I'm not sure how we want to define "crazy," or if that's limited to mental illness, but if you're targeting peaceful people because of something they have no control over, that's psychopathic behavior in my view. I don't care what your "values" are - if you're having violent outbursts towards people that have done or said nothing to threaten you, you've got serious problems and I don't want you on the streets for a while. You can believe whatever you want, but if you infringe upon the rights of others for no good reason, you're the most dangerous kind of criminal.

I don't think it's an untenable legal philosophy, either. You could easily write the law in such a way where no specific "protected class" is mentioned, but crimes where victims are targeted because of some immutable characteristic are treated in precisely the same way as a crime where there is no explained or observed motive.

I suppose the political class, as a whole, would have to accept that sexuality is also an immutable characteristic. Currently, I'm certain that there are many politicians and judges who still view being gay as "lifestyle choice." I'm trying to think of a better word than immutable, since I do believe that sexuality can shift throughout a person's lifetime, though not immediately and through conscious decision making.

2/9/2011 5:31:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure how we want to define "crazy," or if that's limited to mental illness, but if you're targeting peaceful people because of something they have no control over, that's psychopathic behavior in my view."

I agree. So why, again, can't we admit degrees of psychopathic behavior? You're acting as if people are over a certain threshold that no useful distinctions can be drawn legally. This can't be true if you (1) view the law causally; (2) examine reality and discover that people do engage in this behavior, and that executing them for it is probably too harsh all things considered.

Quote :

"I don't care what your "values" are - if you're having violent outbursts towards people that have done or said nothing to threaten you, you've got serious problems and I don't want you on the streets for a while."

Clearly.

Quote :

"You can believe whatever you want, but if you infringe upon the rights of others for no good reason, you're the most dangerous kind of criminal."

I don't understand this distinction you're trying to draw between crimes that have "good reasons" (reasons you identify with) and ones that have "bad reasons" (ones you don't); or at least I don't understand why you imagine this distinction to be legally relevant. If you could help me with that it'd be great, as I'd understand your position better.

I would say there are plenty of cases where people commit crimes for a "good reason" (getting money) who are ridiculously dangerous. Why is a bigot acting alone who kills one or two people more dangerous than a gangster who has directly caused hundreds of peoples' deaths (and indirectly caused all sorts of suffering)?

Quote :

"I don't think it's an untenable legal philosophy, either. You could easily write the law in such a way where no specific "protected class" is mentioned, but crimes where victims are targeted because of some immutable characteristic are treated in precisely the same way as a crime where there is no explained or observed motive."

So here is where you admit you're not interested in reality? You want to gloss over a relevant causal distinction by structuring our laws in a different way. People don't agree on what's "immutable" or not, which is why the set of protected classes is often location or government-dependent.

Quote :

"I suppose the political class, as a whole, would have to accept that sexuality is also an immutable characteristic. Currently, I'm certain that there are many politicians and judges who still view being gay as "lifestyle choice." I'm trying to think of a better word than immutable, since I do believe that sexuality can shift throughout a person's lifetime, though not immediately and through conscious decision making."

So here is where you admit that in order for your proposals to work society would have to shift its opinions literally in unison.

2/9/2011 5:46:24 PM

Quote :

"I agree. So why, again, can't we admit degrees of psychopathic behavior? You're acting as if people are over a certain threshold that no useful distinctions can be drawn legally. This can't be true if you (1) view the law causally; (2) examine reality and discover that people do engage in this behavior, and that executing them for it is probably too harsh all things considered."

I'm not suggesting we execute them. You could say I view the law causally, though I don't think we agree on what the purpose of the law is. You take a utilitarian, "social engineering" stance, where the law is meant to provide incentives or disincentives for certain behavior. The law does have the effect of providing incentives/disincentives, but I don't believe that's the purpose - the purpose is to protect rights. If the law is simply there to control behavior, then the door is opened for an entire host of awful, anti-liberty laws that would, perhaps, improve overall prosperity, but would simultaneously violate individual rights. The fact is, the guys that murdered Matthew Shepherd didn't plan on getting caught, and they weren't considering the legal consequences of their actions. Hate crime laws don't work as a deterrent, especially when the penalty for their aggression is sufficiently harsh already.

Quote :

"I don't understand this distinction you're trying to draw between crimes that have "good reasons" (reasons you identify with) and ones that have "bad reasons" (ones you don't); or at least I don't understand why you imagine this distinction to be legally relevant. If you could help me with that it'd be great, as I'd understand your position better."

