Thread: Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think it makes the crime any more evil or corrosive to society. In fact, I see it as at least involving some kind of excuse, though very weak.

Imagine being shot in the heart and about to die. If the perpetrator did it because you are white, would that piss you off more than if he did it because he just felt like getting his kicks killing somebody? The latter would piss me off much more. At least in the first case he did it because he was dumb and had some kind of false perception of what race is. In the second case, he is just a cold blooded evil dick and nothing more, in terms of the act. That is even more evil and horrible. Somewhere between the two, as far as I am concerned, would be a scenario in which he was robbing me for money. Such selfishness would be worse than a racist mentality, which I really believe carries the excuse of stupidity.

Because most murders are committed because some guy wanted to get his kicks. Most murders involve some kind of motive. If the motive is race the case should be treated differently than if the motive is drug territory or someone cheating on there boyfriend. The label hate crime probably does get thrown around too much due to the overly PC culture we have but hate crime laws aren't pointless.

In reality we should be treating the aggressor with compassion as well as the victim. We should be trying to rehabilitate people, or at least help them to see why what they did was wrong. If we took all the money we waste people in prison for drugs and used it to help violent criminals we'd end up with a drastically less violent society. People should be treated differently based on the motive of the crime

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Trotting out a "reverse racism" example demonstrates why these laws are necessary. There are two sides to prejudice: discrimination yes, but also privilege. A lot of people--an inordinate number in courts and other positions of power--will cluck their tongues at overt discrimination, but those same people have a vested interest in remaining ignorant of the pervasive, institutional biases that favor some groups and punish others for merely coming in contact with the dominant culture.

What I trotted out was an example in which you are the victim of an attack committed because of your race. I wanted to get you to picture injustice from the victim's point of view. You are white in your pictures, so I used being white in the example. If you think that causes a problem in this, then pretend you are some other color and the victim of racial violence. I am still interested in knowing which motive would piss you off the most and why.

Like I said in my previous post, racism is not more evil than the other motives for unjust violence. They are all scummy as Hell, and I believe in severe punishments for them. In fact, the punishments I support for unjust violence are much more severe than what 99% of hate crime legislation supporters believe in. That is something I have always found interesting about this issue. People who don't support the death penalty call death penalty supporters racist for not wanting to make racial murders "hate crimes." I hate murderers, rapists, and assaulters with a major passion. They are all garbage that needs to be treated like garbage. Throwing the term "hate crime" in there while wanting to go easy on such garbage is something that has never made sense to me. Kill the bastards. Fuck the silly labels.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hate crime laws attack that bias on multiple levels:

1. In the context of specific cases, they deliver justice to the community wronged by the perpetrator's perception that his/her acts were somehow acceptable due to race/sex/sexuality and etc.
2. In a broader social context, they take an explicit stand that our society does not condone violent discrimination.
3. In the context of the courts, they counter the documented tendency to favor anyone who demonstrates affiliation with the dominant culture (even if only by complexion) and punish anyone perceived as part of a marginalized group.

They deliver justice to the community? Why can't just punishing the criminal for being a violent scum bag deliver justice to the community? What would using the term "hate crime" be beyond empty symbolism?

#2 looks like more mere symbolism. I am still not clear on why taking a stand against specifically violent discrimination is more important than taking a stand against unjustifiable violence of all forms. Why not take some extra symbolic stand against sadistic violent kicks or violence in the name of selfish gain? They are all scummy, and sadistic kicks involve the most extreme disregard for humanity of all of them. If you disagree, please explain why.

#3 would be ineffective and probably even counterproductive. A racist judge or jury will be even less likely to push for justice if what they consider stupid hate crime bullshit is involved in a case. Racial bias in the legal system is a real issue, but hate crime laws aimed at the problem would be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Because most murders are committed because some guy wanted to get his kicks. Most murders involve some kind of motive. If the motive is race the case should be treated differently than if the motive is drug territory or someone cheating on there boyfriend. The label hate crime probably does get thrown around too much due to the overly PC culture we have but hate crime laws aren't pointless.

In reality we should be treating the aggressor with compassion as well as the victim. We should be trying to rehabilitate people, or at least help them to see why what they did was wrong. If we took all the money we waste people in prison for drugs and used it to help violent criminals we'd end up with a drastically less violent society. People should be treated differently based on the motive of the crime

So, if it's a hate crime, the criminal should be treated with more compassion or less compassion? I don't really see what you are saying hate crime laws would do. What would be accomplished? Hate crime laws would make penalties more severe, not less severe. Your argument would be one against hate crime legislation, not for it.


I don't think racial violence should be put on some special pedestal over other forms of unjust violence. As awful as racism is, I don't get the special consideration it gets. This whole issue reminds me of the way Jerry Springer responds to his panel members. His show is almost completely about homewreckers getting on stage and flaunting their homewrecking in front of the devastated innocent people's faces. The show might be totally fake, but in the drama, something really odd happens. Jerry smirks and acts neutral while characters are watching their wives kiss their new lovers the husbands just found out about, and wives are blindsided with news that their husbands are leaving them for other women, who are screaming obscene things in their faces in the midst of the horrific devastation. Such things are the theme and custom of the show. Jerry acts like it's all just a big joke and that he should not get too involved. That is family tragedy in the face of sociopathic kicks Jerry is smirking at. But... as soon as somebody on the panel says something racist, Jerry acts personally offended and goes off on the person. So, making a racist comment is more evil than rubbing an innocent person's face in family tragedy? That is absolutely absurd. Racism is terrible, but it is not the king of injustice. It is just another horrible injustice. The functioning of society is full of them.