Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."
Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.
You don't have to "tolerate" racists to support their right to believe what they want. I fully support the right of the KKK to rally and march or whatever it is they did, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their beliefs as rational or at all acceptable in society. If anyone expresses so sufficiently stupid an idea (such as racism, sexism, etc.), the majority of people should not tolerate it, and should instead explain why such ideas are not acceptable. Just because people do not tolerate their beliefs does not mean they have to be denied legal rights for holding those beliefs.
The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?
Why not? Why shouldn't society stigmatize people who advocate blatantly stupid and harmful ideas? There damn well should be a stigma against believing other people to be inferior or otherwise undeserving of equal treatment.
Navoc on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."
Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.
Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.
this statement boggles me. "You could believe anything! Theres no way we can let you vote!" o_O
What would you say racism, not just prejudice, but active racism, usually goes hand in hand with?
I bet all those are bad things, too.
it doesn't matter. you are not the moral authority. your belief that racism is a bad thing does not make it absolutely true, and certainly doesn't mean you can just silence dissidents outright because you think your opinion is more valid.
I'm also against hate crime laws; even though they're well-intentioned they're ridiculous for not setting a good example for equality. So laa-tee-daa.
Hate crimes are there because of intent. If your intent is to hurt somebody or scare somebody simply because they're gay/black/female, it's entirely different from somebody that's harming without regard to those variables.
I'm also against hate crime laws; even though they're well-intentioned they're ridiculous for not setting a good example for equality. So laa-tee-daa.
Most hate crimes are harmful, including verbally attacking another race/gender/religion/nationality. Every human being has a basic right to be kept safe of harm when possible. Maybe you haven't been the target of a hate crime before, but let me tell you that it can be traumatizing and very emotionally and psychologically damaging. So ya, racism and any other belief based around hate should be frowned upon and discouraged. Also, anyone protecting people who actively hurt people is almost as bad. What is wrong with you, man.
That's also true - standards change. I consider my grandparents to be racist even though that's just how they were raised into young adulthood fifty years ago. Who's to say in another fifty years you (or your generation) won't be judged harshly. I'll admit that's flimsy but just watch it when your grandkids are verbally gouging you for watching "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry."
Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."
Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.
Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.
this statement boggles me. "You could believe anything! Theres no way we can let you vote!" o_O
What would you say racism, not just prejudice, but active racism, usually goes hand in hand with?
I bet all those are bad things, too.
it doesn't matter. you are not the moral authority. your belief that racism is a bad thing does not make it absolutely true, and certainly doesn't mean you can just silence dissidents outright because you think your opinion is more valid.
That argument relies on the slippery slope. I can show racism to be harmful to society, specifically our society, so I have every right to judge them for it. I'm not talking about the right to take their voting rights away, I know I can't do that, according to our constitution. Speaking hypothetically, we can avoid silencing justified dissidents if there's a rigorous criteria for removing somebody's right to vote.
Since we can show that racists are not only stupid twats, but are also harmful, yeah, we would be able to legally shut them down without resorting to some sort of totalitarian regime. It'd just be a reasonable one.
I mean, really, wouldn't the whole desegregation thing have gone a lot smoother if racists were never allowed into office?
No one has any right to affect the happiness or well being of people for things over which they had no control (sex, race, disability etc.)
Similarly, we say the same for beliefs and belief structures which don't affect others, or answer purely abstract questions (atheism, agnosticism, buddhism, islam, hunduism etc.) or seek to do so in benign ways.
We do think people have a right to suppress beliefs which otherwise require removal or suppression of the happiness and freedoms of others.
EDIT re: hate crimes
Hate crime laws exist to underscore the motivation for a particular crime. If you mugged someone well yes, you're going to prison. If you mugged them while screaming racial epiphets and yelling "no Mexicans are gonna be safe I'm gunna hunt y'all down" then the question arises as to whether the crime's motivation is wider intimidation, terrorism if you will, rather then material gain.
I'm also against hate crime laws; even though they're well-intentioned they're ridiculous for not setting a good example for equality. So laa-tee-daa.
Hate crimes are there because of intent. If your intent is to hurt somebody or scare somebody simply because they're gay/black/female, it's entirely different from somebody that's harming without regard to those variables.
Why should some one who hurts some one because of race/gender/whatever be punished or classified any differently than some one who did it for some other reason?
Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."
Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.
I remember a funny little interview with Toni Morrison where she attended some kind of political event and all the white politicians were exceedingly nice to her, holding her around the shoulder for photo ops and whisking her away to the other side of the room to talk with more white politicians. All the talk didn't amount to anything, she said. She was convinced they were using her to ward off any hints that they don't give black Americans any serious thought.
