Options

Will Sam & Max be considered a hate crime in New York?

12467

Posts

  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »

    I mean you have Southerners who still fly the confederate fucking flag. You want to talk about an obscene, racist symbol? Let's talk about that.

    Uh, most southerners who fly the confederate flag do not do so to reference racism. You're letting the history writers of the civil war use the one negative crux of the South dictate your entire knowledge of what the Confederacy stood for. That's silly.

    About the civil war: "One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value."

    Not saying that slavery wasn't an issue, but you misunderstand the political struggle that was going on between the north and south with population increases.

    I'm not sure what's worse, really. Going to war and killing over 300,000 people within your own nation because you want to keep slaves or because you are dismayed over tariffs. It's a toss-up, really, as both are absolutely retarded reasons to engage in one of the bloodiest wars in history.

    I'm not letting anyone propagandize me into this belief. Hell, I have family in the Carolinas. The mentality out there over the Civil War borders on absurdity and a lot of it has to do with slavery. So many people are against miscegenation and still believe segregation was a good thing. I mean anti-miscegenation is still sorta prevalent up here, especially in some areas, but that tends to be more of a family-value thing than an all-out cultural taboo as it often is in the South.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree here, I guess, but the South, to me, is notably more racist overall than the North. I never claimed that the North was devoid of racism, though, just that there is a more overt racist presence that permeates a good swath of the Southern US.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    What I also said - and which is correct - is that racism is far more prevalent in the south. That's all. It's true but it doesn't make the racism elsewhere any less wrong or even less problematic.
    Except you're not correct, Drez. That's why I laughed.
    Drez wrote: »
    I don't know what to tell you if you don't think that racism is more prevalent in the Southern US except to pull your head out of the sand or maybe take a drive down one of the coasts.
    The problem is that you're confusing blatancy with prevalence. They're not synonymous. You also have the problem of viewing racism through a very, very specific lens, which doesn't work. For instance, one rather non-traditional issue of racism that I got to see somewhat is the butting of heads between the African-American and Latino communities in Los Angeles, especially during Rampart.
    Drez wrote: »
    Of course there are plenty of racist areas (counties, cities, etc.) in the Northern US. In fact I'm sure there are some very specific areas in the North that are far more racist than some very specific areas in the South, if you do a 1:1, area-for-area, North-to-South comparison. I'm not saying every individual area in the South is more racist than every individual area in the North but the amount of racism in the South is MUCH more widespread.
    Again, this stems from blatancy != prevalence. Seriously, take some time and read some of the articles at Orcinus, and you'll get a well-needed wakeup call.
    Drez wrote: »
    I mean you have Southerners who still fly the confederate fucking flag. You want to talk about an obscene, racist symbol? Let's talk about that.
    Yeah...and I'm only about 2-4 hours away from Northern Idaho. Do I really need to talk about what goes on there?
    Drez wrote: »
    It's just false to claim either of the following:

    1) That racism is NOT more prevalent in the South.
    2) That racism being more prevalent in the South means it's not prevalent and extremely problematic anywhere else.
    Sorry, but 1 is true. You can try to claim it isn't, but the reality is, once you actually get into looking into things at a much deeper level, that racism is endemic everywhere. The only thing unique about the South is that they're more open about it.
    Drez wrote: »
    I was not arguing #2. So you are really just laughing at your own miscomprehension of my post.
    No, I'm laughing at how you can't see what's in front of you. Again, please look up "sundown towns" - I find that's a good point to seeing exactly how much of a problem racism is across the US.

    This is the description from Wikipedia.org:
    A sundown town was a community in the United States where non-Caucasians— especially African Americans— were systematically excluded from living in or passing through after the sun went down. This allowed maids and workmen to provide unskilled labor during the day. They came into existence in the late 19th century during what sociologists have described as the low point of race relations in the United States. Sundown towns existed throughout the nation, but more often were located in the northern states that were not pre-Civil War slave states. There have not been any de jure sundown towns in the country since the legislation in the 1960s inspired by the American Civil Rights Movement, though de facto sundown towns existed at least into the 1970s. Their continued existence is the subject of some debate.

    Would you agree that this is a good description? Because if so, it certainly doesn't invalidate or contradict ANY of my comments. If not, please point me toward a better definition of a "sundown town".

    I'll repeat one, last, weary time: the fact that racism exists in the North and was concentrated heavily in a few areas does not mean that racism is not more prevalent in the South. Maybe you don't understand the word "prevalent" or something, I don't know. But I really just think you aren't reading my posts very carefully.
    Sorry, but 1 is true. You can try to claim it isn't, but the reality is, once you actually get into looking into things at a much deeper level, that racism is endemic everywhere. The only thing unique about the South is that they're more open about it.

