http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/us/politics/09hate.html?hp

House Democrats added this to a widely supported defense bill to get it passed. Still has to pass the Senate, but it looks like it will. Not sure why they felt the need to do it now in the midst of so many other priorities. The article refers to it as "legislative blackmail", which of course happens all the time on both sides, but it really pisses me off.

And I do side with the Republicans on the hate crime issue. Murder is murder, no matter what the motivation.

But I enjoyed this part:

Quote :

"Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican, said the measure could inhibit freedom of speech and deter religious leaders from discussing their views of moral traditions for fear of being caught up in the law."

He just admitted that his "moral traditions" are hateful. Thanks Mike!

10/8/2009 5:15:56 PM

Quote :

"And I do side with the Republicans on the hate crime issue. Murder is murder, no matter what the motivation."

The problem with that mode of thinking is it doesn't take into account what a hate crime really is. When someone kill a person for being black/gay/etc. the killer is trying to send a message to the rest of that community that this is what will happen to you if you step to far out of line/ show your face here/etc. In a way it is a form of terrorism, because the person is trying to terrorize a particular community.

10/8/2009 6:20:47 PM

Quote :

"When someone kill a person for being black/gay/etc. the killer is trying to send a message to the rest of that community that this is what will happen to you if you step to far out of line/ show your face here/etc."

And a swift, fair, trial resulting in the prosecution of the guilty (or exculpation of the innocent) will demonstrate to the entire community that life is equally protected under the law regardless of who you are. This is the very definition of equality.

10/8/2009 6:44:17 PM

Hate Crime laws are bullshit. Could not any premeditated violent crime (against people or property) be regarded as a hate crime. Maybe I HATE that mother fucker that cut me off in traffic, maybe I HATE the Jarhead McDouche that tried to rape my girlfriend hypothetically, or I HATE my dad for being to strict on my growing up.....

10/8/2009 6:50:30 PM

Quote :

"ould not any premeditated violent crime (against people or property) be regarded as a hate crime. Maybe I HATE that mother fucker that cut me off in traffic, maybe I HATE the Jarhead McDouche that tried to rape my girlfriend hypothetically, or I HATE my dad for being to strict on my growing up"

You’re an idiot if you think this is what hate crime laws are about.

You hating someone that cut you off in traffic doesn’t represent an ideology. Hate crimes have to represent an ideology, it’s not simply about any definition of hate you choose to come up with. Do you really think the laws are so vague and naive? Actually, you must, since we’ve talked about this before, and surely you heard the explanations over and over, yet like the child who insists Santa Claus is real, there is just no reasoning with you.

10/8/2009 7:00:18 PM

Quote :

"You hating someone that cut you off in traffic doesn’t represent an ideology."

The problem here is that the state is defining which ideologies are to be prosecuted and which are not. There is no evidence that hate crime laws are applied equally across all races, genders, and sexual orientations. The very existence of "hate crime" legislation gives more power to the state to determine favored political and ideological stances and prosecute those which fall afoul of the powers that be.

There is nothing moral in that position.

10/8/2009 7:35:35 PM

^

Quote :

"You hating someone that cut you off in traffic doesn’t represent an ideology. "

You've never ridden in a car with me, I see.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, and I don't see how anyone could possibly support these laws.

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 7:43 PM. Reason : and what tortured logic are we using this time to justify the constitutionality?]

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM. Reason : oh, and burying it into a defense bill is a nice touch, too.]

10/8/2009 7:38:04 PM

Hate crime legislation is slightly less well thought out than additional gun control laws.

10/8/2009 7:42:50 PM

which is to say that it's pretty much bottom of the barrel.

10/8/2009 7:44:36 PM

Quote :

"He just admitted that his "moral traditions" are hateful. Thanks Mike!"

No, he just said that this legislation is so fucking broad that simply saying 'homosexuality is wrong" could get one arrested.

10/8/2009 7:56:53 PM

Quote :

"And a swift, fair, trial resulting in the prosecution of the guilty (or exculpation of the innocent) will demonstrate to the entire community that life is equally protected under the law regardless of who you are. This is the very definition of equality."