The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?
What purpose does racism serve? Does it improve society as a whole somehow? Or does it do the opposite? Given it's corrosive effect on human dignity, I'm guessing that is the reason why racism is (hopefully) declining in popularity.
I'm also against hate crime laws; even though they're well-intentioned they're ridiculous for not setting a good example for equality. So laa-tee-daa.
Hate crimes are there because of intent. If your intent is to hurt somebody or scare somebody simply because they're gay/black/female, it's entirely different from somebody that's harming without regard to those variables.
Why should some one who hurts some one because of race/gender/whatever be punished or classified any differently than some one who did it for some other reason?
Because clearly the purpose of the crime was terrorism of a larger audience. There was something of a different purpose behind the burning cross in the African-American's front yard then arson.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Why should some one who hurts some one because of race/gender/whatever be punished or classified any differently than some one who did it for some other reason?
Intent is taken into account in crimes all the time - that's why we have "degrees" of murder, etc. Because I am a thinking human being capable of appreciating nuance, I am comfortable in my belief that a drunken hobo mugging someone for ten bucks is less reprehensible than a skinhead beating the shit out of a guy for being pakistani.
Why should some one who hurts some one because of race/gender/whatever be punished or classified any differently than some one who did it for some other reason?
Are you arguing someone who continually vandalizes black families' houses has the same impact (on a personal and community level) as someone who randomly vandalizes houses? They both committed the same crime (vandalizing houses), yet did so for very different reasons. I would argue that one has a much different impact, and very clearly sends a message to all black families nearby that they are not safe, and definitely not welcome. This makes the crime very different.
Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."
Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.
I remember a funny little interview with Toni Morrison where she attended some kind of political event and all the white politicians were exceedingly nice to her, holding her around the shoulder for photo ops and whisking her away to the other side of the room to talk with more white politicians. All the talk didn't amount to anything, she said. She was convinced they were using her to ward off any hints that they don't give black Americans any serious thought.
The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?
What purpose does racism serve? Does it improve society as a whole somehow? Or does it do the opposite? Given it's corrosive effect on human dignity, I'm guessing that is the reason why racism is (hopefully) declining in popularity.
Racism doesn't benefit anyone! Racism happens! Many sociologists vary slightly on the definition but they all pretty much agree racism sprouts from ignorance and bias and prejudices. Let's not split hairs - there is still plenty of racism around today but what's here today seems to be a noticeable contrast to the 1950s because the effects of Jim Crowe are still fresh in our minds. Give it another one hundred years and we'll be back to hating some other group. This is going to happen because we're not teaching the younger generation how to deal with race properly. We encourage kids to like everyone and, if they don't like everyone, pretend to like everyone. Don't bring up racial differences candidly. Don't talk about it out loud. Society supports equality so that means we're all the same.
To me, that's not far off from telling the white children, "Stew in your white guilt, kids" and driving a wedge between them and minorities because, really, race relations just isn't something you talk about in school. It should be - we'd have slightly fewer racists and it wouldn't hurt cultural identity either.
emnmnme on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Why should some one who hurts some one because of race/gender/whatever be punished or classified any differently than some one who did it for some other reason?
Intent is taken into account in crimes all the time - that's why we have "degrees" of murder, etc. Because I am a thinking human being capable of appreciating nuance, I am comfortable in my belief that a drunken hobo mugging someone for ten bucks is less reprehensible than a skinhead beating the shit out of a guy for being pakistani.
The court calls these aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Mitigating circumstance = I was trying to feed my kids
Aggravating circumstance = I hate * this race * so I robbed them
Also, I love that racists suddenly find time to be very very concerned about fairness once there's laws targeting their BS.
Yeah, this. The basic contradiction at work in the minds of racists is fucking ridiculous. It's like those Prussian Blue cunts and their mother, talking about how they've been treated unfairly by the law for their "beliefs," but are kindly requesting that all Jews, Muslims, Latinos, and Blacks leave America and return to their own countries.
I believe racism is wrong and disgraceful, but I think that much more disgraceful than racism is those that use it to gain. Such as the fact that assault will be given one level of justice, whilst assault against someone of another race will be heralded as a racial charge and the sentence worse.
Someone hurting someone else for any reason is bad, the reasoning should never impede the judgement.
So you're implying white culture and black culture are the same? Let me go get some popcorn, too.
Yes, exactly. :roll:
Seriously, though, don't let me stop you. You are as free as a beautiful bird and I want to hear the beautiful thoughts that have been heretofore cruelly suppressed by teh evilz PC brigade. Let us have it!
