Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

State: Well, at least it wasn't because you had a problem with his race. We'll go easier on you than we would in that situation. 20 years with possibility of parole after 7 years.

---

Hate crime laws don't give anyone a break for 'hateless' crimes. They don't designate your crime as the worst ever because it was hatey. They address one particularly toxic element of the crime. There's plenty of precedent for harsher sentencing of remorseless sociopaths, too. Hate crimes tend to outnumber thrill kills, though, and there's not much precedent for thrill kills systematically getting a pass or a slap on the wrist. Indiscriminate attacks don't elevate tensions between populations in a community, or reinforce the perception that certain populations are more vulnerable and unlikely to be served by the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Indiscriminate attacks don't elevate tensions between populations in a community, or reinforce the perception that certain populations are more vulnerable and unlikely to be served by the law.

---

I'm not done with this thread and I am processing this stuff in my head right now. However I really want to respond to this idea.

A far more effective way to deal with the perception that certain populations are more vulnerable or unlikely to be served by the law is to make sure that that's not the case. If a black or gay person gets murdered, treat it like any other murder.

Deal with all crimes based on the crime rather than on the victim and perpetrator and there will be no room for perceptions of favoritism. It seems as if the hate crime legislation is attempting to use feel-good laws that are subject to at best subjective and circumstantial criteria to circumvent the need to take a serious look at race relations, including historical context, as they actually play out in our country. It's ugly stuff and I understand that most people don't want to look at it but I see no other way to deal with this in a holistic and viable manner.

Hate-crime legislation is, generously, a stop-gap measure and, as such, I still feel that I have to reject it out of hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hate crime laws don't give anyone a break for 'hateless' crimes. They don't designate your crime as the worst ever because it was hatey. They address one particularly toxic element of the crime. There's plenty of precedent for harsher sentencing of remorseless sociopaths, too. Hate crimes tend to outnumber thrill kills, though, and there's not much precedent for thrill kills systematically getting a pass or a slap on the wrist. Indiscriminate attacks don't elevate tensions between populations in a community, or reinforce the perception that certain populations are more vulnerable and unlikely to be served by the law.

---

It's not that they give a break for hateless crimes. It's that they give harsher penalties for "hate" crimes. As I said, the symbolism of the label "hate crime" doesn't fix the problems you are mentioning. Meanwhile, other types of violence are done for even worse reasons. That makes them even more evil. Still, though, the law should treat them equally. They are all "not give a fuck about other people" crimes.

To whatever extent a minority feels a reaching out by the symbolism of "hate crime" laws, a stupid redneck gets pissed. It is stuff like that which contributes to racism in the first place. It gives the appearance that minorities get special treatment. The more equally racial groups are treated, the less racism there will be. Fortunately, racism seems to be dying out, like Christianity. Maybe that's no coincidence.

Quote:

---

They don't designate your crime as the worst ever because it was hatey. They address one particularly toxic element of the crime.

---

Am I the only one that laughed at this?

Nope. Taosaur has a way with words. He's an excellent writer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Nope. Taosaur has a way with words. He's an excellent writer.

---

You laughed at what he said? I don't think he was trying to be funny.

I laughed at the use of the word 'hatey'. I love fabricated words.

As far as the quote in question goes, all I can say is 'meh'. I don't think it's a laughable point. It's just besides the point.

oh it's laughable to me. the very mention of 'hate crime' brings a single bead of tinkle to my pecker head. it's that funny

This is funny...

Hating Hate Crime Laws - YouTube

Chris Rock Show -Hate Crimes - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You laughed at what he said? I don't think he was trying to be funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I laughed at the use of the word 'hatey'. I love fabricated words.

As far as the quote in question goes, all I can say is 'meh'. I don't think it's a laughable point. It's just besides the point.

---

I did use a lighter tone in response to an argument I find silly: that hate crimes somehow normalize or excuse non-hate crimes. Another argument I find silly is, "It doesn't do everything, so we should do nothing." Obviously, hate crime laws--or "protected class" laws in general--don't solve institutional bias against the classes they protect. What they do is counter it to some extent, which is more than you accomplish by telling judges and juries, "Don't exercise the bias that you won't acknowledge you have."

Why don't we just prosecute the crimes and ignore race? When we can do that consistently, hate crime laws will cease to be invoked even if they stay on the books. If you want to make the case the hate crimes are being invoked inappropriately, go ahead, but in general prosecutors are as lazy as anyone; they'll make the charges they think will stick, and leave out whatever will be a pain in the ass to prove, even if they think it applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

To whatever extent a minority feels a reaching out by the symbolism of "hate crime" laws, a stupid redneck gets pissed.