10/8/2009 8:54:47 PM

C'mon, someone defend hate crime laws. Please.

10/8/2009 9:14:40 PM

Quote :

"And a swift, fair, trial resulting in the prosecution of the guilty (or exculpation of the innocent) will demonstrate to the entire community that life is equally protected under the law regardless of who you are. This is the very definition of equality."

And you simply side stepped my point. Killing someone because of their race/gender/etc. is above and beyond the same crime done out of anger or negligence. It is done to intimidate a certain demographic, and therefore the additional penalty on top of the original crime is for the attempt (regardless of how successful/unsuccessful it was) to spread fear/terror. I donot understand how you get out of that, that it somehow makes some groups more equal than others.

10/8/2009 9:46:57 PM

Scenarios of "anger" and "negligence" are not the same crimes, though, nor do they carry the same punishment.

If you fly into a fit of rage and kill someone, that is 2nd degree murder (or potentially voluntary manslaughter).

If you kill someone due to your own negligence, that is involuntary manslaughter.


All the reasonable and rational among us are comparing 1st degree murder to 1st degree murder. If you kill someone because he's black or the homosex, that is in no way worse than killing someone because you wanted to collect his life insurance policy or because of marital strife.


[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 11:09 PM. Reason : and again, i still fail to see how such a federal law is constitutionally permissible.]

10/8/2009 11:06:55 PM

Quote :

"It is done to intimidate a certain demographic"

which is corrected by fair and equal application of the law, not by preferential treatment towards favored minorities. If I know that any violation of my rights will be swiftly and prosecuted and the sentence upheld, my security is established.

Quote :

"to somehow makes some groups more equal than others."

Nobody is arguing that. They're arguing precisely that it makes prosecution of crimes unequal based on the status of the victim.



Hate is not a crime. It may be unpleasant, it may be undesirable, it may be uncomfortable, but as long as that hate does not extend to deprive you of life, liberty, or property, it is not a crime. Period.

10/8/2009 11:13:29 PM

Quote :

"If you kill someone because he's black or the homosex, that is in no way worse than killing someone because you wanted to collect his life insurance policy or because of marital strife."

If you kill someone because they are a minority you are putting fear into that entire minority that has to live in a community where they feel like they are a target. If you are white you will never understand this but its worse than terrorism. Imagine being a jew living in the middle of nazi Germany. I'm not saying its the same situation but to the people that live near a hate crime, I'm sure they have the same fear. You not only have to pay for the muder, but also the compounded fear you have instilled. To clarify things for people like the ones in this thread, they should just call them terrorism instead of hate crimes.

10/8/2009 11:52:14 PM

wouldn't swift justice alone fix that fear? Wouldn't knowing that anyone who kills anyone will be dealt with quickly alleviate that fear?

10/8/2009 11:56:18 PM

Burning a cross on your own property shouldn't be a crime.

Burning a cross on someone else's yard is a crime...trespassing. Maybe throw in one of those other bullshit charges like disorderly conduct. Arrest them for it. Every time. If the police fail in this, that's an issue with the police force. It's silly to tack on charges after the fact just to send a message.

------------------------------------------
A little old white lady was robbed in my town. Maybe she was robbed because she was an old white lady. Maybe she was robbed for the money. Only the robber knows for sure. Now all the other little old white ladies are frightened. Why isn't THAT a hate crime? Are little old white ladies not a deserving enough minority?

10/9/2009 12:03:24 AM

Quote :

"wouldn't swift justice alone fix that fear? Wouldn't knowing that anyone who kills anyone will be dealt with quickly alleviate that fear?"

So if someone was trying to kill you, knowing they would be brought to justice after they killed you would eliminate your fear of being killed?

Quote :

"Why isn't THAT a hate crime? Are little old white ladies not a deserving enough minority? "

Not the same because white ladies don't live in a world where they are a minority surrounded by majority groups hell-bent on wiping them out. They at least have the piece of mind that the majority and local justice system is in the same position (being white) as them and doesn't support the killing of old white ladies.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:13 AM. Reason : V ya me and lawmakers crazy and stupid, you guys on here=GENIUS!]