    *boggle*

    I don't even know how to respond to this. You admit that they are more open about it. So...what the hell is racism, then, at least that matters for this discussion? The social and political climate perpetrated publicly toward the oppressed race or the private little thoughts and conclaves we hold?

    The South is more openly racist. Racism is more prevalent in the South. I don't really care what prejudices people have in their warped minds as long as they don't act on them or create an overtly racist climate.

    Christ almighty.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Fuck.

    I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling, imbalanced, or if you actually believe what you just spewed.

    If it's the former, then please GTFO - we don't need trolls.

    If it's the latter, then I'd recommend reading a history book sometime. A real one. Because it's documented historical fact that everytime the idea of arming blacks to defend the Confederacy popped up, the reaction was pretty much that of horror.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Like I said, it doesn't reflect my own beliefs. I just wanted it to be there to show a different perspective of the confederate flag. The way Drez stated things, the only symbolism that the confederate flag held was that of racism.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I was not arguing #2. So you are really just laughing at your own miscomprehension of my post.
    No, I'm laughing at how you can't see what's in front of you. Again, please look up "sundown towns" - I find that's a good point to seeing exactly how much of a problem racism is across the US.

    This is the description from Wikipedia.org:
    A sundown town was a community in the United States where non-Caucasians— especially African Americans— were systematically excluded from living in or passing through after the sun went down. This allowed maids and workmen to provide unskilled labor during the day. They came into existence in the late 19th century during what sociologists have described as the low point of race relations in the United States. Sundown towns existed throughout the nation, but more often were located in the northern states that were not pre-Civil War slave states. There have not been any de jure sundown towns in the country since the legislation in the 1960s inspired by the American Civil Rights Movement, though de facto sundown towns existed at least into the 1970s. Their continued existence is the subject of some debate.

    Would you agree that this is a good description? Because if so, it certainly doesn't invalidate or contradict ANY of my comments. If not, please point me toward a better definition of a "sundown town".

    The definition isn't the problem - what I'd like you to look at is the number and location of them. It is this that belies your argument.
    Drez wrote: »
    I'll repeat one, last, weary time: the fact that racism exists in the North and was concentrated heavily in a few areas does not mean that racism is not more prevalent in the South. Maybe you don't understand the word "prevalent" or something, I don't know. But I really just think you aren't reading my posts very carefully.

    And again, I will state that blatancy does, in any shape or form, NOT equal prevalence.

    The South chose institutionalized discrimination, for several reasons, not the least of which was the number of African-Americans in the region. Other regions, not having to deal with those issues, practiced exclusion. The growth of suburbia in of itself is linked in significant ways to racism - there's a reason it was called "white flight".
    Drez wrote: »
    Sorry, but 1 is true. You can try to claim it isn't, but the reality is, once you actually get into looking into things at a much deeper level, that racism is endemic everywhere. The only thing unique about the South is that they're more open about it.

    *boggle*

    I don't even know how to respond to this. You admit that they are more open about it. So...what the hell is racism, then, at least that matters for this discussion? The social and political climate perpetrated publicly toward the oppressed race or the private little thoughts and conclaves we hold?

    The South is more openly racist. Racism is more prevalent in the South. I don't really care what prejudices people have in their warped minds as long as they don't act on them or create an overtly racist climate.

    Christ almighty.
    You don't have to be open about it for it to be a problem. As the Wikipedia article on sundown towns pointed out, while de jure sundown towns were banned by the Civil Rights Act, de facto sundown towns continued on (and in fact, the argument that some of them never went away is far from settled.)

    Let me give you another example, this time using religion as a basis. In quite a few of the smaller towns and suburbs in Utah, you can't buy a house if you're not Mormon. Now, there's no law saying that non-Mormons aren't allowed to live there. But realtors won't deal with you, people selling won't negotiate with you, and you'll basically get frozen out. And it's not done blatantly - it's done completely with a smile.

    Is blatant racism a problem? Yes. But so is the soft racism that's done with a smile and a wink.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    I would argue it doesn't, really, except for deterring that type of expression of the attitude, which doesn't really go to the heart of the problem. And it's more dangerous because society THINKS the problem is going away when really, it isn't.

