![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Q: What do you do when you and two of your buddies, in a drunken haze, beat another acquaintance to death over a period of 24 hours or so, wrap his naked body in a tarpaulin and hide it in his garage, then get turned in to the police ten days later by a third friend to whom you boasted of the murder (and to whom you emailed camera-phone photos, at work, during the process)?
[1] He wasn't.
no subject
Isn't that an aggravating circumstance in most HC locales? I do believe that it is! You're discriminating against me because of my (presumed) race and sexual orientation!
Why wouldn't I understand about hate crimes because I'm presumed to be straight and white?
Ok, so straight whites aren't allowed the Victim Card.
Who else? Please be inclusive and exact.
That's why this is thoughtcrime - and Orwellian - because the crimes and the victims are only defined afterward.
Your 2 examples aren't the same. It's a lousy pair of "examples" to try and show me my fallacy.
1) I wake up, and there's "KISS RULES! STYX SUCKS!" on my garage, I don't worry overmuch. It's against the law. Just not a very serious offense.
2) I wake up, and there's "DIE [anything]" on my garage, that's a threat. (And it's a much more serious crime against the law than mere graffitti).
What you're saying is that if the artists use ... certain - undefined! words - the court must ascertain that the artists were trying to scare a "protected" group - meaning that if say, the local gang spray paints "DIE SNITCH" on my garage, that it's really not as bad as if they said "DIE FAGGOT SNITCH".
It removes the crime from a mostly-factual finding "The defendant did/did not paint on property not his own" to a contextual issue of what the defendant meant to do - and only if it's against a certain subset.
no subject
Again:
Hate crimes are not targeted at one person, they are targeted at a group of people. Generally speaking, at a group of people who are gistorically victimized--women, people of colour, queers.
And, sorry, straight white males in North American society don't tend to be victimized in the same ways that women, people of colour, and queers do. Do you really think that gaybashing is only about someone beating someone else up? Do you really think that lynchings are only about killing one person? Of course not. They are actions designed to cause terror in a certain segment of the population.
Laws tend to recognize the difference between crimes which have a limited effect versus those which affect the community at large. That is what hate crime legislation addresses.
However, I'm quite certain that you'll just continue to be snarky and refuse to understand that despite vaunted claims to the contrary, all people are not treated equally, and that yes, extra protection is needed for some. I am done with you.
no subject
Then how does this "neatly encapsulate proof" that more laws are needed?
This crime wasn't about terror, it wasn't about a group of people, this particular case is totally at odds with your argument.. The murder wasn't (alleged) to be committed to be designed to cause terror - he victim was killed in private and the crime covered up.
That is what hate crime legislation addresses.
Which as flawed as it is (and the Orwellian issues it raises and you have been ignoring), is mooted by the fact that this case is the opposite of what you're claiming now.
It's a (hopefully flawed and useless) attempt at rationalization. But it invoked a knee-jerk reaction in you - which demonstrates more about you than I, I'm afraid.
all people are not treated equally, and that yes, extra protection is needed for some. I am done with you.
Ah, yes, invoking Orwell is absurd.
But some animals are more equal than others.
Right. My mistake.
no subject
That is not what I said, you intellectually dishonest fuck.
no subject
Extra protection is needed for some.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Well, if you're going to insist those two aren't very analogous, I belive you'll have to explain it to me. They certainly seem to be, well, identical to me.
That is not what I said, you intellectually dishonest fuck.
Thank you. This demonstrates exactly my problem with "Hate Crimes Laws".
You've dismissed my arguments solely because of your presumption of what "group(s)" I belong to. You've ignored that this case is in direct, diametric opposition to what you're now arguing.
Now you get (very) angry, and project "intellectual dishonesty" onto me - because I had the audacity to point out that your argument fails this case. (And I'm from a to-be-ignored class.)
Who's guilty of intellectual dishonesty here? Who's guilty of hating someone because of their class?
I don't know your class, I don't care. The fact that you have to presume classes (very incorrectly) for the people you disagree with, in order to dismiss their points demonstrates exactly my concern about how "Hate Crimes Law" is used.
You ignored all of that in order to slander and insult, only because of your bigotry. If you've got a irony meter, it ought to be pegged.
So, under your rationalization, you lose even more because you're hating me while being wrong!
no subject
I'll try and use small words--maybe that way you will understand. I'm not very hopeful, but I suppose it's a good deed to at least try to educate those who are regressive in their thinking.
Some groups are deserving of more protection is not 'some are more equal than others'; it is an attempt to address the fact that some groups are easier to victimize than others, and are frequently victimized for that reason amongst others.
Children? Unable to protect themselves, ergo deserving of more protection.
People of colour? Historically in North America (particularly the USA) had no recourse for protection, as even attempts at self-defence would be met with even more severe violence.
Queers? See above.
Women? See above.
Extra protection brings victimized groups up to the same level.
You are one disgusting person, you know that? I projected nothing on to you. You took what I said and twisted it to fit your preconceptions. That is intellectual dishonesty, you turd.
no subject
I dislike you ebcause you are an intellectually dishonest fool who can't even argue his own laughable position without resorting to twisting what I have said.
I pity you because you are brainwashed by the peculiarly American 'git yer hands off me' attitude. As I said to the other person in this thread, I suspect you're a Libertarian. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fucks other ducks to make little baby ducks, and is often found swimming on ponds, it's probably a fucking duck.
I feel sorry for you because you are so privileged that you are completely unable to comprehend that some of us are not.
But hate you? No.