10/9/2009 12:08:33 AM

Quote :

"Not the same because white ladies don't live in a world where they are a minority surrounded by majority groups hell-bent on wiping them out. They at least have the piece of mind that the majority and local justice system is in the same position (being white) as them and doesn't support the killing of old white ladies. "

haha, here comes a whole truckload of crazy and stupid. i knew it was on the way as soon as I saw your name.

10/9/2009 12:11:09 AM

Quote :

"If you kill someone because they are a minority you are putting fear into that entire minority that has to live in a community where they feel like they are a target."

blah blah blah

what you are truly getting at sounds to me like some consider a KKK lynching as an act of terrorism. Guess what we already
have additional laws that if a DA felt appropriate could charge the appropriate law against. The only thing this "hate crime"
law does is further the knee jerk reaction that just b.c a victim is black and the criminal is white then it ZOMG is a hate crime
unless proven innocent.

Quote :

"Burning a cross on someone else's yard is a crime...trespassing. "

Arson and maybe assault if you can somehow prove malice that the burning cross could "burn down" the house of an occupant who would in the process be
injured.

If this hate crime passes, i expect the blacks that beat the shit out of that white kid, in the TWW thread last month, for dating a black girl to be charged with a hate crime.

10/9/2009 12:14:34 AM

Quote :

"If you kill someone because they are a minority you are putting fear into that entire minority that has to live in a community where they feel like they are a target. If you are white you will never understand this but its worse than terrorism."

I call bullshit on this.

If you are white, and want to understand real fear because of being a minority, and know intense racial hostility, just take a drive through (insert any city)'s ghetto.

I used to go to work in the ghetto of Durham at 2:30 AM. I still regularly drive through that area at odd hours even after switching jobs.

And I defy you to contend with the fact that, in that situation, a white person feels every bit as much justified fear as a black man stopping at a hick gas station in an area with white supremacists around. You are a potential target from the time anyone notices you. Is it because of race? Is it because you just don't belong? Is it because you are an easy mark? Who knows. It doesn't matter. That fear is both real and justified. The prevalence of black-on-white crime is almost infinitely worse than the reverse - that's just statistical fact. And that statistical fact rightly gives me pause about stopping for a candy bar at midnight in those places.

If you want to talk about terrifying "a community" with crimes, you had better be ready to apply that to the exact people you hope to defend with this law. When a black man from the hood goes to a ritzy shop in Cary, does he fear for his life? Nope. He may get watched. He may feel a vibe that he's not welcome. And those things are wrong. But what happens if I go into a "black" store in ghetto Durham, even in daylight? Would I be on high-alert with all senses preparing for a potential assault on my person or property? Yep. And it's justified.

If I were robbed or beaten up in that kind of situation...would you press it as a hate crime? By your own definition, it puts fear into an entire group of people (whites) to let them know they are not free to travel to certain areas safely.

If I were assaulted in such an area, would the perpetrator deserve a greater penalty for having placed on all white people a fear of approaching that community and neighborhood? No. He deserves the penalty for assault. How a crime makes non-victims feel is not relevant to its prosecution or punishment. This is all hippy bullshit.

10/9/2009 12:19:07 AM

^^ can't charge someone with a law that wasn't in effect when the crime was committed.

also, you don't have to injure someone to be guilty of assault. If I walk up to you and say "I'm going to beat the fuck out of you", that's not assault. If I walk up and say "I'm going to beat the fuck out of you", then raise my fist or a baseball bat or something, that is assault, whether or not I ever hit you.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:23 AM. Reason : ^^]

10/9/2009 12:21:11 AM

Its just one of those things. Blowing up a federal building with 10 people in it is much worse of a crime than blowing up a non-federal building with 10 people in it. If you shoot a senator its a bigger crime than shooting a store clerk, and so on and so on, because of the amount of fear it spreads and hope it shreads.

Usually, if a random crime is commited it will be against a white person, since most people are white. Playing the %s, the victim of a random crime should be white. If a bunch of kids beat up a kid for dating a certain girl, odds are, a white kid will be getting beaten up. If I commit a "random" crime and seek out a black person, odds are, I went looking for a black person which brings in the question of "was it a hate crime" since there was only a 12% chance my victim would have been black, had it not been a hate crime. Therefore the chances of a black crime against a white being a "hate crime" are much less.