    It works because it sends a message to the idiots who do this shit that the community doesn't support them, Medopine. Which is the most effective way of stopping these idiots. Remember, most racists believe that most others believe as they do, they're just not willing to show it publically. When communities show that racisim isn't tolerated, it causes the perpetrators to recede into the shadows where they came from, because they realize they're not advocating a popular stance.

    Yeah but the point is, you pushed it into the shadows, where it still exists and continues to exist despite society thinking that it's gone away. Society's message is "we don't tolerate racism!" but really is more like "we don't tolerate racism where we can see it!"

    Anyhoo not much more to say and I gotta go to class.

    Yes, but that's about as much as the law is allowed to do. Otherwise we start delving into thoughtcrime and so on.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Like I said, it doesn't reflect my own beliefs. I just wanted it to be there to show a different perspective of the confederate flag. The way Drez stated things, the only symbolism that the confederate flag held was that of racism.

    Except for that perspective to be legitimate, it needs at least some grounding in reality. There's an entire cottage industry devoted to the whitewashing of the Confederacy.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    I would argue it doesn't, really, except for deterring that type of expression of the attitude, which doesn't really go to the heart of the problem. And it's more dangerous because society THINKS the problem is going away when really, it isn't.

    It works because it sends a message to the idiots who do this shit that the community doesn't support them, Medopine. Which is the most effective way of stopping these idiots. Remember, most racists believe that most others believe as they do, they're just not willing to show it publically. When communities show that racisim isn't tolerated, it causes the perpetrators to recede into the shadows where they came from, because they realize they're not advocating a popular stance.

    Yeah but the point is, you pushed it into the shadows, where it still exists and continues to exist despite society thinking that it's gone away. Society's message is "we don't tolerate racism!" but really is more like "we don't tolerate racism where we can see it!"

    Anyhoo not much more to say and I gotta go to class.

    Yes, but that's about as much as the law is allowed to do. Otherwise we start delving into thoughtcrime and so on.

    Also, for racism to continue, it needs to propagate. Community rejection makes that difficult.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    I would argue it doesn't, really, except for deterring that type of expression of the attitude, which doesn't really go to the heart of the problem. And it's more dangerous because society THINKS the problem is going away when really, it isn't.

    It works because it sends a message to the idiots who do this shit that the community doesn't support them, Medopine. Which is the most effective way of stopping these idiots. Remember, most racists believe that most others believe as they do, they're just not willing to show it publically. When communities show that racisim isn't tolerated, it causes the perpetrators to recede into the shadows where they came from, because they realize they're not advocating a popular stance.

    Yeah but the point is, you pushed it into the shadows, where it still exists and continues to exist despite society thinking that it's gone away. Society's message is "we don't tolerate racism!" but really is more like "we don't tolerate racism where we can see it!"

    Anyhoo not much more to say and I gotta go to class.

    Yes, but that's about as much as the law is allowed to do. Otherwise we start delving into thoughtcrime and so on.

    And my point still stands, and I don't think it was ever answered, that hate crimes are made for the PURPOSE of punishing certain thoughts. They inherently work on more than one level, different from other laws, because of the way they are framed.

    Now Angel makes some good points, which I can concede to, though it's funny at the same time he's pointing out the exact kind of "soft racism" that hate crimes can't reach. But I don't think it's fair to say hate crimes are restricted the same way regular laws are, because hate crime laws really AREN'T like regular laws, by design.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I think the South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners" is appropriate. Everyone thought the flag was racist because it showed a black character being hung by white people while the kids just saw it as a person hanging another person. So context, like someone already said, does matter. However they compromised so as to not remove the ability of people to enjoy the flag without changing their history to appease someone else.

    In that case though it was definetly directed at blacks where as a noose is a noose, its been a method of execution long before it was associated with blacks and if someone showed a noose to me I wouldn't think "Oh, black people were hung with that". I don't think people associate it that way unless they're being overly sensitive.
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    I would argue it doesn't, really, except for deterring that type of expression of the attitude, which doesn't really go to the heart of the problem. And it's more dangerous because society THINKS the problem is going away when really, it isn't.

    It works because it sends a message to the idiots who do this shit that the community doesn't support them, Medopine. Which is the most effective way of stopping these idiots. Remember, most racists believe that most others believe as they do, they're just not willing to show it publically. When communities show that racisim isn't tolerated, it causes the perpetrators to recede into the shadows where they came from, because they realize they're not advocating a popular stance.

    Yeah but the point is, you pushed it into the shadows, where it still exists and continues to exist despite society thinking that it's gone away. Society's message is "we don't tolerate racism!" but really is more like "we don't tolerate racism where we can see it!"

