TX
Contact Ben Had for info





















« Michael Moore on the Tonight Show | Main | Not So Stealth Blue State Bashing »
November 30, 2004

Newsflash: Matthew Sheppard's "Hate Murder" Is a Myth

So says 20/20, and I tend to believe them.

There are several problems with these hate-crime laws. First, they seek to penalize someone for a mere thought, when it is the action and the intent that have long been the only punishable elements of a crime. If you beat someone to death with a bludgeon and take his money, you're just a "mere" murderer. If you do the exact same thing but call him a "faggit" as you do so, now you're something worse than a murderer.

I don't know. To me, it seems that the murder is the really important trespass here. The "faggit" is an impolite and hurtful word that we usually don't jail people for. I think this desire to criminalize illiberal thoughts demeans the justice system, and diminishes the emphasis on punishing actual bad acts.

But in Sheppard's case, I don't sweat this particular problem, because these guys were murderers of one sort or another, and frankly I think they should either be locked in prison for the rest of their lives or put to death, under pretty much whatever which theory you might like.

So I have no real sympathy for them. Did they kill him just because they were greedy, violent criminals hoping to score 20 bucks? Did they kill him because he was a queer? Who cares? Either way, they're banished from society forever, and perhaps should be banished from the tangible, corporeal sectors of the earth as well.

But the problem is that Sheppard's death is taken as more important than, say, mine would be. There will be no HBO miniseries about me, should I fall pray to murder. There will be no prosecutors attempting to "send a message" regarding my hypothetical death. I'm just a white heteorsexual guy-- I don't really count.

Oh, sure, it's kinda bad to kill a white heteorsexual guy; but not super bad, as it is to kill a homosexual like Matthew Sheppard.

It's not so much the differing levels of punishment for hate-crimes that I object to, but the unavoidable differing levels of the valuation placed on human lives this regime creates.

Minorities complain that they are treated as second-class citizens. Often, they might have a point, and surely that feeling must wrankle.

But the law is now set up such that it more or less explicitly says that my death doesn't count as much as minority's. Sure, theoretically, there could be a hate-crime rap brought against a black man who kills a white man out of racial animus, or a homosexual who kills a heterosexual out of hatred of straights. But in practice, that just doesn't happen. Not because such things don't happen-- they do, and there are lots of cases to prove it-- but because prosecutors, the media, and minority lobbying groups just aren't interested in eradicating that sort of hate crime.

Everyone knows the deal-- these laws are intended for the protection of special classes of people. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the unavoidable implication-- if there are special classes of victims, there must, inevitably, also be not-so-special classes.

And I am, alas, in several of those not-so-special classes.

It's not a good feeling to know that my government has deemed my potential murder as not terribly important, simply because of the color of my skin and my heterosexual orientation.


posted by Ace at 01:07 PM
Comments



As the Great American Bard once said....

"As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred."

Bob Dylan...is there anything he doesn't know?

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster on November 30, 2004 01:17 PM

Exactly, the subtext of hate crimes is that some victims are more impt than others. And since motivation has always been considered in sentencing, such legislation is unnecessary & dangerous, leading to speech restrictions in Canada & Eurabia. Granted, there never was free speech in Europe, but still...

PS Your comment preview ISN'T WORKING

Posted by: jeff on November 30, 2004 01:22 PM

Ace- First time I've ever seen it from you--Typing fast? Throw a spellcheck in there...Wrankle=rankle & pray=prey.

Hate to be pedantic, but the reality is your shit is showing up and is linked to more every day, and you don't want errors marring your work when it's being viewed by future readers.

Delete this after viewing.

Posted by: AndrewF on November 30, 2004 02:16 PM

The Orwellian phrase "Hate Crime" should send shivers up the spine of any thinking person. The concept that any crime which may involve hatred for a "particular" group is therefore worse and punishable by a greater sentence necessarily means that (when it accompanies a crime) hating itself becomes a crime. How long before "hate speech" becomes a crime? And how long before "hate thoughts" become a crime? Big Brother is watching you.

Posted by: 72VIRGINS on November 30, 2004 02:19 PM

LOL! I think AndrewF just politely said that there is a lot of loose shit going on here, and that since Ace is the most important person on this stage he (Ace) needs to slice like a f'ing hammer to clean it up.