If, however, a black did go looking for a white person, its not the same because the number of blacks the white community has to fear vs the number of whites, and police to protect them from the hate crimes of blacks is much much different than the number of whites blacks have to fear and the nations history of hate crimes by whites against blacks (and not the other way around)
and police being involved allows the fear to penetrate blacks much deeper, and justifiably so.

Whites have never been enslaved by blacks, never been jim crowed, kkked, drug, or systematically mistreated by government, law enforcement and the general population for hundreds of years. This means they don't have a legitamite fear thats been passed down from generation to generation built into them. Maybe they do fear blacks, but not rightfully so.

This nation has come a long way and put in a lot of hard work to overcome the horrible history. Each hate crime undos some of that work FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY. One hate crime could literally divide the nation. Its that delicate of a subject. Thats why its such a serious crime.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM. Reason : j]

Quote :

"If I were robbed or beaten up in that kind of situation...would you press it as a hate crime? By your own definition, it puts fear into an entire group of people (whites) to let them know they are not free to travel to certain areas safely."

This white fear is more often than not, due to your own racism or stereotypes. Some whites feel nervous around blacks because they think they are savages. They are also often scared because they think blacks may try to get revenge or white blood for the many injustices done to them by the white man. A ghetto is an area that represents people that are still suffering the class effects of the Jim crow, share crop and slavery eras. You almost feel guilty when you go there and feel as though they will attack you for doing this to them. Its more of a guilt fear. This fear is made even worse by hate crimes against blacks. You've spoke of your fear now...

imagine what it would be like going there the day afer a hate crime by a white against a black...Whites too, suffer the fear caused by hate crimes against blacks. All the more reason to over-criminalize them.

Also, the only rational fear of going in a ghetto should be being a rich target. Crimes against the rich or more well off are not hate crimes though. If you were a poor white man stopping in the middle of the night, you would have much less fear of being robbed by blacks.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:40 AM. Reason : where your fear came from]

Quote :

"This is all hippy bullshit."

see, you won't get it until you leave your own shoes. you probably have never associated with many people that live in ghettos

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:42 AM. Reason : I bet you think they are all monsters]

Quote :

"twist the United States Constitution into permitting this Federal hate crime legislation. "

pretty sure constitution gives the government power to ensure every citizens right to life liberty and freedom. Hate crimes and terrorism are taken from the fact that one can't have liberty in fear

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM. Reason : k?]

10/9/2009 12:30:47 AM

This legislation perpetuates those divisions.

10/9/2009 12:38:15 AM

Quote :

"gym crowed "

hahaha

Quote :

"Usually, if a random crime is commited it will be against a white person, since most people are white. Playing the %s, the victim of a random crime should be white. If a bunch of kids beat up a kid for dating a certain girl, odds are, a white kid will be getting beaten up. If I commit a "random" crime and seek out a black person, odds are, I went looking for a black person which brings in the question of "was it a hate crime" since there was only a 12% chance my victim would have been black, had it not been a hate crime. Therefore the chances of a black crime against a white being a "hate crime" are much less. "

Do you understand what a crime rate is?

Quote :

"Whites have never been enslaved by blacks, never been jim crowed, kkked, drug, or systematically mistreated by government, law enforcement and the general population for hundreds of years. This means they don't have a legitamite fear thats been passed down from generation to generation built into them. Maybe they do fear blacks, but not rightfully so. "

All of that stuff sucks, and it's disgraceful history, but it's history. There is no systematic oppression of blacks in America in 2009.

I would argue that white people have vastly more to fear from black people than do black people from white people, at least in terms of the violent crimes that hate crime legislation is meant to encompass (stuff like not getting hired for a job, etc is potentially a different matter, but that's completely beside the point for the sake of THIS discussion).

Quote :

"This nation has come a long way and put in a lot of hard work to overcome the horrible history. Each hate crime undos some of that work FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY."

Absolutely true.

...but then, so does legislation like this.






oh, and I still haven't heard what crazyass excuse is being used to twist the United States Constitution into permitting this Federal hate crime legislation.