    Anyhoo not much more to say and I gotta go to class.

    Yes, but that's about as much as the law is allowed to do. Otherwise we start delving into thoughtcrime and so on.

    And my point still stands, and I don't think it was ever answered, that hate crimes are made for the PURPOSE of punishing certain thoughts. They inherently work on more than one level, different from other laws, because of the way they are framed.

    Now Angel makes some good points, which I can concede to, though it's funny at the same time he's pointing out the exact kind of "soft racism" that hate crimes can't reach. But I don't think it's fair to say hate crimes are restricted the same way regular laws are, because hate crime laws really AREN'T like regular laws, by design.

    Again I resort to SP. Race crime laws were developed with good intentions but they don't work. If a white guy beats up a white guy then its assault but if he beats up a black guy its because he hates him and all people like him. Randy had to check that the mormon was white before he went round to kick his ass.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    And my point still stands, and I don't think it was ever answered, that hate crimes are made for the PURPOSE of punishing certain thoughts. They inherently work on more than one level, different from other laws, because of the way they are framed.

    Actually, they don't. We've discussed this before (though not in this thread), and the thing is that for you to argue this means that you end up arguing against mens rea. Considering that mens rea is one of the cornerstones of the legal system, doing so ends up being...problematic. (I usually state this as a challenge - "Please give me an opposition to hate crime laws that DOESN'T undermine the judicial system?")
    Medopine wrote: »
    Now Angel makes some good points, which I can concede to, though it's funny at the same time he's pointing out the exact kind of "soft racism" that hate crimes can't reach. But I don't think it's fair to say hate crimes are restricted the same way regular laws are, because hate crime laws really AREN'T like regular laws, by design.

    The thing is that hate crime laws aren't a universal pancaea. But they are a useful tool. And they are, in fact, just like any other law that affects mens rea.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't understand how it undermines the judicial system to say these laws are ineffective or inappropriate.

    And I don't understand how a crime that specifically goes to WHY you killed someone rather than that you DID INTEND to kill them is not regulating thoughts.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    There is some burden of proof to judge something as a hate crime, just fyi.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think the South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners" is appropriate. Everyone thought the flag was racist because it showed a black character being hung by white people while the kids just saw it as a person hanging another person. So context, like someone already said, does matter. However they compromised so as to not remove the ability of people to enjoy the flag without changing their history to appease someone else.

    In that case though it was definetly directed at blacks where as a noose is a noose, its been a method of execution long before it was associated with blacks and if someone showed a noose to me I wouldn't think "Oh, black people were hung with that". I don't think people associate it that way unless they're being overly sensitive.

    Or that they actually get the connotation of what the noose meant for a lot of people - the threat that they better not hope for a better station in life or they'll wind up dead.
    Again I resort to SP. Race crime laws were developed with good intentions but they don't work. If a white guy beats up a white guy then its assault but if he beats up a black guy its because he hates him and all people like him. Randy had to check that the mormon was white before he went round to kick his ass.

    And yet again, we have a commentator who spews bullshit because he doesn't grasp how hate crime laws work. Let's go through this again. The way hate crime laws work is they add prejudice against a group to the list of items that can be considered when factoring in the defendant's mens rea. So if you have a white guy beating up a black guy, in order for him to have the aggravating condition that it was a hate crime added onto the charge, the prosecutor has to prove that hatred was part of the defendant's mens rea at the time of the crime.

    Fuck, it's not that complicated, folks. It's getting really old explaining this time after time after time after time...

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Sorry but why does the hatred matter? Of course he hated him to beat him up. His race or gender or sexuality shouldn't matter, he beat the guy up.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    I don't understand how it undermines the judicial system to say these laws are ineffective or inappropriate.

    And I don't understand how a crime that specifically goes to WHY you killed someone rather than that you DID INTEND to kill them is not regulating thoughts.

    Then you really, really need to read up on the whole concept of mens rea - it's why we have "murder" and "manslaughter" statutes that are actually separate, as well as why there's a delineation between first- and second-degree murder.

    Pretty much every attack on hate crime laws winds up an attack on mens rea. Or do you believe that someone that kills an intruder in self-defense should spend the rest of their life in jail? (As you said, WHY shouldn't matter, all that matters is that you INTENDED to kill.)

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sorry but why does the hatred matter? Of course he hated him to beat him up. His race or gender or sexuality shouldn't matter, he beat the guy up.

    Because:

    If you beat a guy senseless because he wouldn't give you his watch, it's a senseless crime.