I think we can objectively determine what is a reason and what isn't. A man who kills another person when he catches them sleeping with his wife was naturally enraged, as the security of his family was compromised. It wasn't right to kill the person, but other men could understand why the husband was driven to do what he did. He didn't kill the person because of the color of their skin, but because of an action he performed.

Regardless of values, killing a person because of some attribute that they didn't choose for themselves doesn't make sense. We can understand that people, in times of great emotional turmoil, can be driven to violent behavior. In situations where a person is forced to resort to violence, or otherwise face death, we can also understand that. Even greed, as you point out, can lead to violence - an armed robber that kills people in the hold up can expect to receive the harshest punishment, since we wouldn't consider "desire to wrongfully take others possessions" as a good reason to kill them.

Quote :

"So here is where you admit you're not interested in reality? You want to gloss over a relevant causal distinction by structuring our laws in a different way. People don't agree on what's "immutable" or not, which is why the set of protected classes is often location or government-dependent."

As is almost always the case, I'm speaking in terms of an ideal system, rather than the system as it exists. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how exactly sentencing is structured in every state. I would advocate eliminating hate crime legislation, and replacing it with laws that I think are consistent with my philosophy.

In other words, I'm not saying we should get rid of hate crime laws and revert to a state where a person gets the same punishment for beating up a homosexual as beating up someone after a drunken verbal confrontation escalated to a full scale physical fight.

Quote :

"So here is where you admit that in order for your proposals to work society would have to shift its opinions literally in unison."

For most of my proposals to work, we would need to see a shift in opinion. Most people in the United States are still opposed to real, actual freedom. Statist ideology is openly taught in all schools.

2/9/2011 6:56:18 PM

Quote :

"Try and follow, burro. Two actions, A and B. A: Owner of shop kicks person out for being a disturbance. B: Owner of shop kicks person out for being black. One of these things is okay and one isn't, and the difference is determined based on the intent present in B but not in A."

yes, but in neither of those cases is a thought punished. Rather, a specific action, discrimination, is punished. which was my point.

2/9/2011 7:13:27 PM

why is discrimination an action while threatening or terrorizing is not? could you explain that dichotomy? wouldn't removing him be the action? which, as he pointed out, is okay in some situations and not in others.

you seem to be responding with exactly what he is challenging as evidence that his challenge does not make sense.

2/9/2011 7:35:11 PM

Quote :

"yes, but in neither of those cases is a thought punished. Rather, a specific action, discrimination, is punished. which was my point."

Again, slow down before you pound out a reply and actually think.

The difference between discrimination and non-discrimination IS intent/thought. Otherwise I'm arbitrarily kicking a guy out of my store, which is allowed.

To make it even more explicit: imagine a set containing all of the events where I kick someone out of my store. A subset of these events is picked out by my mental state (intending to discriminate), and it's precisely these situations in WHICH I discriminate. Discrimination in this case is a subset of the broader class of actions where I just kick some guy out.

Do you see it yet?

[Edited on February 9, 2011 at 7:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2011 7:49:58 PM

Quote :

"not suggesting we execute them. You could say I view the law causally, though I don't think we agree on what the purpose of the law is. You take a utilitarian, "social engineering" stance, where the law is meant to provide incentives or disincentives for certain behavior."

No, I take the latter half of what you said.

Quote :

"The law does have the effect of providing incentives/disincentives, but I don't believe that's the purpose - the purpose is to protect rights."

Didn't you just claim the law is meant to provide incentives or disincentives for certain behavior? Now you say the purpose is to protect rights, but what is this other than providing incentives or disincentives for certain behavior, given that we cannot reasonably intervene to keep rights "unbreakable" and must often punish violated rights after the fact?

Quote :

"If the law is simply there to control behavior, then the door is opened for an entire host of awful, anti-liberty laws that would, perhaps, improve overall prosperity, but would simultaneously violate individual rights. The fact is, the guys that murdered Matthew Shepherd didn't plan on getting caught, and they weren't considering the legal consequences of their actions. Hate crime laws don't work as a deterrent, especially when the penalty for their aggression is sufficiently harsh already."

(1) Laws protect rights by curtailing liberty in sensible ways. In many ways, liberty MUST be constrained by rights.
(2) You are neglecting a host of crimes which do not carry near-to-maximum penalties.

Quote :

"I think we can objectively determine what is a reason and what isn't. A man who kills another person when he catches them sleeping with his wife was naturally enraged, as the security of his family was compromised. It wasn't right to kill the person, but other men could understand why the husband was driven to do what he did. He didn't kill the person because of the color of their skin, but because of an action he performed."