Or are we not even bothering to used tortured logic to justify the transgressions anymore, and are simply saying "Fuck it, the law of the land is long since dead, anyway."

10/9/2009 12:44:38 AM

Quote :

"The prevalence of black-on-white crime is almost infinitely worse than the reverse - that's just statistical fact. And that statistical fact rightly gives me pause about stopping for a candy bar at midnight in those places."

what?

black on black crime is FAR FAR more prevalent than black on white crime.

Quote :

" Murder is murder, no matter what the motivation"

This is not true either. There’s obviously different degrees of murder, wrongful death, premeditated, etc.. At practically every level of our legal system, motivation is a factor. Why should it be different?

Should terrorism be treated differently than other crimes or not? Because everything that we lump under terrorism is illegal under other laws too.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 12:45:45 AM

Quote :

"Whites have never been enslaved by blacks, never been jim crowed, kkked, drug, or systematically mistreated by government, law enforcement and the general population for hundreds of years. This means they don't have a legitamite fear thats been passed down from generation to generation built into them. Maybe they do fear blacks, but not rightfully so."

1) Do you deny that blacks commit violent crime at a far greater rate than society in general?

Assuming you live on planet Earth, your answer will be that you do not deny that.

2) Since black people do disproportionately commit violent crime (and it's a severe disproportion), how could you possibly say it unjustified for a white person to begin to fear when in an area heavily populated by that group?

3) Are you consistent? Do you feel just as safe in the ghetto as in the 'burbs? If so, you are delusional and need help. If you don't feel as safe in the ghetto, you have contradicted your own claim that it is wrong for someone to "fear blacks."

Quote :

"what? black on black crime is FAR FAR more prevalent than black on white crime."

Again, you live up to your username. I said that black-on-white crime was far more prevalent than the reverse. That means that black-on-white crime is far more common than white-on-black crime. Black-on-black crime is entirely irrelevant to that claim.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:47 AM. Reason : a]

10/9/2009 12:46:04 AM

Quote :

"Again, you live up to your username. I said that black-on-white crime was far more prevalent than the reverse. That means that black-on-white crime is far more common than white-on-black crime. Black-on-black crime is entirely irrelevant to that claim. "

That’s primarily because there are vastly more white people around than black people. A white person would have to drive for miles to find a black, but a black person can spit out of their window to find a white person. This is mostly a result of statistics, and not much more.

10/9/2009 12:51:20 AM

Quote :

"This white fear is more often than not, due to your own racism or stereotypes. Some whites feel nervous around blacks because they think they are savages. "

Now I think it's worthwhile to delve into prejudice versus racism.


Everyone has prejudices. Prejudices are not necessarily bad. Shit, in this case, I can show you with the cold, hard facts that I'm way the fuck more likely to robbed by a black guy than by a white guy. Taking that one step further to where I'm being extra vigilant and aware of my surroundings when walking through the cut at night is not evil, or immoral, or racist. It's being grounded in reality--the way things are, rather than the way I'd like things to be. This is a prejudice, and it's not harmful.


If I were to extend those prejudices to an individual (or group of individuals) and mistreat someone because of his race, then THAT is racism, and it's absolutely wrong and reprehensible.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ^ come on, dude...you don't understand what crime RATES are, either?]


[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 12:52:46 AM

^twisted logic

Quote :

"1) Do you deny that blacks commit violent crime at a far greater rate than society in general? Assuming you live on planet Earth, your answer will be that you do not deny that."

Well I must live on mars because that is not true. The correct statement would be

"poor people commit violent crime at a far greater rate than society in general"

Just because a "severe disproportion" of blacks are poor doesn't mean blacks commit violent crimes at a great rate. Therefore, anyone who fears blacks because they fear poor areas is a racist because they are assuming the crimes are happening because of their race and not their level of poverty.

Quote :

"2) Since black people do disproportionately commit violent crime (and it's a severe disproportion), how could you possibly say it unjustified for a white person to begin to fear when in an area heavily populated by that group? "

because its pure racism. the fear is because of poor people not because of black people. When a white person goes to Martha's Vineyard, they shouldn't be scared even though theres large black communities.