    If you beat a guy senseless because he's black, it's a senseless crime, and every other black person in the community now has to worry that the same could happen to them.

    Get it now?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Sorry but why does the hatred matter? Of course he hated him to beat him up. His race or gender or sexuality shouldn't matter, he beat the guy up.

    Because:

    If you beat a guy senseless because he wouldn't give you his watch, it's a senseless crime.

    If you beat a guy senseless because he's black, it's a senseless crime, and every other black person in the community now has to worry that the same could happen to them.

    Get it now?

    So does everybody with a watch -_-

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    I don't understand how it undermines the judicial system to say these laws are ineffective or inappropriate.

    And I don't understand how a crime that specifically goes to WHY you killed someone rather than that you DID INTEND to kill them is not regulating thoughts.

    Then you really, really need to read up on the whole concept of mens rea - it's why we have "murder" and "manslaughter" statutes that are actually separate, as well as why there's a delineation between first- and second-degree murder.

    Pretty much every attack on hate crime laws winds up an attack on mens rea. Or do you believe that someone that kills an intruder in self-defense should spend the rest of their life in jail? (As you said, WHY shouldn't matter, all that matters is that you INTENDED to kill.)

    So it's impossible to say that I think mens rea is good the way it is and that we don't need to make it more specific in order to prosecute or punish those who kill for racist (or other socially unacceptable prejudicial) reasons?

    I'm not attacking mens rea. I'm attacking the CHANGE to mens rea that hate crimes create.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I don't understand how it undermines the judicial system to say these laws are ineffective or inappropriate.

    And I don't understand how a crime that specifically goes to WHY you killed someone rather than that you DID INTEND to kill them is not regulating thoughts.

    Then you really, really need to read up on the whole concept of mens rea - it's why we have "murder" and "manslaughter" statutes that are actually separate, as well as why there's a delineation between first- and second-degree murder.

    Pretty much every attack on hate crime laws winds up an attack on mens rea. Or do you believe that someone that kills an intruder in self-defense should spend the rest of their life in jail? (As you said, WHY shouldn't matter, all that matters is that you INTENDED to kill.)

    So it's impossible to say that I think mens rea is good the way it is and that we don't need to make it more specific in order to prosecute or punish those who kill for racist (or other socially unacceptable prejudicial) reasons?

    I'm not attacking mens rea. I'm attacking the CHANGE to mens rea that hate crimes create.

    Doesn't that undermine your blanket "thoughtcrime" argument?
    Medopine wrote: »
    And I don't understand how a crime that specifically goes to WHY you killed someone rather than that you DID INTEND to kill them is not regulating thoughts.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah, that was overbroad, as Angel rightly pointed out.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I don't understand how it undermines the judicial system to say these laws are ineffective or inappropriate.

    And I don't understand how a crime that specifically goes to WHY you killed someone rather than that you DID INTEND to kill them is not regulating thoughts.

    Then you really, really need to read up on the whole concept of mens rea - it's why we have "murder" and "manslaughter" statutes that are actually separate, as well as why there's a delineation between first- and second-degree murder.

    Pretty much every attack on hate crime laws winds up an attack on mens rea. Or do you believe that someone that kills an intruder in self-defense should spend the rest of their life in jail? (As you said, WHY shouldn't matter, all that matters is that you INTENDED to kill.)

    So it's impossible to say that I think mens rea is good the way it is and that we don't need to make it more specific in order to prosecute or punish those who kill for racist (or other socially unacceptable prejudicial) reasons?

    I'm not attacking mens rea. I'm attacking the CHANGE to mens rea that hate crimes create.

    I guess then I would ask if you're opposed to anti-terror laws, as hate crimes, by their nature, are acts of terrorism. From what you've said, I'm guessing that you feel that racism is endemic in nature, and moreso, that because it's a personal belief, that it's wrong to punish people for it. The thing is that racism isn't innate - it has to be taught, and history has shown that a relatively small number of racially motivated criminals can hold a large swath of the population in terror.

    Edit: Good point, Adrien. The "thoughtcrime" argument is the attack on mens rea - if judging someone on the basis of what they were thinking is wrong, then you would have to eliminate mens rea from the judicial system. The problem (and I think Medopine is starting to see it now) is that arguing against consideration of hatred as a point of mens rea to be considered is difficult to justify, especially considering the effects of hate crimes against the community.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    And my point still stands, and I don't think it was ever answered, that hate crimes are made for the PURPOSE of punishing certain thoughts.