All he left out were that the commenters get shirts....

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster on November 30, 2004 02:29 PM

I used to share this opinion. But these days it seems to me that at least -religious- hate crimes -- particularly anti-Jewish ones, but also, you know, this -- are something we should be paying particular attention to, for obvious reasons.

Posted by: someone on November 30, 2004 02:39 PM

Ace--

I love the bit in the Village Voice article:

"And in an odd twist, 20/20 reports that McKinney was himself a gay sex veteran, having joined in a threesome involving a man and a woman."

How, exactly, does one become a "gay sex veteran"? Do you have to, uh, fix bayonets on the frontline, or does serving in the rear echelon qualify? Do you get a ribbon for your service? Is this why gay people want to march in parades-- they're "veterans"?

I guess we should all stand up and salute their bravery, these gay sex veterans of America!

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on November 30, 2004 02:40 PM

Yep

Posted by: Alan on November 30, 2004 03:47 PM

I must dissent, politely.

On good faith and belief I assert more blacks are charged with hate crimes than whites each year. I'll look for the numbers and generate a post on my blog if I find them.

Posted by: Birkel on November 30, 2004 03:49 PM

While I find the term "Hate crime" as loathsome as any other thought-crime b.s., I think your idea that it makes the death of another person less important a bit off base. There are lots of killings every year of mixed race and sexual orientation, the thing that makes the Shepard case "special", if you will, is the brutal, unexpected and spectacular method it was carried out in.

The point being, if you were driving through Camden in a beamer and got wasted, it'd barely make the evening news. If, however, you were in a small southern town and wandered accidently into a "black" bar, then three black people proceeded to drag you behind their car and beat the crap out of you and leave you for dead, simply for being white, your death would be national news. Perhaps not quite as much as the Sheppard case, but big none the less.

And they would classify that as a hate crime, in that case. Which wouldn't make you any less dead or the badguys any less murderers, but for whatever they think it's worth.

Posted by: francisthegreat on November 30, 2004 04:01 PM

Eh, it's not worth an actual post so I'm back to the comments section.

Here are some numbers for 1995.
Total: 8433
White: 4991
Black: 2253

In 1999 68% of the known offenders were white and 16% were black. Stupid PDF file available from the FBI website.

And in 2003, well I didn't take the time to open the stupid PDF. So sue me.

But it looks like both whites and blacks are "over-represented" as offenders under the hate crimes laws. (Stupid PC term, blech!!) I mean, the % of white people in the population is lower than the % of white people in the population charged with hate crimes. Ditto blacks.

Posted by: Birkel on November 30, 2004 04:13 PM

Birkel,
You would have made your point better with the data above the 1995 data you used. It shows:

Anti-White 1,226 incidents with 1,554 victims
Anti-Black 2,988 incidents with 3,945 victims

Posted by: Steve L. on November 30, 2004 04:29 PM

Ace, the solution is simple. If you're being beaten to death, simply yell, "I'm gay!" That will make the criminal stop and think for a second about whether he wants to add that extra little tidbit to his crime.

I'm all about problem solving.

Posted by: Sobek on November 30, 2004 05:00 PM

Ace, I don't know why you're complaining. Don't you know that we don't need "White Boy Day" because EVERY day is white boy day? And now we're going to make up for hundreds of years of oppression by oppressing you! Ain't modern life grand?

On a more serious note, I too have a huge problem with this kind of labeling. Think about it in terms of First Amendment: We punish people for "incitement", that is, speech that is likely to cause other people to react violently. Get that? Your words "cause" someone to burn down a building or throw a brick, and you can be charged with a crime, and the First Amendment is okay with that. I've long had a problem with that line of cases. Why not charge the brick-thrower instead, since supposedly we have brains to filter other people's words and then decide for ourselves what actions to take? But that isn't what the government wants to punish -- instead, let's punish the ideas. Because we don't want people to say things that we think are dangerous.

Re: hate crimes, I say by all means punish the acts. But by saying that some people are extra-super special, or some acts are bad when done against one person, but super-bad against someone else because they are special -- that just leads to the whole "us/them" mentality that we're supposed to be breaking away from. It undermines the cause these people are advocating for, which is supposed to be equality. And equality, despite what liberals and feminists seem to think, means treating everyone the SAME, not trying to punish certain classes of people to make up for history. Justice Scalia said it about affirmative action: Our system of government has no room for the notion of a debtor class and a creditor class. Hate crime laws create and reinforce just such an idea.