Quote :

"3) Are you consistent? Do you feel just as safe in the ghetto as in the 'burbs? If so, you are delusional and need help. If you don't feel as safe in the ghetto, you have contradicted your own claim that it is wrong for someone to "fear blacks.""

you're wrong because youre associating ghettos with blacks as if all blacks are in the ghetto. What about black burbs vs black ghettos? you feel safer in the burbs. What about black burbs vs trailer parks? safer in the trailer parks.

Think about what you're saying and how racist it is.

Quote :

"If I were to extend those prejudices to an individual (or group of individuals) and mistreat someone because of his race, then THAT is racism, and it's absolutely wrong and reprehensible."

no, racism is judging someone based onthe color of their skin and based on your previous post. If you saw a black man and a white man on the street all else equal you would expect the black man to rob you first

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : you admitted it]

10/9/2009 12:58:20 AM

who commits what crimes has no bearing on hate-crime laws anyway. If everyone on the Earth was white, they’d still be hate crime laws.

10/9/2009 1:00:00 AM

Quote :

""poor people commit violent crime at a far greater rate than society in general" Just because a "severe disproportion" of blacks are poor doesn't mean blacks commit violent crimes at a great rate. Therefore, anyone who fears blacks because they fear poor areas is a racist because they are assuming the crimes are happening because of their race and not their level of poverty."

So, because it's about poverty and not a race or culture, I assume you believe a poor white person is just as likely to commit a violent crime as a poor black person?

Quote :

"you're wrong because youre associating ghettos with blacks as if all blacks are in the ghetto. What about black burbs vs black ghettos? you feel safer in the burbs. What about black burbs vs trailer parks? safer in the trailer parks."

Ummm, I can associate ghettos with blacks all day long and that says nothing whatsoever about blacks not being elsewhere. Ghettos are black, almost without exception, but that in no way implies all blacks live there. That's just poor reading comprehension and logic.

Given the same income in the areas - would I feel safer in the white trailer park than the black ghettos? The trailer park. Yep. And it's justified.

Yes, I would feel safer in black suburbs than black ghettos, because the very fact that they live there most likely means they've actually worked and done something with their lives. And those traits correlate very poorly with violent crime.

Quote :

"no, racism is judging someone based onthe color of their skin and based on your previous post. If you saw a black man and a white man on the street all else equal you would expect the black man to rob you first"

Yes, I would be aware that the black man is more likely to rob me. That is not an assumption that he is criminal or in any way an insult to him as a person. His skin color correlates very well with criminal activity, and it's simply a recognition of that. If I then take that information and refuse to speak to him, get to know him, or would never consider having a black man as a friend - that's the racism.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:11 AM. Reason : a]

10/9/2009 1:10:31 AM

Quote :

"So if someone was trying to kill you, knowing they would be brought to justice after they killed you would eliminate your fear of being killed?"

Absolutely. knowing that justice will be done, no matter what, makes me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Quote :

"This white fear is more often than not, due to your own racism or stereotypes."

Give me a fucking break. I've been mugged twice. Both time were by young black men. it aint racism on my part, jackass.

10/9/2009 12:07:35 PM

Quote :

"If you want to talk about terrifying "a community" with crimes, you had better be ready to apply that to the exact people you hope to defend with this law. When a black man from the hood goes to a ritzy shop in Cary, does he fear for his life? Nope. He may get watched. He may feel a vibe that he's not welcome. And those things are wrong. But what happens if I go into a "black" store in ghetto Durham, even in daylight? Would I be on high-alert with all senses preparing for a potential assault on my person or property? Yep. And it's justified. If I were robbed or beaten up in that kind of situation...would you press it as a hate crime? By your own definition, it puts fear into an entire group of people (whites) to let them know they are not free to travel to certain areas safely. If I were assaulted in such an area, would the perpetrator deserve a greater penalty for having placed on all white people a fear of approaching that community and neighborhood? No. He deserves the penalty for assault. How a crime makes non-victims feel is not relevant to its prosecution or punishment. This is all hippy bullshit. "

[/thread]

Quote :

"If a bunch of kids beat up a kid for dating a certain girl, odds are, a white kid will be getting beaten up."

except the situation couple months back where a white kid was beaten up by some local hoodlums for dating a black girl.
If the situation were reversed shit would have hit the fan.