I believe racism is wrong and disgraceful, but I think that much more disgraceful than racism is those that use it to gain. Such as the fact that assault will be given one level of justice, whilst assault against someone of another race will be heralded as a racial charge and the sentence worse.
Assault against someone of another race isn't a hate crime unless their race is the reason for the crime.
INeedNoSalt on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
I believe racism is wrong and disgraceful, but I think that much more disgraceful than racism is those that use it to gain. Such as the fact that assault will be given one level of justice, whilst assault against someone of another race will be heralded as a racial charge and the sentence worse.
Assault against someone of another race isn't a hate crime unless their race is the reason for the crime.
So you're implying white culture and black culture are the same? Let me go get some popcorn, too.
Yes, exactly. :roll:
Seriously, though, don't let me stop you. You are as free as a beautiful bird and I want to hear the beautiful thoughts that have been heretofore cruelly suppressed by teh evilz PC brigade. Let us have it!
Stop or you'll make me blush. :oops:
Wasn't there an episode of South Park that dealt with hate crimes?
Hahaha. This thread is now going downhill fast. How long before we can bring in gender differences? I hear women have, on average, lower upper body strength then men.
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
But there is no way to truly assess a persons reasoning for a crime, and so punishment could be increased or decreased under false pretences.
Hahaha. This thread is now going downhill fast. How long before we can bring in gender differences? I hear women have, on average, lower upper body strength then men.
Why is it that they're just so damn good at cooking and cleaning? :P
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
But there is no way to truly assess a persons reasoning for a crime, and so punishment could be increased or decreased under false pretences.
Err... that's what trials are for. You know, that whole "reasonable doubt" thing?
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
Isn't our court system like that even without hate crime laws? Judge, jury, etc.? You don't want to promote favoritism, right?
emnmnme on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
But there is no way to truly assess a persons reasoning for a crime, and so punishment could be increased or decreased under false pretences.
The court generally does a psychiatric evaluation prior to any real trial, to see whether someone is crazy or not. So the court at least knows whether the person had a reason, or was just bat-shit insane.
Posts
You don't have to "tolerate" racists to support their right to believe what they want. I fully support the right of the KKK to rally and march or whatever it is they did, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their beliefs as rational or at all acceptable in society. If anyone expresses so sufficiently stupid an idea (such as racism, sexism, etc.), the majority of people should not tolerate it, and should instead explain why such ideas are not acceptable. Just because people do not tolerate their beliefs does not mean they have to be denied legal rights for holding those beliefs.
Why not? Why shouldn't society stigmatize people who advocate blatantly stupid and harmful ideas? There damn well should be a stigma against believing other people to be inferior or otherwise undeserving of equal treatment.
it doesn't matter. you are not the moral authority. your belief that racism is a bad thing does not make it absolutely true, and certainly doesn't mean you can just silence dissidents outright because you think your opinion is more valid.
Hate crimes are there because of intent. If your intent is to hurt somebody or scare somebody simply because they're gay/black/female, it's entirely different from somebody that's harming without regard to those variables.
Most hate crimes are harmful, including verbally attacking another race/gender/religion/nationality. Every human being has a basic right to be kept safe of harm when possible. Maybe you haven't been the target of a hate crime before, but let me tell you that it can be traumatizing and very emotionally and psychologically damaging. So ya, racism and any other belief based around hate should be frowned upon and discouraged. Also, anyone protecting people who actively hurt people is almost as bad. What is wrong with you, man.
That argument relies on the slippery slope. I can show racism to be harmful to society, specifically our society, so I have every right to judge them for it. I'm not talking about the right to take their voting rights away, I know I can't do that, according to our constitution. Speaking hypothetically, we can avoid silencing justified dissidents if there's a rigorous criteria for removing somebody's right to vote.
Since we can show that racists are not only stupid twats, but are also harmful, yeah, we would be able to legally shut them down without resorting to some sort of totalitarian regime. It'd just be a reasonable one.
I mean, really, wouldn't the whole desegregation thing have gone a lot smoother if racists were never allowed into office?
Similarly, we say the same for beliefs and belief structures which don't affect others, or answer purely abstract questions (atheism, agnosticism, buddhism, islam, hunduism etc.) or seek to do so in benign ways.
We do think people have a right to suppress beliefs which otherwise require removal or suppression of the happiness and freedoms of others.
EDIT re: hate crimes
Hate crime laws exist to underscore the motivation for a particular crime. If you mugged someone well yes, you're going to prison. If you mugged them while screaming racial epiphets and yelling "no Mexicans are gonna be safe I'm gunna hunt y'all down" then the question arises as to whether the crime's motivation is wider intimidation, terrorism if you will, rather then material gain.