You're supposing we have a legal institution that's built upon a correct theory of psychology, sociology, human neurophysiology, etc. Your test of "other men could understand" merely appeals to coarse intuitions and acts such as "lynching a nigger" would have passed this test.

Quote :

"Regardless of values, killing a person because of some attribute that they didn't choose for themselves doesn't make sense."

It makes perfect sense if you perceive people from that group as taking "your jobs" or invading your community with alternative (perhaps even sinful) sets of ideas.

Quote :

"We can understand that people, in times of great emotional turmoil, can be driven to violent behavior. In situations where a person is forced to resort to violence, or otherwise face death, we can also understand that. Even greed, as you point out, can lead to violence - an armed robber that kills people in the hold up can expect to receive the harshest punishment, since we wouldn't consider "desire to wrongfully take others possessions" as a good reason to kill them."

Again you're just appealing to "common sense moral intuition" which is not only tied to a particular culture at a particular time, but also to your particular place in it. This is not an ethical argument, it's a statement of your tastes. I expect you to know the difference.

"We can understand" is a bad principle for anything, because presumably there are conditions "we can't understand" as laymen, and then what?

Quote :

"As is almost always the case, I'm speaking in terms of an ideal system, rather than the system as it exists. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how exactly sentencing is structured in every state. I would advocate eliminating hate crime legislation, and replacing it with laws that I think are consistent with my philosophy.["

The problem with your "ideal system" is that it's not sensitive to any knowledge being established in human brain sciences or the study of human social interaction. Without consulting reality your system can be perfectly valid but inapplicable to the real world (much like it is).

Important question: Why would you want to institute laws consistent with your philosophy without (1) consulting if the ideal circumstance is possible given the facts; (2) in light of 1, unfolding reasonable effects in the real world?

It's like you want to ram through this philosophical point and you don't care if it breaks our society. This is a prime example of how dangerous ideology is.

Quote :

"In other words, I'm not saying we should get rid of hate crime laws and revert to a state where a person gets the same punishment for beating up a homosexual as beating up someone after a drunken verbal confrontation escalated to a full scale physical fight."

Then what ARE you saying? You just said you'd advocate eliminating hate crime legislation, now you're saying you're not saying that. I am confused.

Quote :

"For most of my proposals to work, we would need to see a shift in opinion. Most people in the United States are still opposed to real, actual freedom. Statist ideology is openly taught in all schools."

It's not remotely clear everybody even COULD shift to your opinion. You have to think clearly about the necessary pre-conditions for a system to work first. Then it's appropriate to go about enacting it if it seems like good results are consistent with a plausible picture of reality + your proposal. Crowing about your ideals means nothing if your ideals are not realizable in any way, shape or form (politically, humanly, or otherwise), and enacting them is plain stupid if you know they'll fail.

2/9/2011 8:07:17 PM

Quote :

"Again, slow down before you pound out a reply and actually think. The difference between discrimination and non-discrimination IS intent/thought. Otherwise I'm arbitrarily kicking a guy out of my store, which is allowed."

but, again, how about YOU think for a second. I am saying it takes an actual ACTION before something is done. The original statement was that people were being punished for their beliefs. I simply pointed out that it takes an action before they actually get punished.

2/9/2011 9:54:59 PM

Quote :

"but, again, how about YOU think for a second. I am saying it takes an actual ACTION before something is done. The original statement was that people were being punished for their beliefs. I simply pointed out that it takes an action before they actually get punished."

Nobody's suggesting people be prosecuted for simply HOLDING certain beliefs. The argument in this thread has been about whether certain intent can upgrade a crime or add on an extra component to a crime.

In the case we've been discussing so far, you claimed that discrimination is a different action than simply kicking someone out of your store for being disruptive. I agree with you in that respect, and the difference between the actions is the intent behind discrimination; kicking a black man out of your store for being black is functionally equivalent to kicking out a guy for being disruptive, except your intent in kicking out the black man is different (and thus it changes nature of the action and it now becomes illegal, in this case).

2/9/2011 10:43:13 PM

From what I've read of this thread just now, I'm flabbergasted. It's like the whole world has been turned on its head. I never thought I'd see d357r0y3r argue in favor of any law in any capacity. I certainly never thought I'd see McDanger speak out against hate crime laws in the least. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that aaronburro will say something that makes sense OH MY GOD HE KIND OF ALREADY DID!

2/10/2011 12:56:25 AM

I am so fucking confused, where do I speak out against hate crimes laws??