---

People in the dominant / normative culture who resent these laws are the reason these laws need to exist. White privilege is a thing. It's a pervasive and powerful thing. If some white people suck hard enough to cancel it out, that's not Al Sharpton's fault. As I said before, a lot of people have a vested interest in ignoring white privilege, and only acknowledge racism that involves someone shouting epithets.

You had me going. Good show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I did use a lighter tone in response to an argument I find silly: that hate crimes somehow normalize or excuse non-hate crimes. Another argument I find silly is, "It doesn't do everything, so we should do nothing." Obviously, hate crime laws--or "protected class" laws in general--don't solve institutional bias against the classes they protect. What they do is counter it to some extent, which is more than you accomplish by telling judges and juries, "Don't exercise the bias that you won't acknowledge you have."

Why don't we just prosecute the crimes and ignore race? When we can do that consistently, hate crime laws will cease to be invoked even if they stay on the books. If you want to make the case the hate crimes are being invoked inappropriately, go ahead, but in general prosecutors are as lazy as anyone; they'll make the charges they think will stick, and leave out whatever will be a pain in the ass to prove, even if they think it applies.

People in the dominant / normative culture who resent these laws are the reason these laws need to exist. White privilege is a thing. It's a pervasive and powerful thing. If some white people suck hard enough to cancel it out, that's not Al Sharpton's fault. As I said before, a lot of people have a vested interest in ignoring white privilege, and only acknowledge racism that involves someone shouting epithets.

---

Who said hate crimes excuse or normalize non-hate crimes?

I am not arguing that those laws don't do everything and therefore do nothing. I am arguing that they have a reverse effect. The laws we are discussing seem racist to lots of people, including prosecutors and judges. Not just a few of them. Throwing in the hate crime element will makes them tend to care less about the overall cases, which makes them more likely to not take the real crime involved seriously. I am not saying hate crime laws "normalize or excuse" other crimes. I am saying they exacerbate racism and induce apathy. We do need to take measures to make sure cases are prosecuted fairly, but throwing in an added thought crime element is both unjust and counterproductive.

Also, you keep talking about white racism exclusively. It is not the only type of racism. Jackson, Mississippi is 70% black, and black against white racism and discrimination are very prevalent, as are other types. The movies about my city and state are all about white racism against blacks, but I assure that in 2012 it is not the only type of racism that exists here. We have black cops, prosecutors, judges, and a mayor who despise white people, and they have a sense of power in a racial majority. (Note: Not all of the black officials I mentioned are racist. Most are not. Racist whites still have many positions of power here too.) So the problems you have brought up are not exclusive to white against black. So, do you think hate crime laws should apply to all people equally, or just to people of certain racial divisions?

Did you see the South Park video I posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Throwing in the hate crime element will makes them tend to care less about the overall cases, which makes them more likely to not take the real crime involved seriously. I am not saying hate crime laws "normalize or excuse" other crimes. I am saying they exacerbate racism and induce apathy.

---

I find that speculation highly unlikely. Racist people will obviously have bad things to say about any law involving protected classes, and people who don't recognize white privilege will see such laws as unfair, or even "racist," given that they have such a poorly informed concept of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, you keep talking about white racism exclusively. It is not the only type of racism. Jackson, Mississippi is 70% black, and black against white racism and discrimination are very prevalent, as are other types. The movies about my city and state are all about white racism against blacks, but I assure that in 2012 it is not the only type of racism that exists here. We have black cops, prosecutors, judges, and a mayor who despise white people, and they have a sense of power in a racial majority. (Note: Not all of the black officials I mentioned are racist. Most are not. Racist whites still have many positions of power here too.) So the problems you have brought up are not exclusive to white against black. So, do you think hate crime laws should apply to all people equally, or just to people of certain racial divisions?

---

These laws do not exist to enshrine some ideal that violence motivated by prejudice is bad. Hate crime laws exist to address crimes committed against protected classes on the basis of their membership in that class. 'White' is the opposite of a protected class. On the whole, you will see more benefit from your race and encounter fewer obstacles because of it than anyone of any other race in this country, and more significantly you will get to spend much more of your time not thinking about your race at all. Acknowledging that fact is not the same thing as saying no one anywhere ever holds a white person's race against them. When someone assaults or discriminates against a white person on the basis of their race, though, it's not part of an ongoing history of systematic oppression. That institutional racism directed at specific groups--not solely by white people, but certainly not toward them--is what hate crime laws are meant to counter.

Now, toxic race relations in Jackson, Miss. are a special case that y'all have to work out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you see the South Park video I posted?

---

If that episode had a point, it would have been negated by the premise that a hate crime is any crime with a white perp and black victim. Also, I've seen that episode, and it's lousy. I don't dislike every SP episode I disagree with (I was vegan when I saw the PETA one, and laughed my ass off), but that one was a groaner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I find that speculation highly unlikely. Racist people will obviously have bad things to say about any law involving protected classes, and people who don't recognize white privilege will see such laws as unfair, or even "racist," given that they have such a poorly informed concept of racism.