    No. No. No. They're made to punish certain actions. The point isn't to eliminate racism - it's not in the law's purview to do that - but to punish racial terrorism. The fact that you can't come to grips with such a blindingly simple concept frankly terrifies me.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Like I said, it doesn't reflect my own beliefs. I just wanted it to be there to show a different perspective of the confederate flag. The way Drez stated things, the only symbolism that the confederate flag held was that of racism.
    There's also the perspective that the flag isn't anti-American. Both perspectives are held by the same idiots who sometimes wonder to themselves "There's black pride, why isn't there white pride?"

    Hoz on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Listen, I'm not saying I don't think hate crimes are bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to prevent them or punish them. I'm saying I don't think this is perhaps the best way to go about it, because it messes with a pretty fundamental part of our criminal laws in a way I don't think it ought to.

    Anyway you win, because I'm quitting this thread now to go work on a stupid paper.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    1600Points1600Points Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I see we are doing our best in this thread to empower another symbol of racisim, as if that was actually needed.

    I for one am in agreement with the supreme court on this topic, if a symbol is displayed with intent to cause intimidation then yes it's ok to stop the behavior.

    Honestly I feel like some people in this thread would ban kids from playing hang man in school, especially if black ink or lead is being used.

    1600Points on
    Steam ID - 1600Points
    Xbox Live - Doctor Xedd
    Gametap - RIbar77
  • Options
    FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Like I said, it doesn't reflect my own beliefs. I just wanted it to be there to show a different perspective of the confederate flag. The way Drez stated things, the only symbolism that the confederate flag held was that of racism.
    There's also the perspective that the flag isn't anti-American. Both perspectives are held by the same idiots who sometimes wonder to themselves "There's black pride, why isn't there white pride?"

    The Confederate flag is representative of the fact that there is a difference between the South and the North. It can represent the history of slavery, but more often than not it represents much more than that. The cultural, political, and, to a degree, economic divides that still exist are being expressed by waving the Confederate flag. It could represent rural over urban, blue collar over white collar, tradition over progression, or any number of divisive issues that someone may feel strongly about.

    That's the same thing with the noose. It can represent white oppression, but in many normal contexts it means something entirely different.

    Also, ^5 AngelHedgie for explaining much more thoroughly what I was trying to say.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Listen, I'm not saying I don't think hate crimes are bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to prevent them or punish them. I'm saying I don't think this is perhaps the best way to go about it, because it messes with a pretty fundamental part of our criminal laws in a way I don't think it ought to.

    I'm sorry dude, but "mens rea" isn't a precise concept. "Mens rea" means "metal element", more or less. What that mental element is depends on the crime. The mental element for murder is "with intent to kill". The mental element from something like fraud might be "with intent to deceive". It is entirely possible for the mental element of a crime to be "with intent to terrorise a minority". It's flexible.

    Hate crimes aren't thought crimes because they still require a physical element - a person is actually killed, money is actually defrauded, a threat is actually made - before a conviction can be sustained.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Like I said, it doesn't reflect my own beliefs. I just wanted it to be there to show a different perspective of the confederate flag. The way Drez stated things, the only symbolism that the confederate flag held was that of racism.
    There's also the perspective that the flag isn't anti-American. Both perspectives are held by the same idiots who sometimes wonder to themselves "There's black pride, why isn't there white pride?"

    The Confederate flag is representative of the fact that there is a difference between the South and the North. It can represent the history of slavery, but more often than not it represents much more than that. The cultural, political, and, to a degree, economic divides that still exist are being expressed by waving the Confederate flag. It could represent rural over urban, blue collar over white collar, tradition over progression, or any number of divisive issues that someone may feel strongly about.

    That's the same thing with the noose. It can represent white oppression, but in many normal contexts it means something entirely different.

    Also, ^5 AngelHedgie for explaining much more thoroughly what I was trying to say.

    There's a difference between the confederate flag and a noose.

    Is it possible to look at a confederate flag and not immediately think of both the American Civil War and slavery, two unholy atrocities that should never have occurred? I highly doubt it.

    It is, however, possible to look at a noose holding a skeleton and not be reminded of black lynchings whatsoever.

    The noose was a tool used to lynch blacks and is not a symbol in and of itself. The confederate flag IS a symbol - that's the purpose of a flag - and with that symbol carries the entire history of the confederacy which includes:

    1. The Civil War in which 600,000+ Americans (both North and South) died and hundreds of thousands more wounded.
    2. Defense of slavery and black oppression.
    3. Other bullshit I don't care about since 1 and 2 are enough.