Quote :

"Whites have never been enslaved by blacks, never been jim crowed, kkked, drug, or systematically mistreated by government, law enforcement and the general population for hundreds of years. This means they don't have a legitamite fear thats been passed down from generation to generation built into them. Maybe they do fear blacks, but not rightfully so. "

imho the black community does more to continue the "racial divide" and perpetuate racial tensions that would otherwise smoothe out
and nearly does not exist between other races in this country. They preach equality and at the same time demand special treatment in certain
legal matters like "hate crimes", expect economic opportunities to be handed to them via Affirmitive Action instead of solely by merit, and often
are just as racist as the whites they banter about as being bigots.

Quote :

"the only rational fear of going in a ghetto should be being a rich target. Crimes against the rich or more well off are not hate crimes though. If you were a poor white man stopping in the middle of the night, you would have much less fear of being robbed by blacks"

you are naive if you truly believe this.

10/9/2009 12:51:37 PM

usually it's those who lack confidence and awareness of their surroundings (or the drunk) who get mugged. but anyone can get mugged if you're just in the wrong place.

10/9/2009 12:58:57 PM

and? If you are consistently mugged by minorities, does it make you "racist" for being afraid when you are around minorities at night in the street?

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 1:02:11 PM

Quote :

"So if someone was trying to kill you, knowing they would be brought to justice after they killed you would eliminate your fear of being killed?"

No more so than knowing he got five years tacked on top of his death sentence.

Quote :

"They at least have the piece of mind that the majority and local justice system is in the same position (being white) as them and doesn't support the killing of old white ladies."

And why should this law make them feel any better? If the justice system is failing to enforce laws against murder and assault, why the hell should you expect it to enforce a law as subjective as hate crimes?

10/9/2009 2:05:44 PM

Quote :

"If everyone on the Earth was white, they’d still be hate crime laws."

yes, against sexual and religious minorities.

Quote :

"So, because it's about poverty and not a race or culture, I assume you believe a poor white person is just as likely to commit a violent crime as a poor black person?"

of course. all else equal yes.

Quote :

"His skin color correlates very well with criminal activity, and it's simply a recognition of that."

racism in its purest form. prejudging someone based on the color of their skin.
you sir, are a racist.

Quote :

"If I then take that information and refuse to speak to him, get to know him, or would never consider having a black man as a friend - that's the racism"

haha typical racist saying "but i have black friends" cop out

Quote :

"Give me a fucking break. I've been mugged twice. Both time were by young black men. it aint racism on my part, jackass. "

it most certainly is. would you fear all white people if you got robbed by two whites? allowing the two that raped you to represent all young black men in your perception is completley racist.

10/14/2009 11:24:17 AM

Quote :

"of course. all else equal yes. "

Great, same income bracket means same risk of crime in your mind, regardless of race.

Then you go spend the night sleeping on a bench in the middle of the mostly black projects, and I'll go spend the night sleeping on a bench in the middle of a mostly white trailer park.

Unfortunately, after that experiment, only one of us will likely be around to finish the argument.

Quote :

"racism in its purest form. prejudging someone based on the color of their skin. you sir, are a racist."

In that situation, I am making no judgment whatsoever about that individual as a person. It is perfectly possible to say, "I am in a higher-risk situation now than I would be otherwise" and yet reserve judgment about a particular individual until I know more about him.

Quote :

"haha typical racist saying "but i have black friends" cop out"

Yes, there are many racists who bring up that line, when all they really have are black acquaintances who they don't hate. But you're going to have a much tougher time calling me a racist given that I lived off-campus with my black best friend for 2 years, and he was also the best man in my wedding. Gasp! We often reused the same dishes without washing them thoroughly! The horror!

I also dated a black girl for over a year. It's about the person, not the skin. There just happens to be a very high percentage of black people that I want nothing to do with, because they are low-lifes. Despite this fact, I treat each of them as an individual without prejudice, and a number of real, long-lasting relationships have formed.