Why should some one who hurts some one because of race/gender/whatever be punished or classified any differently than some one who did it for some other reason?
What purpose does racism serve? Does it improve society as a whole somehow? Or does it do the opposite? Given it's corrosive effect on human dignity, I'm guessing that is the reason why racism is (hopefully) declining in popularity.
Because clearly the purpose of the crime was terrorism of a larger audience. There was something of a different purpose behind the burning cross in the African-American's front yard then arson.
Intent is taken into account in crimes all the time - that's why we have "degrees" of murder, etc. Because I am a thinking human being capable of appreciating nuance, I am comfortable in my belief that a drunken hobo mugging someone for ten bucks is less reprehensible than a skinhead beating the shit out of a guy for being pakistani.
Are you arguing someone who continually vandalizes black families' houses has the same impact (on a personal and community level) as someone who randomly vandalizes houses? They both committed the same crime (vandalizing houses), yet did so for very different reasons. I would argue that one has a much different impact, and very clearly sends a message to all black families nearby that they are not safe, and definitely not welcome. This makes the crime very different.
Racism doesn't benefit anyone! Racism happens! Many sociologists vary slightly on the definition but they all pretty much agree racism sprouts from ignorance and bias and prejudices. Let's not split hairs - there is still plenty of racism around today but what's here today seems to be a noticeable contrast to the 1950s because the effects of Jim Crowe are still fresh in our minds. Give it another one hundred years and we'll be back to hating some other group. This is going to happen because we're not teaching the younger generation how to deal with race properly. We encourage kids to like everyone and, if they don't like everyone, pretend to like everyone. Don't bring up racial differences candidly. Don't talk about it out loud. Society supports equality so that means we're all the same.
To me, that's not far off from telling the white children, "Stew in your white guilt, kids" and driving a wedge between them and minorities because, really, race relations just isn't something you talk about in school. It should be - we'd have slightly fewer racists and it wouldn't hurt cultural identity either.
Please, guy, start speaking candidly about 'racial differences.' I can't wait to hear this. Gimme a minute to start popping some corn.
Mitigating circumstance = I was trying to feed my kids
Aggravating circumstance = I hate * this race * so I robbed them
So you're implying white culture and black culture are the same? Let me go get some popcorn, too.
Yeah, this. The basic contradiction at work in the minds of racists is fucking ridiculous. It's like those Prussian Blue cunts and their mother, talking about how they've been treated unfairly by the law for their "beliefs," but are kindly requesting that all Jews, Muslims, Latinos, and Blacks leave America and return to their own countries.
I really do want them to die in a fire.
He means you're going to say something stereotypical or ignorant.
Oh wait....
Someone hurting someone else for any reason is bad, the reasoning should never impede the judgement.
Because I've never ever seen a white kid with big ass, oversized pants, silver chains around his neck, and an oversized FUBU t-shirt.
Fucking ever.
The thousand year old tradition of American and UK jurisprudence begs to differ.
Waiting for me to start stereotyping? That's as bad as sharks circling a bloody ... something.
Yes, exactly. :roll:
Seriously, though, don't let me stop you. You are as free as a beautiful bird and I want to hear the beautiful thoughts that have been heretofore cruelly suppressed by teh evilz PC brigade. Let us have it!
And i'm not allowed to have a different opinion?
Are you of the opinion that the law is right and fair on every matter? Whilst also being unbiased and always justified?
I'd say that the older the jurisprudence probably the more in need it is of an update.
Assault against someone of another race isn't a hate crime unless their race is the reason for the crime.
I don't see the magical awesomeness of having justice dispensed as if from a machine. Life is complicated and messy and sorting through it requires a system that has more nuance than "one size fits all."
Thanks for that, I wouldn't have known otherwise.
Stop or you'll make me blush. :oops:
Wasn't there an episode of South Park that dealt with hate crimes?
But there is no way to truly assess a persons reasoning for a crime, and so punishment could be increased or decreased under false pretences.
Why is it that they're just so damn good at cooking and cleaning? :P
Err... that's what trials are for. You know, that whole "reasonable doubt" thing?
Isn't our court system like that even without hate crime laws? Judge, jury, etc.? You don't want to promote favoritism, right?
I'm sorry, but we still haven't built the all-seeing all-knowing machine of perfect judgment.
And shockingly enough, we often can assess a person's motives for a crime. Sometimes they even tell us!
Tolerance is not an inherently virtuous position. It's oversold as a virtue.