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 2:20 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 2:20:00 AM

There's so many posts, I think he got mixed up.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: You beat a guy because he slept with your wife or cheated at poker or even grievously insulted you, it could easily be a one-off event. It doesn't imply that you're going to beat anybody else unless they do the same sort of thing to trigger you, which is far from certain. You beat a guy because he's black or gay...well, it's pretty goddamn certain that sooner or later you're going to run into somebody else who's black or gay."

I like this. Did you come up with this yourself? Or was this actually cited as a reason for hate crime legislation?

2/10/2011 4:40:17 AM

It was revealed to him by a fiery shrubbery atop Mount Sinai.

2/10/2011 9:08:52 AM

Where is this idea coming from that "protected classes" are written into hate crime laws? I've seen it from disco stu and destroyer now, and I'm seriously clueless as to what they're talking about. Something like 20% of hate crimes victimize white people.

2/10/2011 10:54:24 AM

Protected classes = race, gender, sexuality, religion (for some stupid reason), age, uhhhh not sure if there are others, maybe state of pregnancy.

You're just too busy trying to be anti-racist to realize we weren't talking about a specific race, we were talking about a category of characteristics.

and, because I'm not lazy:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:01:47 AM

So you're saying "people who have a race" are a "protected class"?

2/10/2011 11:13:18 AM

No, in terms of of anti-discrimination laws, "protected classes" are the characteristics by which people are not allowed to be discriminated against.

A person's race, for example. Which may be white or black or whatever.

"class" in this case is not a person or group of persons. It's a characteristic.

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:15:40 AM

So you do have a problem with anti-discrimination laws, then?


edit: there is no definition of "class" that means that, unless you're using some kind of short hand for "classification" in such case i've never heard people do that before

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:17:56 AM

No, and I've been thinking about it a lot since you posted earlier.

I'm fine with anti-discrimination laws even though they are similar to hate crime laws. I don't see a massive amount of discrimination in murders that needs to be addressed, nor do I feel that murder victims deserve equal treatment from their murderers.

Dude, just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:24:39 AM

Well I'll be damned: re protected class.

Anti-discrimination laws aren't just similar to hate crime laws, I'd say they're more extreme. Take an action, like kicking someone out of your business, which is completely legal, and it becomes illegal when based on a "protected class". Hate Crime laws just increase a penalty when a protected class is there in the intent. If anything, anti-discrimination laws are the ESTABLISHMENT of protected classes, and hate crime laws just extend the application of the concept to already-illegal activities.

For example:

*A teenager spraypaints "El Barto" on a billboard

*Another person spraypaints "Niggers get out" on another billboard.

Should both of these be prosecuted as simple vandalism? Are they really equal crimes in terms of the damage caused?

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:27:30 AM

It's the fact that they're murder and assault are already illegal which makes them unnecessary and illustrates that their sole purpose is to punish the hatred.

Yes, I think "Niggers get out" should be punished the same as "El Barto." Can you demonstrate that no one would be offended by "El Barto?" It isn't demonstrable the impact that either of those statements have beyond the repairs needed to fix the damage. You just have a gut feeling that "Niggers get out" will do something to the black community and someone needs to be punished more harshly than that.

And finally, the insistence that the racist statement be punished more does nothing besides further solidify race borders which are arbitrary to begin with. What if the net effect of seeing racist vandalism was that the community rose above it, joined together with people of different races and took donations to fix the sign and not dwell on it? Would additional punishment still be justified in that the social damage was actually negative?

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:42:36 AM

So you ARE concerned about racial tensions rising.

So how does "Niggers get out" affect racial boundaries? How does "El Barto" ?


It does more than just "offend" the black community. for one it actively alienates them if not outright terrorizes them. It also emboldens other white supremacists, especially when it's treated as nothing more than mere vandalism by local government, punishable by a small fine just like the 14 year old who wrote "El Barto".

And to restate my question:
"Are they really equal crimes in terms of the damage caused?"

Do you really, REALLY think that "El Barto" and "Niggers get out" have the same social consequences? Don't propose hypothetical situations where a class of people who are offended by El Barto might exist, or a community comes together to fix a private company's advertisement then all have brownies and lemonaid together, tell me based on the real fucking world whether those two crimes cause the same damage.




[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:50:59 AM

The crime in that scenario is vandalism, either way. Free speech, though, means you could walk into a public place and say "niggers get out," regardless of who gets offended, so the "message" or "social harm" caused by the vandalism is irrelevant. Now, if you want to get rid of free speech, and I suspect that you do, then okay, we can also go that route.

We should have anti-discrimination laws targeted at consumers as well. If we can prove that someone refrained from visiting a store because the majority of the customers were a certain race, or the employees were a certain race, clearly that consumer is discriminating against that private business. Is that better or worse than a business discriminating against potential customers?