    I frankly don't care that the confederate flag can stand for so many apparently positive or defensible things because it also ALWAYS serves as a reminder for this country's bloodiest war, a war fought over selfishness, stupidity, and slavery. It's not possible to remove that context because the flag is a symbol for the Confederate history and two parts of that confederate history is the American Civil War and slavery. Not to mention the disloyalty of trying to secede from the North.

    On the other hand, a noose is not a symbol for black oppression/lynching except in specific contexts. The Confederate flag is a symbol for the Confederacy's history which includes all the things I mentioned. Major, major difference.


    And to respond to AngelHedgie's comments earlier (I was at work):

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree then because I consider blatant, open racism to actually be more racist than someone who just thinks racistly.

    Simple example (and I'm going to just use glossed-over qualitative terms here):

    Person A is (mentally) more racist than Person B against blacks. He hates blacks. Can't stand them, wishes they didn't exist, that they shouldn't breed with white people, is anti-miscegenation and pro-segretation, etc.

    Person B has a mild dislike for blacks. He just feels uncomfortable around them and thinks himself better.

    Person A hates them, but somehow he manages to keeps his feelings to himself. Person B, on the other hand, hates them less but he makes his discomfort shown and adopts a lofty, better-than-thou attitude whenever in their presence.

    Who is more racist between Person A and Person B? I say the person that perpetrates ANY action that is racially oppressive trumps ANY racially-motivated thought.

    Sure, it would be faaaaabulous if prejudice went away. I'm all for that. I think Person A and Person B are both disgusting. But, really, so many people have diseased minds nowadays and many of them manage to bottle it up because they damn well know better. People have a right to think whatever disgusting thoughts they want, I suppose, but when they let that affect the way they act and in turn affect the lives of others - like Person B - well then we have a problem and, in my humble opinion, only actions matter when you are trying to quantify how racist an area is.

    So I don't agree that there is a difference between "blatant" and "pervasive" here, at least the way you are suggesting. Racism may be in every Northerner's mind for all I know. But it's much less blatant, much less active for the most part, and thus I maintain that the North is less racist in the overall or at least in the important sense.

    And I've already conceded that there are many areas in the North that are blatantly and perhaps destructively racist, perhaps beyond any given area in the South. It doesn't mean that the South doesn't give off this aura of racism, an aura that is not conjured up by propaganda but is because they are overtly fucking racist in many areas! And that's what matters. What someone thinks doesn't matter. What someone does? That matters.

    And before you argue this point, yes I agree that anyone that allows their racist thinking to affect their actions is just as bad as someone being actively and blatantly racist. However, it is possible to think one thing and still act in accordance with societies laws. Like, for instance, take me. I hate old people in the supermarket. In my head I keep saying "holy shit I just want to elbow these old farts in the back of their goddamn necks and then run over them with my shopping cart". But I don't do any of that. Do I wish I felt differently? Sure. Anger is not fun. Silent anger is a burden, especially when it comes from nothing but unreason, like impatience or bias. But the fact is, I feel that silent, biased rage every time I go grocery shopping. I don't act on it though. I smile at them as they sluggishly block the aisle looking for that perfect can of prunes or whatever the fuck old people eat. I smile, I act patient, even though in my head I'm screaming "KILL KILL KILL".

    So maybe I'm an ageist, but I'm better than the guy kicking old ladies down the stairs, wouldn't you say?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    1600Points wrote: »
    It is unfortunate but Sam & Max probably would be taken into consideration under this particular law, however it could easily be shot down by the supreme court.
    Nothing really to worry about.

    I would hope a court wouldn't find the game company at fault if some nut used an art assett from Sam & Max with intent to intimidate. That's like going after Sports Illustrated because an issue was cut up to make a ransom letter.
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    I would argue it doesn't, really, except for deterring that type of expression of the attitude, which doesn't really go to the heart of the problem. And it's more dangerous because society THINKS the problem is going away when really, it isn't.

    It works because it sends a message to the idiots who do this shit that the community doesn't support them, Medopine. Which is the most effective way of stopping these idiots. Remember, most racists believe that most others believe as they do, they're just not willing to show it publically. When communities show that racisim isn't tolerated, it causes the perpetrators to recede into the shadows where they came from, because they realize they're not advocating a popular stance.

    Yeah but the point is, you pushed it into the shadows, where it still exists and continues to exist despite society thinking that it's gone away. Society's message is "we don't tolerate racism!" but really is more like "we don't tolerate racism where we can see it!"

    Anyhoo not much more to say and I gotta go to class.