Posted by: Jennifer on November 30, 2004 06:12 PM

But by saying that some people are extra-super special, or some acts are bad when done against one person, but super-bad against someone else because they are special -- that just leads to the whole "us/them" mentality that we're supposed to be breaking away from.

Apparently, you missed the memo. Opposing the "us vs. them" mentality was the goal of MLK. We decided to change that because there's no political profit in *ending* problems.

All crimes are equal but some are more equal than others.

Posted by: Smack on November 30, 2004 08:10 PM

Ace:

In Texas, murdering someone for gain (whether drugs or cash) would probably earn you a quick trip to meet Mr. Needle in the Huntsville death chamber. And as these two weenies killed Shepard while in a meth rage, they would be likely to qualify for the "continuing danger to society" clause that you need to satisfy before getting sentanced to meet your Maker.

But you tell liberals who support Hate Crime legislation and they get all pasty white and start objecting about how barbaric that is.

(No satisfyin' some folks.)

Posted by: Mark L on November 30, 2004 09:24 PM

I'd just like to point out that if Ace were to be murdered, there *could* be an HBO miniseries about him.

"Yeah, we killed him. He was all sarcastic and stuff, and we couldn't let him get away with making fun of us like that."

"COMING NEXT WEEK: The Weblog Murders. The true tale of how a nearly-famous Weblogger was killed because he was a little too annoying to someone he never really met."

Posted by: on November 30, 2004 11:19 PM

Here's whatpisses me off about this. It was a meth-related robbery and assault that resulted in the death of the victim. It happened what, 10 years ago? We have been wanking off about what a shame it was that he was killed for being gay for 10 fucking years and it was all a lie. The truth is that if Shepard's friends hadn't blown (sorry) the gay whistle on this incident, no one outside Laramie Wyoming would ever have heard about it, and yet meth-related crimes continue to soar. Thank you fags for detracting from a real criminal problem in order to further your agenda by playing the victim card. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Dacotti on December 1, 2004 01:54 AM

Steve L.,

I wasn't trying to make much of a point. I was trying to say the enforcement of such crimes are applied more to blacks than one (and Ace, if I read his post correctly) might initally assume.

Personally, I think the idea of increased punishment for certain thoughts is ludicrous. Check that. I think it's antithetical to American values and the spirit of Constitution of the United States. But the numbers don't support one of Ace's minor points. That's all.

I think hate crimes legislation is legal and bad law. They doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, as I understand it from my training. They do run counter to the rest of the law I've read. *sigh*

Posted by: Birkel on December 1, 2004 05:02 AM

If you are killed, I'll write a play called "The Cowbell Project," which won't be picked up by HBO and made into a movie. Maybe Spike TV will bite, but regardless, I'll pin it on Dan Rather, hate crime all the way. After I plant pajama fibers on him, that is.

Posted by: Uncle Mikey on December 1, 2004 08:53 AM

Here in Oregon just a couple of weeks ago, some black members of the Oregon State U. football team beat up and knocked unconscious a white Army Natl Guard soldier who was spending his last night in the states before deploying to Iraq. Unfortunately for him, he had a black girlfriend/wife (I don't remember which). To the university's credit they did suspend the football players, but is there any uproar about hate crime in the media? Any story? No not really. How can you make a story out of that? If four white football players had knocked unconscious a black soldier for having a white girlfriend would there have been an uproar? Hmmm...I'm not sure.