The reality is that, in this day and age, discrimination laws aren't needed. Anyone dumb enough to oust someone from their private business because of their race or anything like that will suffer a massive blow to their reputation when the media gets wind, and they're going to lose out on a paying customer. If someone wants to open up a store called "No Black Allowed" that only sells racist paraphernalia, it's a free country, they should be allowed to. They should then suffer the natural consequences that arise from that kind of racist enterprise.

I mean, holy shit. Look at what happened when a Chic-fil-a owner provided sandwiches to some "pro-marriage"/socially conservative group. You had groups formed on Facebook within 24 hours demanding boycotts of all Chic-fil-a restaurants because it was an "anti-gay" business.

2/10/2011 12:01:33 PM

Quote :

"It does more than just "offend" the black community. for one it actively alienates them if not outright terrorizes them. It also emboldens other white supremacists, especially when it's treated as nothing more than mere vandalism by local government, punishable by a small fine just like the 14 year old who wrote "El Barto"."

Says you. I say it's not demonstrable. I say that it's possible for it to not actually terrorize or alienate anyone, let alone an entire community. The reaction to the racism is entirely subjective to the individual and painting an entire group of people with a broad brush the way that you are only serves to further push races apart. If the net reaction to the vandalism is "what a fucktard, now I'm getting on with my day," then does it truly deserve additional punishment?

Quote :

" And to restate my question: "Are they really equal crimes in terms of the damage caused?" "

I say I don't know. I say it's not demonstrable.

Quote :

" Do you really, REALLY think that "El Barto" and "Niggers get out" have the same social consequences? Don't propose hypothetical situations where a class of people who are offended by El Barto might exist, or a community comes together to fix a private company's advertisement then all have brownies and lemonaid together, tell me based on the real fucking world whether those two crimes cause the same damage."

It depends entirely on the community that sees the sign and their reaction to it. Is it your opinion that every black person (hell define a black person for me while you're at it) has the exact same sensibilities and tolerances and ability to ignore idiocy?

2/10/2011 12:10:16 PM

Quote :

"I am so fucking confused, where do I speak out against hate crimes laws??"

Quote :

"Why is a bigot acting alone who kills one or two people more dangerous than a gangster who has directly caused hundreds of peoples' deaths (and indirectly caused all sorts of suffering)?"

Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement, anyway.

Quote :

"I like this. Did you come up with this yourself? Or was this actually cited as a reason for hate crime legislation?"

I have no idea what was cited as a reason to create hate crime legislation.

2/10/2011 12:11:48 PM

Quote :

"Says you. I say it's not demonstrable. I say that it's possible for it to not actually terrorize or alienate anyone, let alone an entire community. The reaction to the racism is entirely subjective to the individual and painting an entire group of people with a broad brush the way that you are only serves to further push races apart. If the net reaction to the vandalism is "what a fucktard, now I'm getting on with my day," then does it truly deserve additional punishment? I say I don't know. I say it's not demonstrable."

You're getting hopelessly hypothetical and abstract now. Should burning a cross on someone's lawn be treated as combination of littering, trespassing, and an uncontrolled fire/arson? Your argument relies on completely disregarding context and looking at every case in a vacuum. What is your criteria for a clear demonstration that racist propaganda emboldens racists and alienates the race being attacked?

Quote :

"It depends entirely on the community that sees the sign and their reaction to it. Is it your opinion that every black person (hell define a black person for me while you're at it) has the exact same sensibilities and tolerances and ability to ignore idiocy?"

A black person is any person who fits the society's definition of black, which in the US's case is basically anyone that demonstrates superficial African features, regardless of actual genetic makeup. It's historically arbitrary but entirely real in terms of its effects and application, and a person in America has a pretty good idea whether or not they are treated as being black or not, and so knows whether a threat against black people includes them or not.

If we were on a desert island where racism doesn't and never existed you'd have a point, but we have a real social context in America with a long history behind it, where "Nigger" quite clearly is an assertion of a racial power relation with a threat of violence behind it. Do I really need to prove to you that a black community is going to perceive "Niggers get out" as a threat? This would only be possible if they all were completely naive of history and the function of race in their society. To not perceive that as a threat, they'd have to not even know what "Nigger" meant.