    Yes, but that's about as much as the law is allowed to do. Otherwise we start delving into thoughtcrime and so on.

    And my point still stands, and I don't think it was ever answered, that hate crimes are made for the PURPOSE of punishing certain thoughts. They inherently work on more than one level, different from other laws, because of the way they are framed.

    Now Angel makes some good points, which I can concede to, though it's funny at the same time he's pointing out the exact kind of "soft racism" that hate crimes can't reach. But I don't think it's fair to say hate crimes are restricted the same way regular laws are, because hate crime laws really AREN'T like regular laws, by design.

    Soft racism like "white flight" is what disparate impact is for.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Noose hunt. That's a cute one.

    Someo of you people really hate it when its pointed out that racism is still rampant in your country...

    Oh yeah, cause Australia is the pinnacle of non-racist thought...

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Noose hunt. That's a cute one.

    Someo of you people really hate it when its pointed out that racism is still rampant in your country...

    Oh yeah, cause Australia is the pinnacle of non-racist thought...
    See how defensive you get?

    Hoz on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Noose hunt. That's a cute one.

    Someo of you people really hate it when its pointed out that racism is still rampant in your country...

    Oh yeah, cause Australia is the pinnacle of non-racist thought...
    See how defensive you get?

    If Cat's gonna take cheap potshots, I'll take them right back.

    Only fair, after all.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yours was a defensive cheapshot, hers was an observation which you supported with your cheapshot.

    Hoz on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Actually, the response stems more from a "I'm tired of cat getting away with bullshit" perspective on my part, the whole "people who live in a glass house should not throw stones" thing.

    Alot of America, especially middle America and the South is still quite racist, and we have quite the history of racism in the country as a whole. Not much I can do about it, and I'm not really being defensive about it. Just tired of the Cat's crap.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    And you continue to miss the point, Drez. That being that racism takes many different forms.

    In the South, racism took the form of institutionalized discrimination. There are a lot of reasons for this, one of the biggest being that blacks make up a significant chunk of the Southern population, so trying to exclude them just wasn't an option. In the North, however, minority populations were both smaller and isolated in their own enclaves for the most part, so a policy of exclusion worked. White populations moved to suburbs and bedroom communities where racial exclusion was maintained both by law and custom. The urban centers where the minorities were stuck were allowed to rot. The Northern system, on the surface, is a whole lot more genteel and dignified than the way things were done in the South, but the end result was the same - minorities got shafted. What's worse is that the blatant nature of the Southern system at least gave traction to attack it - the Northern system, because of its low-key, quiet nature made it much harder to fight.

    To give another example, compare how Japanese-Americans were treated on the mainland compared to how they were treated in Hawaii during WWII. On the mainland, where they were few in number and isolated, internment was used. In comparison, on Hawaii, where they were both more numerous and much more integrated into society, restrictive regulation was used. Different systems, same minority getting fucked over raw.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Actually, the response stems more from a "I'm tired of cat getting away with bullshit" perspective on my part, the whole "people who live in a glass house should not throw stones" thing.

    Alot of America, especially middle America and the South is still quite racist, and we have quite the history of racism in the country as a whole. Not much I can do about it, and I'm not really being defensive about it. Just tired of the Cat's crap.

    I know perfectly well aboriginals are treated terribly here. However, it has nothing to do with the thread, so fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm just wondering when/if Cat will address my posts at all.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    I'm just wondering when/if Cat will address my posts at all.

    I'm ignoring your little diatribe because "lol my friends tell jokes without getting offended" isn't an argument, and you strawmanning me as some sort of coddle-the-natives type isn't either. I'll be back when you've got something relevant to say.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    I'm just wondering when/if Cat will address my posts at all.

    I'm ignoring your little diatribe because "lol my friends tell jokes without getting offended" isn't an argument, and you strawmanning me as some sort of coddle-the-natives type isn't either. I'll be back when you've got something relevant to say.

    Right, I wasn't using that anecdote to illustrate larger themes or anything. How irrelevant of me to use a specific example to illustrate otherwise abstract ideas. :eyeroll:

    Oh, and you're actually bitching at me for strawmanning? Do you try to be ironic, or does it just come naturally?

    Seriously Cat, I don't think you understand just how fucking arrogant it is to presume my personal experience when you have no fucking information, and to further presume exactly how that experience would shape my opinions.

    I mean, Jesus, I get that you deal with a lot of retards on this forum, but the other mods seem perfectly capable of responding to legitimate, reasoned arguments in kind. Makes me wonder why I constantly defend you.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
Sign In or Register to comment.