Options

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

12346

Posts

  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    ja, check my edit

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    HARMONY: ACHIEVED

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    In England the judges are empowered to issue ASBOs, meant to curb behaviors that may or may not be illegal but are considered detrimental to the community - gang signs, littering and graffiti, rude speech, and so on. Which I think is pretty extreme, legally speaking, but even so it doesn't touch on the sort of thing you were talking about - staying inside and playing video games or whatever - which, anyway, would be more properly called anti-socialization.

    Understood. Agreed with the bold part in full. I believe the term "anti-social" has adopted a connotation of, er, hermitry that may or not be relevant or even correct in this context.
    The Cat wrote: »
    t drez: maybe we need an extra word here. nega-social?

    Probably a good idea. The connotation I was assuming in the use of "anti-social" here apparently has no legal relevance.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    Well, eradicating such behavior is a complex process. A large part of it is showing that the community opposes what the bigots are doing - hence the protests against the Watchmen on the Walls (violently anti-homosexual group from Eastern Europe) when they had a meeting in Seattle.

    Or, to give another example, there's a serious problem when Gen. Pace was able to state, under oath in Congress, that he felt that gays could not serve honorably without worrying about his position in the military. In a just society, such a statement of belief should be a career-ender.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    Well, eradicating such behavior is a complex process. A large part of it is showing that the community opposes what the bigots are doing - hence the protests against the Watchmen on the Walls (violently anti-homosexual group from Eastern Europe) when they had a meeting in Seattle.

    Or, to give another example, there's a serious problem when Gen. Pace was able to state, under oath in Congress, that he felt that gays could not serve honorably without worrying about his position in the military. In a just society, such a statement of belief should be a career-ender.

    Note that neither of these examples involve legislation. Social problems are unimpressed by legislation. They already "knew" that the government is a PC-conspiracy trying to steal their rights, all you've done is reinforce that belief (at least in their minds, which are the minds you are concerned with).

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    Well, eradicating such behavior is a complex process. A large part of it is showing that the community opposes what the bigots are doing - hence the protests against the Watchmen on the Walls (violently anti-homosexual group from Eastern Europe) when they had a meeting in Seattle.

    Or, to give another example, there's a serious problem when Gen. Pace was able to state, under oath in Congress, that he felt that gays could not serve honorably without worrying about his position in the military. In a just society, such a statement of belief should be a career-ender.

    Note that neither of these examples involve legislation. Social problems are unimpressed by legislation. They already "knew" that the government is a PC-conspiracy trying to steal their rights, all you've done is reinforce that belief (at least in their minds, which are the minds you are concerned with).

    Actually, I'm not really concerned with their minds, except so far as they can further spread their noxious ideology. My goal is to isolate their ideology so it can't spread - consider it a memetic firebreak. One of the major parts of this is societal disapproval - making it clear that society at large disapproves of their concept. In part, this can be done through societal action, but when these groups turn violent, then the government should step in and state that not only do we not condone violence, we especially do not condone violence that targets a specific group because of who they are.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    Well, eradicating such behavior is a complex process. A large part of it is showing that the community opposes what the bigots are doing - hence the protests against the Watchmen on the Walls (violently anti-homosexual group from Eastern Europe) when they had a meeting in Seattle.

    Or, to give another example, there's a serious problem when Gen. Pace was able to state, under oath in Congress, that he felt that gays could not serve honorably without worrying about his position in the military. In a just society, such a statement of belief should be a career-ender.

    Note that neither of these examples involve legislation. Social problems are unimpressed by legislation. They already "knew" that the government is a PC-conspiracy trying to steal their rights, all you've done is reinforce that belief (at least in their minds, which are the minds you are concerned with).

    Actually, I'm not really concerned with their minds, except so far as they can further spread their noxious ideology. My goal is to isolate their ideology so it can't spread - consider it a memetic firebreak. One of the major parts of this is societal disapproval - making it clear that society at large disapproves of their concept. In part, this can be done through societal action, but when these groups turn violent, then the government should step in and state that not only do we not condone violence, we especially do not condone violence that targets a specific group because of who they are.

    Is the threat of violence also violence? Meaning, would you define violence only as the act of physical harm or is the looming threat of physical harm (and accompanying potential mental suffering) also an act of violence?

    I can see the rationale in the latter perspective, but I would not agree with it.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    You really think that person will be too stupid to swap out his illegal nooses with perfectly legal alternatives?

    Also, a legal question regarding redundant laws: Say it's illegal to draw threatening pictures, illegal to specifically draw nooses, illegal to write threatening messages, and illegal to draw pictures of violent things which could be construed to intimidate. Let's say I draw a picture of a noose with "Fuck you, Darkies!" written under it on my neighbor's fence. I would now be guilty of violating four laws, and I could be prosecuted for all of them, right?

    If so, I don't think redundancy is exactly a bundle of roses. Nailing someone multiple times for the same act sort of violates the spirit of double jeopardy protections.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Is the threat of violence also violence? Meaning, would you define violence only as the act of physical harm or is the looming threat of physical harm (and accompanying potential mental suffering) also an act of violence?

    I can see the rationale in the latter perspective, but I would not agree with it.

    It is, in that it constrains those threatened. The point of the noose as a racial symbol is that is says that one subset of our population, for a completely irrational reason, are to be second class citizens. Furthermore, it says that any member of that group who would dare to assert their right to participate fully in society is to be quashed by any means necessary.

    It's a concept similar to the heckler's veto, but much more vicious and evil.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    You can't completely stop anti-social behaviour by outlawing it. The only way to completely stop it is to educate people about it. And some people are just too stupid to educate in that way.

    Who said the goal was to eradicate antisocial behaviour? I mean, if I'm Mr Huxtable, and the racist prick across the road keeps hanging up nooses around the street to frighten me and my kids, I might be perfectly happy with the fact that the law stops just one person.

    You really think that person will be too stupid to swap out his illegal nooses with perfectly legal alternatives?

    Also, a legal question regarding redundant laws: Say it's illegal to draw threatening pictures, illegal to specifically draw nooses, illegal to write threatening messages, and illegal to draw pictures of violent things which could be construed to intimidate. Let's say I draw a picture of a noose with "Fuck you, Darkies!" written under it on my neighbor's fence. I would now be guilty of violating four laws, and I could be prosecuted for all of them, right?

    If so, I don't think redundancy is exactly a bundle of roses. Nailing someone multiple times for the same act sort of violates the spirit of double jeopardy protections.

    Um, no.

    There's a reason we treat a person who coldly kills another after planning, a person who kills in the heat of passion, a person who kills through negligence, and a person who kills in self-defense differently. The same thing happens here - the exact specifics of the crime are used to determine what the ultimate penalty should be.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Actually, I'm not really concerned with their minds, except so far as they can further spread their noxious ideology. My goal is to isolate their ideology so it can't spread - consider it a memetic firebreak. One of the major parts of this is societal disapproval - making it clear that society at large disapproves of their concept. In part, this can be done through societal action, but when these groups turn violent, then the government should step in and state that not only do we not condone violence, we especially do not condone violence that targets a specific group because of who they are.

    Assuming that the law proves or is even directly connected to societal disapproval still doesn't make any sense to me and you never bothered to clear that up. The government is not society, it was created by society and is a part of society but "the government" is not synonymous with "society". When the government acts, these people will not read it as "oh, society disapproves", they will read it as "damned government, always trying to keep the people down". The stuff you are describing does not actually happen. There are plenty of things that are banned that society frankly doesn't give two shits about.

    Edit: To clarify, these people think they are the norm, and they think they are society in the same sense that you seem to think the government is society.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007

    There's a reason we treat a person who coldly kills another after planning, a person who kills in the heat of passion, a person who kills through negligence, and a person who kills in self-defense differently. The same thing happens here - the exact specifics of the crime are used to determine what the ultimate penalty should be.

    Yeah, that sort of has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Like, at all.

    It's not about punishing someone for racially motivated crimes more strongly than those for non-racially motivated crimes. It's about punishing someone for a racially motivated crime four times because, in your zeal for redundancy, you made a certain, discrete action illegal in four different ways.

    Which is why, in lieu of a law saying, "Don't draw nooses," I would prefer a law saying, "Don't draw racist shit meant to harass." Because, you know, under the first law, I could presumably draw a tree with a dead black dude dangling from it, and just neglect to draw the actual noose. Is that somehow better?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    There's a reason we treat a person who coldly kills another after planning, a person who kills in the heat of passion, a person who kills through negligence, and a person who kills in self-defense differently. The same thing happens here - the exact specifics of the crime are used to determine what the ultimate penalty should be.

    Yeah, that sort of has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Like, at all.

    It's not about punishing someone for racially motivated crimes more strongly than those for non-racially motivated crimes. It's about punishing someone for a racially motivated crime four times because, in your zeal for redundancy, you made a certain, discrete action illegal in four different ways.

    Which is why, in lieu of a law saying, "Don't draw nooses," I would prefer a law saying, "Don't draw racist shit meant to harass." Because, you know, under the first law, I could presumably draw a tree with a dead black dude dangling from it, and just neglect to draw the actual noose. Is that somehow better?

    You can also draw shit that threatens any other race, or women, or any religion/lack thereof.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    You can also draw shit that threatens any other race, or women, or any religion/lack thereof.

    Yes, this too.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It's not about punishing someone for racially motivated crimes more strongly than those for non-racially motivated crimes. It's about punishing someone for a racially motivated crime four times because, in your zeal for redundancy, you made a certain, discrete action illegal in four different ways.

    The doctrine of duplicity stops that. You cannot be charged with two crimes for the same wrongful act, or else the indictment is invalid. Specificity/redundancy allows prosecutors to bring the one charge that fits the crime best - not bury the accused in hundreds of indictments.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Which is why, in lieu of a law saying, "Don't draw nooses," I would prefer a law saying, "Don't draw racist shit meant to harass." Because, you know, under the first law, I could presumably draw a tree with a dead black dude dangling from it, and just neglect to draw the actual noose. Is that somehow better?

    As I understand it, this law prohibits the racist use of other stuff as well - nooses merely being the thing that people have got all uppity about. No-one wants to defend their right to have a burning cross as a lawn decoration, but nooses... :P

    But in any case, there are varying degrees of harassment laws, ranging from vandalism all the way up to assault by threat. Giving prosecutors more options is not a bad thing.

    Look, the thing is that this law presumably has a very narrow scope - punishing those people who try to intimidate black people in a very specific, hitherto legal way. A narrow scope doesn't make the law ineffective, and it doesn't make it an oppressive tool.

    Punishing wrongdoers for something specific - ie, for "dangerous driving resulting in death" as opposed to straight manslaughter - is not a bad thing. The person cannot be charged for the same wrongful act twice, so the effect is to charge them under a law that better suits their situation. That streamlines the legal system, decreases costs to the taxpayer AND brings greater justice for the accused. It's win-win.

    If laws were solely about eradicating antisocial behaviour in general, we'd have one "crime" with no specific elements that the prosecution has to show. Someone who murders and someone who pockets change from the till would both be on the same footing. That's not justice.

    Prosecutorial discretion is a big part of the justice system - choosing who will be charged with what. What will bring about the best short-term and long-term benefits for the community? What will be most just for the accused and the victim? What will save court time and costs?

    To that end, giving prosecutors more charges to work with is not inherently bad.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    For all of you who have a hard time understanding what hate crime - or more accurately, bias crime laws do, please read this. It will explain exactly how they work, and why they're needed.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I would prefer a source that only tells how they work over one with a specifically stated agenda either way.

    Edit: Maybe one that's an actual source, too. That blog doesn't spend much time at all talking about how the legislation actually works as legislation, opting instead to talk about how it's supposed to work on a societal level without any attempt to demonstrate that it actually does work that way.

    Basically you misrepresented the fuck out of that link.

    Edit 2: But then I have no trouble whatsoever understanding how hate-legislation works, regardless of your link's failure to explain it.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I would prefer a source that only tells how they work over one with a specifically stated agenda either way.

    Edit: Maybe one that's an actual source, too. That blog doesn't spend much time at all talking about how the legislation actually works as legislation, opting instead to talk about how it's supposed to work on a societal level without any attempt to demonstrate that it actually does work that way.

    Basically you misrepresented the fuck out of that link.

    Edit 2: But then I have no trouble whatsoever understanding how hate-legislation works, regardless of your link's failure to explain it.

    Here. This one explains the structure of the WV bias crime law, and how it is applied.

    But the original post explains why all the other arguments against bias crime laws are, to put it simply, bullshit.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    But the original post explains why all the other arguments against bias crime laws are, to put it simply, bullshit.

    No it doesn't. It explains why one blogger thinks he's right. It doesn't do anything at all to prove anything about anything.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Medopine 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...

    I accept that. I don't accept this type of legislation as a reasonable step toward fixing that problem...way too broad.

    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away. It just drives them underground, which is more dangerous.

    /shrug

    I don't see how outlawing hate speech such as burning a cross on a lawn makes the problem more dangerous. The people committing the acts are already underground. It isn't like the people hanging the nooses or burning the crosses attach a note to them saying who put them up.

    The problem is when this is ALL that happens.

    You don't do anything to get rid of the racism itself, just to limit their expression.

    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Evander on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Medopine 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...

    I accept that. I don't accept this type of legislation as a reasonable step toward fixing that problem...way too broad.

    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away. It just drives them underground, which is more dangerous.

    /shrug

    I don't see how outlawing hate speech such as burning a cross on a lawn makes the problem more dangerous. The people committing the acts are already underground. It isn't like the people hanging the nooses or burning the crosses attach a note to them saying who put them up.

    The problem is when this is ALL that happens.

    You don't do anything to get rid of the racism itself, just to limit their expression.

    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Well there are two independent problems: racism and blatant racism. This deals with blatancy. And that is important because threatening someone impinges on their utility. So this really solves that. It doesn't, of course, solve the issue of racism itself and it may drive it deeper within, which is potentially even more dangerous.

    I'm just not sure people necessarily have a right not to have their feelings hurt by one another.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Medopine 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...

    I accept that. I don't accept this type of legislation as a reasonable step toward fixing that problem...way too broad.

    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away. It just drives them underground, which is more dangerous.

    /shrug

    I don't see how outlawing hate speech such as burning a cross on a lawn makes the problem more dangerous. The people committing the acts are already underground. It isn't like the people hanging the nooses or burning the crosses attach a note to them saying who put them up.

    The problem is when this is ALL that happens.

    You don't do anything to get rid of the racism itself, just to limit their expression.

    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Well there are two independent problems: racism and blatant racism. This deals with blatancy. And that is important because threatening someone impinges on their utility. So this really solves that. It doesn't, of course, solve the issue of racism itself and it may drive it deeper within, which is potentially even more dangerous.

    I'm just not sure people necessarily have a right not to have their feelings hurt by one another.

    My personal issue is that, all to often, we stop with the "feel-good legislation", and let the actual issues remain.

    No one should have to live in fear for any reason, especially reasons that are beyond their control, but getting rid of fear should be a secondary concern to getting rid of danger. Let's work to label "actively racist" groups as illegal, and then disband them, and do other things that would help to stop racially motivated violence. Let's STOP focussing all of our energy on nooses UNLESS theye were actually intended for use.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Medopine 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...

    I accept that. I don't accept this type of legislation as a reasonable step toward fixing that problem...way too broad.

    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away. It just drives them underground, which is more dangerous.

    /shrug

    I don't see how outlawing hate speech such as burning a cross on a lawn makes the problem more dangerous. The people committing the acts are already underground. It isn't like the people hanging the nooses or burning the crosses attach a note to them saying who put them up.

    The problem is when this is ALL that happens.

    You don't do anything to get rid of the racism itself, just to limit their expression.

    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Well there are two independent problems: racism and blatant racism. This deals with blatancy. And that is important because threatening someone impinges on their utility. So this really solves that. It doesn't, of course, solve the issue of racism itself and it may drive it deeper within, which is potentially even more dangerous.

    I'm just not sure people necessarily have a right not to have their feelings hurt by one another.

    My personal issue is that, all to often, we stop with the "feel-good legislation", and let the actual issues remain.

    No one should have to live in fear for any reason, especially reasons that are beyond their control, but getting rid of fear should be a secondary concern to getting rid of danger. Let's work to label "actively racist" groups as illegal, and then disband them, and do other things that would help to stop racially motivated violence. Let's STOP focussing all of our energy on nooses UNLESS theye were actually intended for use.

    I'm just not sure I agree that prejudice itself should be illegal. I would call it immoral, certainly, and I'd rather live in a world without it, but I'm not sure it's the law's job to solve "Racism".

    What should be illegal is acts of violence. The why - racism, in some cases - may be important but violence itself is the real problem. I mean, are racists pre-disposed to violence as opposed to non-racists? Or would a violent racist be just as violent if he were not racist, about some other issue perhaps.

    I guess that's a debate in and of itself, though.

    "Racism" should be legislated against insofar as it actively hurts others, and that's about it.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    NaromNarom Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Looks like this shit is still going strong.

    Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?

    Narom on
    <cursive>Narom</cursive>
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Except you're wrong, Evander.

    A large component of those who act in this manner is that they believe that they are acting on the attitudes of the community - that they are "doing what everyone else wants, but don't have the guts to do." Bias crime laws act as a communal disapproval of such conduct - they state plainly that the community does NOT condone such conduct. And in doing so, you're chopping out one of the major supports that these people rely on.

    Thats what you accomplish.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Except you're wrong, Evander.

    A large component of those who act in this manner is that they believe that they are acting on the attitudes of the community - that they are "doing what everyone else wants, but don't have the guts to do." Bias crime laws act as a communal disapproval of such conduct - they state plainly that the community does NOT condone such conduct. And in doing so, you're chopping out one of the major supports that these people rely on.

    Thats what you accomplish.

    You keep pushing this idea and have yet to back it with anything more than a blogger saying the same thing. It's like you refuse to accept the possibility that social mechanisms don't always function the same way in practice as they do in theory. And/or you still fail to see a distinction between the government and society.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Except you're wrong, Evander.

    A large component of those who act in this manner is that they believe that they are acting on the attitudes of the community - that they are "doing what everyone else wants, but don't have the guts to do." Bias crime laws act as a communal disapproval of such conduct - they state plainly that the community does NOT condone such conduct. And in doing so, you're chopping out one of the major supports that these people rely on.

    Thats what you accomplish.

    Define "community" here. It seems that if it were just normal to put up racially-threatening nooses, then the act would seem to actually be condoned by that community. I assume you mean "community" in the broader sense, i.e. New York State? Because really what you're saying is entirely false. This is saying that the GOVERNMENT doesn't condone a certain act perpetuated BY or WITHIN a community. i.e. The community condones the act - because the community is overly racist - but the government does not.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    Looks like this shit is still going strong.

    Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?

    The perpetrators believe, honestly, that the community supports them. That they are doing what the community would do, if they weren't so afraid. This equivocating about the message plays into their beliefs, as it "shows" that the community agrees with them tacitly.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Would the two cases in this article be considered hate crimes?

    Link

    Particularly the 1981 case where the father stabbed his daughter to death for having a sexual relationship with her boyfriend. That would be hatred of impurity? That's not a race or an orientation but the crime was still committed out of bias and could have been tried as a hate crime if it were in America, right?

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    Looks like this shit is still going strong.

    Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?

    The perpetrators believe, honestly, that the community supports them. That they are doing what the community would do, if they weren't so afraid. This equivocating about the message plays into their beliefs, as it "shows" that the community agrees with them tacitly.

    Because they would somehow feel differently if the government cracked down on them? They wouldn't spin some crazy nonsense about how they're being oppressed and that the rest of the community would speak out with them if not for the government trying to scare them? Or are you saying that now that we have the laws, we can't take them away because it'll make it look like the motives behind them were wrong? Are you constructing a "stay the course" argument?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    NaromNarom Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?
    Stopping one form of overt harassment and intimidation? I mean, it shouldn't stop there, but it's still an important thing to do.

    Narom on
    <cursive>Narom</cursive>
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?
    Stopping one form of overt harassment and intimidation? I mean, it shouldn't stop there, but it's still an important thing to do.

    Making something illegal doesn't usually stop people from doing it, it just makes them be more covert about it. We've assigned a legal penalty for one form of overt harassment and intimidation. What we need to do is assign a social penalty. Which this kind of legislation doesn't do.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Except you're wrong, Evander.

    A large component of those who act in this manner is that they believe that they are acting on the attitudes of the community - that they are "doing what everyone else wants, but don't have the guts to do." Bias crime laws act as a communal disapproval of such conduct - they state plainly that the community does NOT condone such conduct. And in doing so, you're chopping out one of the major supports that these people rely on.

    Thats what you accomplish.

    Define "community" here. It seems that if it were just normal to put up racially-threatening nooses, then the act would seem to actually be condoned by that community. I assume you mean "community" in the broader sense, i.e. New York State? Because really what you're saying is entirely false. This is saying that the GOVERNMENT doesn't condone a certain act perpetuated BY or WITHIN a community. i.e. The community condones the act - because the community is overly racist - but the government does not.

    I know you're not this dense.

    A lot of the people who do this shit feel that they're acting on the actual beliefs of the people living in the area - that they're speaking for those who are too "cowed" by being PC to actually state that they believe what these bigots do. And the government is one of the major faces of our community - acting as if it is somethign separate has been a large part in all the problems we have with it.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?

    Except you're wrong, Evander.

    A large component of those who act in this manner is that they believe that they are acting on the attitudes of the community - that they are "doing what everyone else wants, but don't have the guts to do." Bias crime laws act as a communal disapproval of such conduct - they state plainly that the community does NOT condone such conduct. And in doing so, you're chopping out one of the major supports that these people rely on.

    Thats what you accomplish.

    Define "community" here. It seems that if it were just normal to put up racially-threatening nooses, then the act would seem to actually be condoned by that community. I assume you mean "community" in the broader sense, i.e. New York State? Because really what you're saying is entirely false. This is saying that the GOVERNMENT doesn't condone a certain act perpetuated BY or WITHIN a community. i.e. The community condones the act - because the community is overly racist - but the government does not.

    I know you're not this dense.

    A lot of the people who do this shit feel that they're acting on the actual beliefs of the people living in the area - that they're speaking for those who are too "cowed" by being PC to actually state that they believe what these bigots do. And the government is one of the major faces of our community - acting as if it is somethign separate has been a large part in all the problems we have with it.

    Can I ask why you ignore all of VC's posts that indicate you conflate government with society? Because it does seem like you have trouble distinguishing between the two.

    And no, I'm not dense at all. But thanks for asking! Also, please point me to a study that proves your psychological claim about how overt racists think they are acting on behalf of closet racists.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    Looks like this shit is still going strong.

    Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?

    The perpetrators believe, honestly, that the community supports them. That they are doing what the community would do, if they weren't so afraid. This equivocating about the message plays into their beliefs, as it "shows" that the community agrees with them tacitly.

    Because they would somehow feel differently if the government cracked down on them? They wouldn't spin some crazy nonsense about how they're being oppressed and that the rest of the community would speak out with them if not for the government trying to scare them? Or are you saying that now that we have the laws, we can't take them away because it'll make it look like the motives behind them were wrong? Are you constructing a "stay the course" argument?

    No, I'm stating that instead of equivocating about when a noose is or isn't a fucking hate crime, we should all be standing up and saying that these nooses being hung everywhere is fucking WRONG.

    There was a case up here a decade or two ago, where a synagogue was defaced during December. The town responded by having everyone place menorahs in their windows as a sign of solidarity. They didn't have any further problems.

    Finally, saying that government is external to our communities instead of being a vital part of them is a problem for two reasons - one, a lot of the probelms we have with government stem from this, and two, it plays into these fucks' hands by allowing them to depict the government as some sort of shadowy other, not a representative body selected by us.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    NaromNarom Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    So, no nooses hanging around to scare folks, but the racism is still there, just as rampant as ever.

    What exactly have you accomplished?
    Stopping one form of overt harassment and intimidation? I mean, it shouldn't stop there, but it's still an important thing to do.

    Making something illegal doesn't usually stop people from doing it, it just makes them be more covert about it. We've assigned a legal penalty for one form of overt harassment and intimidation. What we need to do is assign a social penalty. Which this kind of legislation doesn't do.
    Obviously there's more we can do outside of just creating punitive laws; however, I don't think that means this kind of legislation is pointless or a bad idea. It's just one important part of attacking racism.

    Edit: You know, criminalizing open threats just seems like a sensible thing to do.

    Narom on
    <cursive>Narom</cursive>
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    No, I'm stating that instead of equivocating about when a noose is or isn't a fucking hate crime, we should all be standing up and saying that these nooses being hung everywhere is fucking WRONG.

    Are we back to "ban nooses regardless of context" or did I misread you?
    There was a case up here a decade or two ago, where a synagogue was defaced during December. The town responded by having everyone place menorahs in their windows as a sign of solidarity. They didn't have any further problems.

    I'm sorry, but what does this even mean? What does "by having everyone place..." mean? They mandated it? Because nobody is ever going to mandate that I put a menorah in my window under any circumstance. Or, if you prefer, a Christmas Tree or some other Christian symbol. Or really any symbol of anything, particularly if it is either aesthetic or at all represented anything.

    I think I need clarification on what this entailed because it sounds very wrong to me. You don't fight a racist act by mandating that people pretend to be accepting, which is what you are failing to comprehend about the other side of this argument. Even if they "had no further problems", it doesn't make the solution either effective or even a good idea. In fact, if I'm reading this right, this sounds like one of the worst ideas fathomable. "Hey, let's stick a menorah in the Jew-haters house...there's no possible way he'll resent it and that resentment will stew in him and possibly explode later, right?" I'd say that they are extremely lucky nothing worse came of that.
    Finally, saying that government is external to our communities instead of being a vital part of them is a problem for two reasons - one, a lot of the probelms we have with government stem from this, and two, it plays into these fucks' hands by allowing them to depict the government as some sort of shadowy other, not a representative body selected by us.

    Government is both external and a vital part of society. It is not equal to society.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    Looks like this shit is still going strong.

    Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?

    The perpetrators believe, honestly, that the community supports them. That they are doing what the community would do, if they weren't so afraid. This equivocating about the message plays into their beliefs, as it "shows" that the community agrees with them tacitly.

    Because they would somehow feel differently if the government cracked down on them? They wouldn't spin some crazy nonsense about how they're being oppressed and that the rest of the community would speak out with them if not for the government trying to scare them? Or are you saying that now that we have the laws, we can't take them away because it'll make it look like the motives behind them were wrong? Are you constructing a "stay the course" argument?

    There was a case up here a decade or two ago, where a synagogue was defaced during December. The town responded by having everyone place menorahs in their windows as a sign of solidarity. They didn't have any further problems.

    You mean they didn't pass a law outlawing defacing synagogues?

    Medopine on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Can I ask why you ignore all of VC's posts that indicate you conflate government with society? Because it does seem like you have trouble distinguishing between the two.

    It couldn't be because, maybe, the two are joined very deeply? Government is not some entity external to society, it is indeed very much a part of it (at least in a democracy, which I have been led to believe I live in.) Society determines the makeup of the government in many differing ways, both direct and indirect, the laws that the government abides by reflect our societal values. To treat the two as disparate is madness.
    Drez wrote: »
    And no, I'm not dense at all. But thanks for asking! Also, please point me to a study that proves your psychological claim about how overt racists think they are acting on behalf of closet racists.

    Please, take some time to read David Neiwert's work on the subject. He's been researching this topic for years, in some of the most intolerant areas in the US. (And yes, VC, this is the same link as before - but if you're going to try debunking the work of a researcher and journalist who has received accolades for his work on the subject and has written several books on the topic, you might want to think up a better debunking than "it's just his opinion.")

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
Sign In or Register to comment.