[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 12:23:27 PM

Quote :

"You're getting hopelessly hypothetical and abstract now. Should burning a cross on someone's lawn be treated as combination of littering, trespassing, and an uncontrolled fire/arson? Your argument relies on completely disregarding context and looking at every case in a vacuum. What is your criteria for a clear demonstration that racist propaganda emboldens racists and alienates the race being attacked? "

If the context is "every black person gets offended in the exact same way by everything" then yes I'm disregarding it. I don't know what the criteria is for determining the actual amount of social harm by racist vandalism. Why don't you describe to me how you know for a fact it will "embolden racists" and "alienate" black people? What if it doesn't? It's just graffiti. I don't like that a judge can decide by fiat that a particular string of words will have some greater damage than a different string of words.

Quote :

"A black person is any person who fits the society's definition of black, which in the US's case is basically anyone that demonstrates superficial African features, regardless of actual genetic makeup. It's historically arbitrary but entirely real in terms of its effects and application, and a person in America has a pretty good idea whether or not they are treated as being black or not, and so knows whether a threat against black people includes them or not. "

How much an individual is offended or threatened by something is entirely up to the individual's tolerances. Again, are you stating that every black person will be threatened by racist vandalism?

Quote :

"If we were on a desert island where racism doesn't and never existed you'd have a point, but we have a real social context in America with a long history behind it, where "Nigger" quite clearly is an assertion of a racial power relation with a thread of violence behind it. Do I really need to prove to you that a black community is going to perceive "Niggers get out" as a threat?"

I would prefer that laws be written with the idea of proof in mind not "this is so incredibly self evident that I don't see why I have to prove it to you: black people are threatened by words."

2/10/2011 12:35:51 PM

Quote :

"If the context is "every black person gets offended in the exact same way by everything" then yes I'm disregarding it. I don't know what the criteria is for determining the actual amount of social harm by racist vandalism. Why don't you describe to me how you know for a fact it will "embolden racists" and "alienate" black people? What if it doesn't? It's just graffiti. I don't like that a judge can decide by fiat that a particular string of words will have some greater damage than a different string of words."

So you're opposed to punishing people for death threats as well? What about libel? Perjury? Incitement to violence? Your position can be summed up as "All strings of words are equal in the eyes of the law." unless I'm missing something.

Quote :

" How much an individual is offended or threatened by something is entirely up to the individual's tolerances. Again, are you stating that every black person will be threatened by racist vandalism? "

Yes, I'm stating that any black person who knows they're black is going to be threatened by vandalism that advocates violence against black people. You're emphasizing "every" because yes, in theory, any blanket statement like that can't be proven categorically true. At the same time, it's not categorically true that every person who receives a death threat specifically directed at them will feel threatened by it. That doesn't mean death threats can't be treated as threatening.

Quote :

" I would prefer that laws be written with the idea of proof in mind not "this is so incredibly self evident that I don't see why I have to prove it to you: black people are threatened by words.""

If your standard of proof is "prove that every single black person ever is threatened by racist language" then that's not provable without a global survey. You're making the argument that words don't have meaning, and are asking me to prove that they do as some sort of ontological diversion. You're asking me to prove something that is incredibly self evident: that people are threatened by language that has been used throughout history and even their own lives with the explicit purpose of threatening them.

Say a business owner expels every black person who walks in the door, how do you prove it's because of racism? How do you enforce the anti-discrimination laws you claim to support, laws that make a legal act illegal based on deriving the intent and affect (both of which you don't think a judge should be able to infer) ?

And here, there's mountains of studies specifically of the traumatic and stressful effects of racism on individuals of the targeted race:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=study+racism+psychological+effect&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

2/10/2011 1:44:10 PM

Quote :

"So you're opposed to punishing people for death threats as well? What about libel? Perjury? Incitement to violence? Your position can be summed up as "All strings of words are equal in the eyes of the law." unless I'm missing something."

If you can reasonably show that the vandalism constitutes an actual threat to a person or even an identifiable group of persons, then fine. I've been asking you to do that very thing for like 7 posts now. A burning cross for example has been ruled as constituting a threat. I'm not certain I agree with that ruling but it's there.

Quote :

" Yes, I'm stating that any black person who knows they're black is going to be threatened by vandalism that advocates violence against black people. You're emphasizing "every" because yes, in theory, any blanket statement like that can't be proven categorically true. At the same time, it's not categorically true that every person who receives a death threat specifically directed at them will feel threatened by it. That doesn't mean death threats can't be treated as threatening. "

I find this extremely generalizing and think attitudes like this won't help if your overall goal is getting rid of bigotry. How about we stop assuming what the "black community" will feel and start looking at each other as individuals?

Quote :

"And here, there's mountains of studies specifically of the traumatic and stressful effects of racism on individuals of the targeted race:"

What was the point of this? So you're saying that racism, even if it's not a direct threat is itself threatening and should be treated as such?

