Facebook and 'South Park' Blamed for Anti-Redhead Assault

South Park didnt come up with Kick a Ginger day... Some random punks did...

A hate crime is when a person is targeted based on his membership in a social group. This kid was targeted specifically because he was a red-head. If it was any other racial or social minority in this country, these kids could be accused of a hate crime. What a double standard in LA Sheriff's office. Each of these kids AND their parents should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. A message needs to be sent that hate crime in ANY form is not tolerated (except maybe in Calabassas).

The very idea of a "hate crime" is dumb. Really. It is. Think about it - a guy robs a store vs a guy robs a store he "hates" -- end result, he still robbed a store....or a guy kills someone vs a guy kills someone he hates -- end result, he's still a murderer. What are you going to do, hang them twice? Just punish according to the existing law people.....why is that so hard to figure out?

This is absolutely a "hate crime" as that term is defined (although I find the term sort of stupid since you can hardly call assaults, murders, etc. anything but hateful).

What I'm really left wondering is whether this was a real beat-down or just some annoying punches and kicks. There is a difference although neither should be tolerated in a school. Was this red-headed kid seriously hurt, or was he just tired of the stupidity - like the one kid who forgets to wear green on St. Patty's day and gets sick of being pinched all day?

At the end of the day, I'd have to agree that this all boils down to poor parenting - again. (This is just me, but I wouldn't even let my kids watch South Park. I get that their Ginger Day episode was satirical - I just think it's a stupid show. And, I think there are more productive things my kids could be doing than watching cartoons.)

Double-standards come from hypocrisy, i.e. people not being seriously opposed to prejudice, discrimination and hate, but also not wanting to admit it; and so they rationalize why protected groups SHOULD be protected, but how unprotected groups shouldn't; and it's easy for them to find some reason, however flimsy. Blacks and Jews are easy, being well-sung victims; meanwhile the hypocrites will say that other ethnic-groups should be protected because they're ethnic, and that "redheads aren't TECHNICALLY an ethnic-group etc." or that "redheads weren't SYSTEMATICALLY oppressed," or any other handy excuse for their double-standard.
Hypocrites obviously aren't interested in logic, since they're obviously WRONG; they just want to make excuses for their double-standards; a hypocrite is, by definition, a PHONY-- again, they WANT to be prejudiced and bigoted, and to rationalize their hate against someone; but they are also cowards, and so don't want anyone to hold it against them. So they cowardly attack only "safe" targets, i.e. those whom society labels as being safe to hate-- which USED to include blacks and Jews, as well as other ethnic-groups and women etc, but now is pretty much down to redheads as a genome-related group.

This is the perpetual defense I see of the double-standards of why hating redheads "isn't as bad as racism--" i.e. the hypocrites cherry-pick the details, while ignoring the ethical principle that it's not about the effect, but the principle of hating and defaming a group because they look different. It doesn't matter how bad some ethnic group USED TO BE treated, that doesn't justify treating redheads worse NOW... but the hypocrites seem to think so. That's what makes them hypocrites: they don't care about right and wrong, just APPEARING right to others.

Better becareful red heads were knowing as sexual witches in the 1800s... I wouldn't mess with me ;)