---

Their rejection of hate crime laws is much more rational than a stance that minorities shouldn't be allowed to vote and such, and the higher level of rationality results in a lot more people rejecting hate crime laws. Giving special privileges based on skin color is racist, by definition. Not being racist involves treating people of all races equally. I have the same view of Affirmative Action, another horrible thing that I think does a lot more harm than good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

These laws do not exist to enshrine some ideal that violence motivated by prejudice is bad. Hate crime laws exist to address crimes committed against protected classes on the basis of their membership in that class.

---

Which is racism that provokes more racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I 'White' is the opposite of a protected class. On the whole, you will see more benefit from your race and encounter fewer obstacles because of it than anyone of any other race in this country, and more significantly you will get to spend much more of your time not thinking about your race at all. Acknowledging that fact is not the same thing as saying no one anywhere ever holds a white person's race against them. When someone assaults or discriminates against a white person on the basis of their race, though, it's not part of an ongoing history of systematic oppression. That institutional racism directed at specific groups--not solely by white people, but certainly not toward them--is what hate crime laws are meant to counter.

---

It is still a reality, and holding my race against me is racism. It has happened many times, and racism is equally disgusting in all directions. When the government gives one type of racism special privilege over another type of racism, the government is being racist. Skin color needs to be treated like hair color and eye color. That is the only way to kill racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I
Now, toxic race relations in Jackson, Miss. are a special case that y'all have to work out.

---

How? Should we treat white people as a special class and sometimes label black on white violence "hate crime?" I don't think we should. I think we should disbar prosecutors and judges, of all colors, who make racist decisions in court. The FBI needs to be on the asses of police of all colors to make sure they are not being racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If that episode had a point, it would have been negated by the premise that a hate crime is any crime with a white perp and black victim. Also, I've seen that episode, and it's lousy. I don't dislike every SP episode I disagree with (I was vegan when I saw the PETA one, and laughed my ass off), but that one was a groaner.

---

The point was that racial "hate" is difficult and often impossible to prove and that people will be charged with it where it does not exist.

You're still trying to strip racism of context and boil it down to a point where reverse-racism is relevant to the discussion. That would be the "poorly informed concept of racism" I mentioned earlier. It hinges on ignoring or denying both white privilege and institutional racism. Those things don't just go away if you pretend they don't exist. You're only admitting the existence of one third of the problem: overt, conscious acts of discrimination by a "racist person." In fact, the advantages for whites and disadvantages for others within virtually all of our institutions can perpetuate themselves without one person in the institution consciously discriminating based on race. Looking for bad apples doesn't cut it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The point was that racial "hate" is difficult and often impossible to prove and that people will be charged with it where it does not exist.

---

Again, whether these laws are being applied appropriately (in crimes where the victim was targeted based on belonging to a protected class) is a different argument. Do you believe prosecutors are tossing around difficult-to-prove charges willy-nilly, without regard for their overall case or their reputation? Do you think these charges are being applied based solely on the identity of the victims, regardless of the facts of the cases? To me, that smells like red herring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're still trying to strip racism of context and boil it down to a point where reverse-racism is relevant to the discussion. That would be the "poorly informed concept of racism" I mentioned earlier. It hinges on ignoring or denying both white privilege and institutional racism. Those things don't just go away if you pretend they don't exist. You're only admitting the existence of one third of the problem: overt, conscious acts of discrimination by a "racist person." In fact, the advantages for whites and disadvantages for others within virtually all of our institutions can perpetuate themselves without one person in the institution consciously discriminating based on race. Looking for bad apples doesn't cut it.

---

I don't even accept the term "reverse racism." There is just racism. Racism is racism, and it is always unjustifiable. Not all white people are given "white privilege." Some are even given "white disadvantage." That is a fact. I admit 100% of the problem. What part of the problem do you claim I am not admitting? Give me the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Again, whether these laws are being applied appropriately (in crimes where the victim was targeted based on belonging to a protected class) is a different argument. Do you believe prosecutors are tossing around difficult-to-prove charges willy-nilly, without regard for their overall case or their reputation? Do you think these charges are being applied based solely on the identity of the victims, regardless of the facts of the cases? To me, that smells like red herring.

---

What exactly do you mean? Do I think prosecutors are being reckless with charges because of the races of victims? Yes, that does happen. When it does, the prosecutors need to answer to higher authorities. I don't see why thought crimes have to be added to charges because of it. Such a thing is flat out unconstitutional. People should NEVER be treated differently under the law because of race, EVER. Such a thing is blatantly RACIST. The specific violations of the prosecutors need to be handled. The made up thought crimes of defendants do not.