2/10/2011 1:57:17 PM

Quote :

"If you can reasonably show that the vandalism constitutes an actual threat to a person or even an identifiable group of persons, then fine. I've been asking you to do that very thing for like 7 posts now."

Haha really? I seriously have no idea what your definition of "reasonable" is if you think "I'm not convinced that 'get out niggers' constitutes a threat" is a reasonable objection to raise.

Quote :

"A burning cross for example has been ruled as constituting a threat. I'm not certain I agree with that ruling but it's there."

Are you even trying to get anywhere with this conversation anymore? Do you actually live on planet Earth, let alone the USA? This kind of deliberately obtuse hemming and hawing betrays that you don't have any actual argument and are just muddying the waters every post to create the illusion of a competent rebuttal. If you can't acknowledge that burning a cross on a black person's property constitutes a threat, I don't see how anybody, even YOU, could take yourself seriously right now.

Quote :

"I find this extremely generalizing and think attitudes like this won't help if your overall goal is getting rid of bigotry. How about we stop assuming what the "black community" will feel and start looking at each other as individuals?"

Okay. Individuals who are exposed to a message that threatens members of a group to which they belong, willingly or not, will likely feel threatened by this message? Is that objectionable too? That's the simplest, most individual-centric way I can think to express that racist graffiti is a little different from a banksy tag in terms of social damage.

Quote :

" What was the point of this? So you're saying that racism, even if it's not a direct threat is itself threatening and should be treated as such?"

You asked me to prove "black people are threatened by words." I'm showing that racism has real physiological and mental effects on the people it targets. Yes, racism itself not only threatens but demonstratably damages individuals' mental and physical health.

You've been playing dumb and been deliberately obtuse for far more than 7 posts and it's getting old. You should seriously be embarassed that you've been backed into this corner where the best you can come up with is "Well who's to say a death threat is actually threatening?", or "Who's to say a black person will necessarily feel threatened by anti-black racist propaganda?" Your position is a bad joke with no punchline at this point, all in the service of protecting the people who commit hate crimes from receiving the slightest hint of condemnation from the government that instituted anti-discrimination laws you think you support.

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 2:38:49 PM

Quote :

" If you can't acknowledge that burning a cross on a black person's property constitutes a threat, I don't see how anybody, even YOU, could take yourself seriously right now."

Did I say on a black person's property? Holy fuck man calm down. I was just talking about a burning cross in and of itself should not be assumed to be a threat just as a racist statement in and of itself should not be considered to be a threat. Your original example was a racist remark on a presumably public place (a billboard). It's threatening nature is arguable at worst. Unless you've concluded that anything racist constitutes a threat.

You are equivocating racism with threatening behavior. That's the bottom line.

Quote :

"Okay. Individuals who are exposed to a message that threatens members of a group to which they belong, willingly or not, will likely feel threatened by this message? "

I disagree that this is the case. Whether or not they will feel threatened by the message is entirely on them, independent of their membership of the group. What you are suggesting is that their tolerances toward offensive or threatening material is dependent on their group membership. I get that the message is directed toward them as a group.

For instance, I'm white. If I saw a billboard with "Get out Whitey" spraypainted on it, I would not feel any more threatened than I did the instant before. Now, if they spraypainted it on the side of my house it would be a different story, but that's my point. The words themselves are not threatening. You make the logical leap to "on a black person's property" and the situation has changed, not the words.

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 2:50:34 PM

haha

"words aren't threatening, it's the meaning of the word's that's threatening!"

only on the Internet would an argument like this find a home.

And you would mostly certainly feel threatened if you were in an area that was, say, 70% non-white and saw a bill board that said "get out whitey." You're delusional if you don't think you would be.

2/10/2011 3:10:19 PM

Forget all this "what's a hate crime" nonsense.

I bet the owners were behind it. Someone should see if/to what extent the owners were underwater on their loan.

It's easy, really. Establish a string of anti-gay crimes over several months and torch the house while you're "out of town". Good alibi, and who's gonna publicly express doubt that some gays were victims of a hate crime?

2/10/2011 3:10:56 PM

I give up. I am now for any law banning bigoted thought. In fact, any thought that the government arbitrarily deems wrong should be outlawed.

2/10/2011 3:13:13 PM

Quote :

"I mean, holy shit. Look at what happened when a Chic-fil-a owner provided sandwiches to some "pro-marriage"/socially conservative group. You had groups formed on Facebook within 24 hours demanding boycotts of all Chic-fil-a restaurants because it was an "anti-gay" business."