Posted by: Mark on December 1, 2004 01:49 PM

disgusting, ignorant, and misguided -whoever the fuck u are Ace -u r a nuisance to society.... apparently blinded by the privilege being a white, normative, hetreo ass who lacks compassion and the ability to question conventional dogma- i'm sure u've never experienced oppression and it is beyond ur meager mental capabilities to acknowledge societal problems in amture way (aka sans the lame whining)

Posted by: on August 25, 2005 11:09 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton Charge the Democrats with fomenting violence against the nation with their rhetoric, Virginia redistricting going down the tubes? Trump's bully pulpit is not censorship, Lee Zeldin is a star, J.B. Pritzker is an idiot, and more!
ANOTHER LEFT WING ASSASSIN ATTEMPTS TO KILL TRUMP
If I understand this, the left-wing Democrat assassin attempted to get into the White House Correspondents Association dinner, and was stopped at the magnetometers, which detected his gun. I guess he pulled out the gun and was shot by Secret Service agents.
Erika Kirk was present.
Forgotten 70s Mystery Click
You made me cry
when you said good-bye

70s, not 50s
Now that is a motherflipping intro
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD wonder about the Chaos that Trump is creating in the minds of the Iranian junta, Virginia redistricting is pure power grab, Ilhan Omar is many things ...and stupid too! Amazon censoring conservative thought again, and the UK...put a fork in it!
NYT Melts Down Over Texas Rangers Statue Outside... Texas Rangers' Stadium
"The Athletic posted a lengthy article about a statue outside Globe Life Field, presenting a virtue-signaling moral grievance as unbiased news coverage." [CBD]
Important Message from Recent Convert to Christianity and Yet Super-Serious Christian Tuq'r Qarlson: Actually Muslims love Jesus, it's Trump and his neocons who hate him
Tucker Carlson Network
@TCNetwork

The people in charge [Jews, of course -- ace] don't want you to know this, but Muslims love Jesus.

Islam reveres Him as a major prophet and messenger of the Lord, believes He performed miracles, and states that He will return to Earth to defeat the Antichrist. That's why Donald Trump's painting depicting himself as the Son of God offended the president of Iran. It was an attack on his religion as well as Christianity.

Trump's trolling tweet was ill-advised, but Tucker is just lying when he claims the Christianity-hating President of Iran was "offended" by this.
He's one step away from announcing his official conversion to Islam. He literally never stops praising Islam. Well, he suddenly became Christian two years ago, there's not much stopping him from converting again.
You can track Tuq'r's official conversion to Islam with this Bingo card.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk Orban losing, but is it the end of Hungary? The Irish start a brawl, but is it enough, Pope Leo wades into politics, Trump calls Iran's bluff and blockades Hormuz, Artemis II! Swallwell is scum, and more!
People say that the bearded man in the video of Fartwell molesting a hooker looks like Democrat Arizona Senator Rueben Gallego, said to be Swalwell's "best friend" and known to take vacations with him.
@KFILE 21m

Politico is reporting that multiple people have abruptly resigned from Eric Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign: "Members of senior leadership have departed the campaign, including Courtni Pugh, a strategic adviser who served as Swalwell's top liaison to organized labor groups."

So the campaign is collapsing due to the truth of the sexual harassment allegations.
That hissing sound you hear is the air going out of the Swalwell campaign. UPDATE: No it wasn't, it was just Swalwell one-cheek-sneaking out a fart on camera
Eric Swalwell more like Eric Farewell amirite
thanks to weft-cut loop.
This is the dumbest AI bullslop I've seen in a while: the CIA can use "quantum magnetometry" to track an individual man's heartbeat from twelve miles away
I wouldn't click on it, it's not interesting, it's just stupid clickslop. I just want to share my annoyance with you.
Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.
Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win

Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.
Recent Comments
Huck Follywood: "Chuck Todd: "I think about when somebody using ..."

That Guy who stentoriously intones "Nothing will happen.": "Nothing will happen. ..."

ChristyBlinkyTheGreat: " Kathleen Sebelius. Wonder whatever became of tha ..."

Ben Had: "There is no first cousin marriage in Somalia. T ..."

Way, Way Downriver [/i]: "@71 If you get into Remagen and the whole blowing- ..."

Mmmm. Man-pudding. : "Walz can take a flyin' fu*k at a rolling donut. P ..."

gp: ""Walz can take a flyin' fu*k at a rolling donut." ..."

It's me donna : "254 Well when Karemlo's chief media spokesman is a ..."

Rev. Wishbone: ">>>Didn't Don Corleone have an olive oil import "b ..."

People's Hippo Voice: "See how they treat Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Tells you ever ..."

Diogenes: "Walz can take a flyin' fu*k at a rolling donut. ..."

Anna Puma: "Well when Karemlo's chief media spokesman is a con ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives