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.
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.")
That is a blog site. By definition, blog posts are editorials. And editorials are not appropriate "proof" of anything scientific, ever. And it is just one source. I would never accept any single source on any matter.
Surely you have more sources including those that are not blog sites, yes?
I'm not saying this person is either wrong or unintelligent, but it is not a good source to bring into this debate. I'm not even saying that HE isn't an appropriate source. He may very well be, I don't know. But that site is not.
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.
Agreed, but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with hate-legislation.
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.
You live in the "It's a Small World" ride at Disneyworld, don't you? I mean other than that I can't come up with any way you could possibly think that just pretending that the government only ever acts in the best interest of the people (not even "only ever intends to act", just "only ever acts") is going to make it so. Either that or you're the typical liberal who expects the government to take care of all society's problems so that society at large doesn't have to do anything for itself. I mean come on, do you honestly think that everything the government does is because it's what's best for society? Do you really not believe that politicians are professionals doing a job just like everyone else and as such prone to cutting corners and fudging facts to advance themselves just like most of humanity is prone to doing?
You might as well start arguing that Nader was a prick for crusading against the Corvair because producers like General Motors are vital part of our communities and clearly would only ever act in the best interests of the community as a whole even if it comes at great expense to themselves individually.
I'm reading a lot of stuff on the blag-o-sphere today about how if you use a noose in any way, it's racist, regardless of intent. It's pretty confusing stuff. What if I hang myself?
I'm reading a lot of stuff on the blag-o-sphere today about how if you use a noose in any way, it's racist, regardless of intent. It's pretty confusing stuff. What if I hang myself?
Obviously you were martyring yourself for the cause of hating black people.
I'm reading a lot of stuff on the blag-o-sphere today about how if you use a noose in any way, it's racist, regardless of intent. It's pretty confusing stuff. What if I hang myself?
Obviously you were martyring yourself for the cause of hating black people.
I just laughed water all over my work clothes, thanks, ya big jerk.
Seriously, a noose being racist is obviously a matter of context. Is it being used as part of the gallows in a western movie? Not racist. Did you tie one to your tree and hang a skeleton in it for halloween? Not racist. Outside of stuff like that though, there's very few non-racist reasons to have a noose hanging about.
Edit: You know, criminalizing open threats just seems like a sensible thing to do.
Indeed. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Also they're already illegal.
O_o It has everything to do with what we're talking about! That's what these incidences with the noose hangings are--they're open threats against black people.
I'm reading a lot of stuff on the blag-o-sphere today about how if you use a noose in any way, it's racist, regardless of intent. It's pretty confusing stuff. What if I hang myself?
Obviously you were martyring yourself for the cause of hating black people.
Edit: You know, criminalizing open threats just seems like a sensible thing to do.
Indeed. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Also they're already illegal.
O_o It has everything to do with what we're talking about! That's what these incidences with the noose hangings are--they're open threats against black people.
The discussion at hand isn't about criminalizing open threats. Open threats are already illegal. The discussion at hand is about making using a noose as an open threat against black people a greater offense than simply making an open threat. Semantic distinction? Yes, welcome to legal discourse.
For fuck's sake people, murder is not illegal because it's part of a grand scheme to make humanity better, nicer and more neighbourly. It's illegal because it causes direct harm to individuals and society.
Similarly, laws banning the threatening use of nooses were not created to turn America into a loving happy family. They are there to stop actual, identifiable, individuals from being harassed and threatened. The law is under no obligation to make people better - to cure them of their prejudices and evil thoughts - it exists to protect. So who gives a fuck if anti-noose harassment laws are useless for winning hearts and minds? They allow people to live their lives in the meantime.
On a related note, a law that regulates how companies may dispose of waste run-off is not somehow magically against the spirit of the justice system if it just so happens that there's only one waste-creating factory in the state. Rape laws are not invalid because it is, practically speaking, only men who may be charged under them.
Laws regulate conduct, and so long as the law is validly constituted and enforced, the fact that there are only a limited number of people who are capable of doing the wrongful act in question is irrelevant.
Edit: You know, criminalizing open threats just seems like a sensible thing to do.
Indeed. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Also they're already illegal.
O_o It has everything to do with what we're talking about! That's what these incidences with the noose hangings are--they're open threats against black people.
The discussion at hand isn't about criminalizing open threats. Open threats are already illegal. The discussion at hand is about making using a noose as an open threat against black people a greater offense than simply making an open threat. Semantic distinction? Yes, welcome to legal discourse.
I was under the impression that that conversation had already taken place in another thread about hate crime laws, and that a clear case had been made for them.
For fuck's sake people, murder is not illegal because it's part of a grand scheme to make humanity better, nicer and more neighbourly. It's illegal because it causes direct harm to individuals and society.
Similarly, laws banning the threatening use of nooses were not created to turn America into a loving happy family. They are there to stop actual, identifiable, individuals from being harassed and threatened. The law is under no obligation to make people better - to cure them of their prejudices and evil thoughts - it exists to protect. So who gives a fuck if anti-noose harassment laws are useless for winning hearts and minds? They allow people to live their lives in the meantime.
See, I don't think they do, and you haven't shown that they do. No one has even attempted to provide any sort of evidenciary basis for this claim. They just repeat the same line over and over about how this sort of thing is supposed to work in theory (though always phrased as if it were a statement of empirical fact), with no mention of what happens in practice (except a link to an article that talks about how apparently nooses have suddenly become far more popular and prominent in NYC since the announcement of the legislation).
Maybe I just have to interact with more closet-sexist/racist white-dudes than a lot of you, but I've seen nothing to indicate that legislation targetted at stopping discrimination does anything to help people who are discriminated against, in fact from what I've seen all it seems to do is encourage previously neutral white-dudes to announce that they're being oppressed and start raging about how "all this PC bullshit" is taking away the jobs that they "deserve" and lots of references to 1984 as if it were at all an appropriate comparisson (it's not, but try telling that to them). I'm not saying I expect the legislation to make racism go away, you guys are the only ones saying I'm saying that, I'm saying it shouldn't make the problem worse. I'm saying is that the solution is education rather than legislation. Sure, stiffen the penalties for open threats and arrange a way for threats against whole groups to carry a stiffer penalty than threats against an individual. But as soon as you bring race into it people start holding the legislation against the race(s) it's intended to protect.
People who previously would never have thought to hang a noose anywhere will start going out and hanging them up in protest (oh look, exactly what they've done!) and voicing resentment against black people for how they used political-correctness to wrap the government around their fingers, an assertion that obviously doesn't make any sense at all but that's to be expected of emotional rather than rational responses.
I was under the impression that that conversation had already taken place in another thread about hate crime laws, and that a clear case had been made for them.
Only because I stayed out of that thread, because it wasn't worth being accused of being a racist to argue ineffectually about what I see as counterproductive legislation on the internet.
For fuck's sake people, murder is not illegal because it's part of a grand scheme to make humanity better, nicer and more neighbourly. It's illegal because it causes direct harm to individuals and society.
Similarly, laws banning the threatening use of nooses were not created to turn America into a loving happy family. They are there to stop actual, identifiable, individuals from being harassed and threatened. The law is under no obligation to make people better - to cure them of their prejudices and evil thoughts - it exists to protect. So who gives a fuck if anti-noose harassment laws are useless for winning hearts and minds? They allow people to live their lives in the meantime.
See, I don't think they do, and you haven't shown that they do. No one has even attempted to provide any sort of evidenciary basis for this claim. They just repeat the same line over and over about how this sort of thing is supposed to work in theory (though always phrased as if it were a statement of empirical fact), with no mention of what happens in practice (except a link to an article that talks about how apparently nooses have suddenly become far more popular and prominent in NYC since the announcement of the legislation).
Maybe I just have to interact with more closet-sexist/racist white-dudes than a lot of you, but I've seen nothing to indicate that legislation targetted at stopping discrimination does anything to help people who are discriminated against, in fact from what I've seen all it seems to do is encourage previously neutral white-dudes to announce that they're being oppressed and start raging about how "all this PC bullshit" is taking away the jobs that they "deserve" and lots of references to 1984 as if it were at all an appropriate comparisson (it's not, but try telling that to them). I'm not saying I expect the legislation to make racism go away, you guys are the only ones saying I'm saying that, I'm saying it shouldn't make the problem worse.
I'm saying is that the solution is education rather than legislation. Sure, stiffen the penalties for open threats and arrange a way for threats against whole groups to carry a stiffer penalty than threats against an individual. But as soon as you bring race into it people start holding the legislation against the race(s) it's intended to protect.
People who previously would never have thought to hang a noose anywhere will start going out and hanging them up in protest (oh look, exactly what they've done!) and voicing resentment against black people for how they used political-correctness to wrap the government around their fingers, an assertion that obviously doesn't make any sense at all but that's to be expected of emotional rather than rational responses.
All good points, but none of that goes to the validity of the law itself. I was arguing against those people who are yelling "1984" - which, as you say, may be pointless.
As for your opinion on the reasoning behind the law - I completely agree that education is the key, but education doesn't work without integration, and there cannot be integration if black people don't want to live in the neighbourhood because whites are hanging nooses up to scare them off.
Social change is a balance between making a statement that certain types of behaviour are socially unacceptable, and educating.
The former makes life better for the people living in the here and now (regardless of whether you believe there will be community backlash, there is no doubt that this legislation criminalizes a type of behaviour and sends a message that it is unacceptable), and the latter makes life better for them in the future. We cannot sacrifice the people living in today in the hope that tomorrow will be better. The state has an obligation to protect society's most vulnerable in the day-to-day as well as in the grand sweep.
Posts
That is a blog site. By definition, blog posts are editorials. And editorials are not appropriate "proof" of anything scientific, ever. And it is just one source. I would never accept any single source on any matter.
Surely you have more sources including those that are not blog sites, yes?
I'm not saying this person is either wrong or unintelligent, but it is not a good source to bring into this debate. I'm not even saying that HE isn't an appropriate source. He may very well be, I don't know. But that site is not.
I think Clint has been hanged more than any other actor. I wonder what his thoughts are on all of this.
SS13 Rules Post
Indeed. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Also they're already illegal.
Agreed, but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with hate-legislation.
Which supports my point beautifully.
You live in the "It's a Small World" ride at Disneyworld, don't you? I mean other than that I can't come up with any way you could possibly think that just pretending that the government only ever acts in the best interest of the people (not even "only ever intends to act", just "only ever acts") is going to make it so. Either that or you're the typical liberal who expects the government to take care of all society's problems so that society at large doesn't have to do anything for itself. I mean come on, do you honestly think that everything the government does is because it's what's best for society? Do you really not believe that politicians are professionals doing a job just like everyone else and as such prone to cutting corners and fudging facts to advance themselves just like most of humanity is prone to doing?
You might as well start arguing that Nader was a prick for crusading against the Corvair because producers like General Motors are vital part of our communities and clearly would only ever act in the best interests of the community as a whole even if it comes at great expense to themselves individually.
Obviously you were martyring yourself for the cause of hating black people.
I just laughed water all over my work clothes, thanks, ya big jerk.
Seriously, a noose being racist is obviously a matter of context. Is it being used as part of the gallows in a western movie? Not racist. Did you tie one to your tree and hang a skeleton in it for halloween? Not racist. Outside of stuff like that though, there's very few non-racist reasons to have a noose hanging about.
Unless he happens to be black.
SS13 Rules Post
The discussion at hand isn't about criminalizing open threats. Open threats are already illegal. The discussion at hand is about making using a noose as an open threat against black people a greater offense than simply making an open threat. Semantic distinction? Yes, welcome to legal discourse.
Similarly, laws banning the threatening use of nooses were not created to turn America into a loving happy family. They are there to stop actual, identifiable, individuals from being harassed and threatened. The law is under no obligation to make people better - to cure them of their prejudices and evil thoughts - it exists to protect. So who gives a fuck if anti-noose harassment laws are useless for winning hearts and minds? They allow people to live their lives in the meantime.
On a related note, a law that regulates how companies may dispose of waste run-off is not somehow magically against the spirit of the justice system if it just so happens that there's only one waste-creating factory in the state. Rape laws are not invalid because it is, practically speaking, only men who may be charged under them.
Laws regulate conduct, and so long as the law is validly constituted and enforced, the fact that there are only a limited number of people who are capable of doing the wrongful act in question is irrelevant.
See, I don't think they do, and you haven't shown that they do. No one has even attempted to provide any sort of evidenciary basis for this claim. They just repeat the same line over and over about how this sort of thing is supposed to work in theory (though always phrased as if it were a statement of empirical fact), with no mention of what happens in practice (except a link to an article that talks about how apparently nooses have suddenly become far more popular and prominent in NYC since the announcement of the legislation).
Maybe I just have to interact with more closet-sexist/racist white-dudes than a lot of you, but I've seen nothing to indicate that legislation targetted at stopping discrimination does anything to help people who are discriminated against, in fact from what I've seen all it seems to do is encourage previously neutral white-dudes to announce that they're being oppressed and start raging about how "all this PC bullshit" is taking away the jobs that they "deserve" and lots of references to 1984 as if it were at all an appropriate comparisson (it's not, but try telling that to them). I'm not saying I expect the legislation to make racism go away, you guys are the only ones saying I'm saying that, I'm saying it shouldn't make the problem worse. I'm saying is that the solution is education rather than legislation. Sure, stiffen the penalties for open threats and arrange a way for threats against whole groups to carry a stiffer penalty than threats against an individual. But as soon as you bring race into it people start holding the legislation against the race(s) it's intended to protect.
People who previously would never have thought to hang a noose anywhere will start going out and hanging them up in protest (oh look, exactly what they've done!) and voicing resentment against black people for how they used political-correctness to wrap the government around their fingers, an assertion that obviously doesn't make any sense at all but that's to be expected of emotional rather than rational responses.
Only because I stayed out of that thread, because it wasn't worth being accused of being a racist to argue ineffectually about what I see as counterproductive legislation on the internet.
All good points, but none of that goes to the validity of the law itself. I was arguing against those people who are yelling "1984" - which, as you say, may be pointless.
As for your opinion on the reasoning behind the law - I completely agree that education is the key, but education doesn't work without integration, and there cannot be integration if black people don't want to live in the neighbourhood because whites are hanging nooses up to scare them off.
Social change is a balance between making a statement that certain types of behaviour are socially unacceptable, and educating.
The former makes life better for the people living in the here and now (regardless of whether you believe there will be community backlash, there is no doubt that this legislation criminalizes a type of behaviour and sends a message that it is unacceptable), and the latter makes life better for them in the future. We cannot sacrifice the people living in today in the hope that tomorrow will be better. The state has an obligation to protect society's most vulnerable in the day-to-day as well as in the grand sweep.