But the judging of the risk of a situation is perfectly legitimate based on these external factors. I once went to play golf at a posh course down by the beach. I rolled up to the security shack at the entrance in my 1986 Ford Bronco II with dinged up, well, everything, and wearing my best (but still kind of shabby) golf clothes.

They checked my ID, confirmed my tee time by phone with the clubhouse, asked to see my golf clubs, checked to see my golf shoes, and asked all sorts of questions. And they did all of this because I looked like I didn't belong.

Should I have thrown a fit because they were profiling me, and assumed I wasn't there for a legitimate purpose just because of how I looked? No way! I was out of place. And a guy in that car, in those clothes, is certainly more likely to be there to cause mischief than the 50 year-old businessman in a flawless Mercedes right behind me. They were justified in perceiving me as being of a different risk level than the rest of them. But, they checked me out, everything was fine, and I enjoyed a great round of golf. Once they knew I was there legitimately, I was treated no differently than anyone else. I was not insulted. They handled it properly. It was not an insult to me as a person - they made a correct risk assessment, handled it in a gentlemanly way, and moved on.

10/14/2009 12:46:28 PM

I'm not too surprised. We all know, this law came about because of one guy (matthew shepard) and the interest group that pushed for it.

No matter the intentions or how nice, no law should give special privileges to selected classes of people and punish individuals for their thoughts rather than their actions. I don't consider that just. Unless, somehow, someone's created a machine that can read our minds. And even then... we'd have a lot of nice people in jail for their evil thoughts.

This is like the new txt while driving laws. Youtube videos of bus drivers pushed this one thorough. Stupid, unnecessary, and all knee-jerk reactions.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : -1 for politicians (especially the liberal ones)]

10/14/2009 3:19:55 PM

Quote :

"and punish individuals for their thoughts rather than their actions."

This law doesn't punish anyone for their thoughts. You're buying into the right-wing idiot machine when you repeat this. This law punishes people for their actions as a result of their thoughts, which laws have been doing, and always have done, before specially termed "hate crime" laws even existed.

And in the context that religion, race, sex are already covered, there's no reason why sexual orientation shouldn't also be explicitly covered. I even think the word should be expanded, if it's not already, to be able to cover any crime where ideology was a clear motivator.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2009 3:57:59 PM

Punishment for Murder = X
Punishment for Murder+Hate = X+Y
Punishment for Hate = Y

Y = inequality under the law. Why would you want to punish one murder less than any other? Explain to me in terms of the purpose of punishment why.

10/14/2009 4:37:45 PM

Y doesn't exist.

10/14/2009 4:38:49 PM

oh? here we go again, apparently.

2 crimes, the only difference is that one was motivated by hate. Whatever difference in punishment is being applied solely because of the hate.

In terms of the purpose of punishment, explain to me why you would want to punish one murder less than any other murder.

10/14/2009 4:43:39 PM

^^^ it's more like

Punishment for Murder = X
Punishment for Murder(Hate) = X*Y
Punishment for Hate = DNE

if X=0, it's irrelevant what y is.



[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2009 4:44:25 PM

I have no idea where you're going with that. Why would X ever be zero?

10/14/2009 4:46:36 PM

... if you don't commit a murder?

IOW, it doesn't matter what your effed up thoughts are unless you act on them.

Quote :

"In terms of the purpose of punishment, explain to me why you would want to punish one murder less than any other murder."

This distinction already exists with manslaughter, murder 1, murder 2, etc. charges.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2009 4:49:32 PM

^^^^ Um, yes.

Which fits the first two you listed.

What is Y? No one gets convicted of "hating Jews." They get convicted of murdering Jews with an increased sentence because they hated htem.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2009 4:50:18 PM

I've never really had this point refuted, so I'll just keep driving it home.

Scenario 1: A person beats up a victim. He has no reason for doing it. He saw a random person, and felt like beating someone up, and followed through. The victim did absolutely nothing to deserve this beating.

Scenario 2: A person beats up a victim. He beat the person up because he found out they were gay. The victim did absolutely nothing to deserve this beating.

Why does the person in the first scenario deserve a lesser punishment than the person in the second scenario?

10/14/2009 5:47:30 PM