Two small points. 1) It was a little more than that. It also includes the owner declaring opposition to marriage equality, but its cool if gay people still want to buy their product, plus the stuff I posted below. 2) Creating facebook groups isn't a particularly overwhelming response.

http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples

Quote :

"Over the past few weeks, the restaurant chain's deep ties to the anti-gay movement have been exposed and uncovered by a number of activists, most notably Jeremy Hooper at Good As You. Whether it's Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, or Exodus International, Chick-fil-A ties run deep."

They are the ones who bussed into Raleigh from out of state and held a protest to demand NC amend its constitution to ban gay couples from getting married.

Quote :

"As we wrote about a few weeks ago, Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, has been particularly active in the fight against marriage equality. They've hosted conferences with some of the leading opponents of gay marriage in this country. A higher up at WinShape has even praised the efforts of anti-gay activist David Blankenhorn for working against marriage equality, and for articulating a solid reason why American culture should reject same-sex couples. Now comes some email correspondence that Good As You has shared on their blog, where the WinShape Foundation's Retreat Center -- a center run by the charitable arm of Chick-fil-A -- admits that they have a severe distaste for LGBT people."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5418742

Quote :

"Now Chick-fil-A is trying to indoctrinate my children. We ate there the other day. An activities CD rom came with the kid meal. Of course I examined it before I turned it over to the children. And what do you think I found? Focus on the Family sponsored the CD, and it includes links to the FOF website. I was beyond furious. How dare they try to indoctrinate my children with their politics and hate! Needless to say, I am done with Chick-fil-A. I let them know what I think of their little hate filled "meal prize". You can, too. http://www.chickfila.com/Feedback.asp "

I just don't think facebook group creation warrants a "holy shit" response. If fast food chicken sellers want to overtly wade into and spend money on political issues and social conservative issues, they are free to do so, but it shouldn't come as any shock that some people will take that in mind when considering where they spend their money.

2/10/2011 3:14:52 PM

The "holy shit" was to signify that people, these days, will not just sit by and say nothing if they recognize something to be even remotely discriminatory. I'm saying that we don't need discrimination laws, because individuals are motivated enough to organize - without government - and oppose businesses who promote some agenda they disagree with.

2/10/2011 3:29:55 PM

Fair enough.

2/10/2011 3:38:25 PM

Quote :

"I give up. I am now for any law banning bigoted thought. In fact, any thought that the government arbitrarily deems wrong should be outlawed."

It's not at all clear to me after reading this thread that you understand what an argument is.

2/11/2011 1:57:44 AM

It's clear that str8foolish thinks racist thought is innately threatening and should be eradicated through law. It's clear that moron thinks that a picture of a burning cross is equivalent to a burning cross placed threateningly on someone's private property because everywhere in America is innately intimidating to black people in perpetuity. And it's clear that it's not possible to have a rational discussion regarding this. People are so against racism that they are incapable of analyzing it objectively and exploring ways to actually get rid of it instead of preserving the status quo through divisive legislature and punishment. And it's clear that you're going to respond that I don't know what the word rational means in the classical sense of the word or some other elitist bullshit that always springs from your keyboard.

2/11/2011 9:05:14 AM

It's certainly possible to have a rational discussion about this. It's just not possible with somebody who is uninterested in reality and would rather play word games without a clear idea of what rational discourse looks like, what purpose it serves, and what its conventions are (and why).

2/11/2011 10:58:14 AM

Let me guess, disco stu, it doesn't bother you at all when you're called a "cracker." You just shake it off because sticks and stones, right?

2/11/2011 12:16:49 PM

Well, yeah, but according to moron that's because I'm safe in my fortress of whititude and don't know what it's like to be outnumbered in the United States of White People.

2/11/2011 12:58:34 PM

And honestly, does me being bothered even matter? Wouldn't a better question be do I feel threatened when I'm called a "cracker?"

Do you really want laws to protect people from being bothered?

2/11/2011 2:51:01 PM

that's not what they are about, stop being obtuse.

2/11/2011 3:48:42 PM

2/11/2011 4:22:44 PM

You know that calling someone a cracker is not a hate crime and is not what any hate crime legislation is about. You are being purposely difficult and seem to be taking aaronburro's traditional method of argument. I mean, its that or you are actually just an idiot.

2/11/2011 4:52:10 PM

If calling someone a cracker isn't a hate crime, is calling someone a nigger a hate crime?

2/11/2011 4:59:50 PM

No, not if that is the entirety of it

[Edited on February 11, 2011 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2011 5:48:43 PM

^^ you are forgetting that only whites can be racists. duuuh

2/11/2011 5:59:02 PM

2/17/2011 1:32:08 AM