Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter

Printable View

03-27-2012, 04:44 PM
Taosaur

Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter

Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter - Neowin.net
Some of the actual tweets: http://fandaily.info/wp-content/uplo...nts-images.jpg

Seriously? Being an asshole is a jailable offense in the UK? If someone were drunk and shouting epithets on a street corner, an arrest at that time would be warranted to arrest (i.e. stop) the behavior, but tweeting is inherently less disruptive. It's more akin to putting a sign out on the lawn; yes the statement is public, but it's not forcing itself on anyone's attention (e.g. by shouting).
03-27-2012, 05:22 PM
Barry

not for being a arsehole, it's considered racist and racism is an arrestable offence here.
03-27-2012, 05:35 PM
Taosaur

Racism (as opposed to actual discrimination) is a species of assholery. He is now serving nearly two months for being a drunken ass on Twitter.

ETA: I cannot envision any form of "being offensive" that would warrant more than a night in jail and a fine for disturbing the peace, and even that much is ridiculous for statements made on Twitter. TWO MONTHS? For saying mean things about a soccer player?
03-28-2012, 01:08 AM
Universal Mind

You Brits better not fuck with me. Watch what you say to me in your posts, or I'll call your police. :lol:
03-28-2012, 01:58 AM
DrunkenArse

The idea that one can legislate racism out of existence probably does more to hurt the cause than to help it.
03-28-2012, 01:34 PM
Photolysis

Very disturbing, but it seems the only reason he was arrested was because it seems to have been twisted into racial aggravation.

This seems to be going against the entire spirit of the law. It's there to stop cases of people publicly going out and crying "them niggers are inbred and a disgrace to the country and should be kicked out", not to stop people from ever making a moronic comment. Or series of them in this case.

It's one thing to spout off stupid offensive shit, but insert the word "black" in one of your comments and suddenly it becomes an arrestable offense?
03-28-2012, 02:06 PM
Sornaensis

Lol it's illegal to call black people black.
03-28-2012, 02:21 PM
Xei

Yep, these laws are both morally ridiculous, and as Phil points out,

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The idea that one can legislate racism out of existence probably does more to hurt the cause than to help it.

not even productive.

I caught a report last night on the rise of underground fascism in Germany, where there are various laws about it. I wondered how popular it would be if people could actually discuss fascism openly and rationally.
03-28-2012, 11:25 PM
mcwillis

My friend got a 6 week jail sentence for stealing a 'Milky Bar'

He needed the aluminium foil to smoke some heroin

But then considering his record for crime they had no choice but to lock him up.

http://goodtoknow.media.ipcdigital.c...4_MilkyBAr.jpg
03-29-2012, 12:07 AM
khh

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcwillis

My friend got a 6 week jail sentence for stealing a 'Milky Bar'

He needed the aluminium foil to smoke some heroin

But then considering his record for crime they had no choice but to lock him up.

http://goodtoknow.media.ipcdigital.c...4_MilkyBAr.jpg

Uh... I don't think you can even be fined for that here, if you give it back when they catch you. No matter your previous history.
03-29-2012, 12:46 AM
Xei

Yeah that's definitely the whole story, it was the milky bar that got the thieving drug addict locked up.
03-29-2012, 12:49 AM
mcwillis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah that's definitely the whole story, it was the milky bar that got the thieving drug addict locked up.

Seeing as your English, and if you're old enough, you'll understand why his nickname in jail was the milky bar kid.
03-29-2012, 12:50 AM
Wayfaerer

Milky bar- contains full day's supply of goodness.
04-03-2012, 04:13 AM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sornaensis

Lol it's illegal to call black people black.

I don't think that's quite what it is, if you read the uncensored tweets he says more than that. However putting him in jail at all is fucking absurd and shouldn't be tolerated. He said something, he used words(and not any kind of threats) and these people think they can use violent means to solve the problem. Lock him up in a cage against his will because he got drunk and made an ass of himself. It's insanity.
04-03-2012, 04:58 AM
DrunkenArse

This is really the same issue as hate crimes.

I personally feel that there should be a clearly defined line between laws which punish physical behavior and laws which punish speech and inferred intentions.

We should stay on one side of that line.

In the US, drug laws are already almost on the border of violating it. Consider that if I get caught with a gram of weed, I'll be charged with possession if anything happens at all. However if I have a scale or spare baggies on me then I can be charged with intent to distribute. In this case, it's still technically on the right side of the line (despite it's terrible name) because it's criminalizing having, e.g. a scale, in addition to weed rather than purely intent. However they're also blurring the line by attempting to infer intent from behavior.

With hate crimes and this anti-hate-speach law in the UK, they're clearly crossing the line. They're adding severity to the punishment for intentions that the person had. So if I murder someone, I get one punishment. If I murder someone and a jury is convinced that my intentions were formed because I didn't like the race or sexual orientation of the person, I now have additional time. Murder and the punishment for it are already extreme enough to act as a deterrent for most people.

This is a stupid class of laws.
04-03-2012, 05:35 AM
Taosaur

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is really the same issue as hate crimes.

No, it's not.

There's a difference between criminalizing hateful speech and evaluating whether a criminal act was motivated by hate. Intent is already the main determinant of how violent crimes are classified and sentenced--it's what separates first from second from third degree murder. It's worth considering whether the defendant(s) in an assault, arson or murder trial acted on the belief that the victim's rights or personhood were suspended on account of group belonging, especially when there's a possibility that part of the community and/or the legal system will support them in that belief. We're not making a crime out of the hate itself, but acknowledging hate's role in acts that have always been criminal and still get unevenly prosecuted (if they even get prosecuted *cough*Trayvon*cough*) due to bias.
04-03-2012, 06:03 AM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's worth considering whether the defendant(s) in an assault, arson or murder trial acted on the belief that the victim's rights or personhood were suspended on account of group belonging, especially when there's a possibility that part of the community and/or the legal system will support them in that belief.

Why?

It is relevant whether a person meant to commit a crime and whether he believed it was necessary for legitimate defense. Acting with intent to commit the violation is what is punished, and appearance of a need for self preservation or the preservation of another makes a perfectly good excuse. Both must be considered. That I get. Why is whether or not the person hated the victim's group relevant?
04-03-2012, 03:34 PM
Taosaur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why?

It is relevant whether a person meant to commit a crime and whether he believed it was necessary for legitimate defense. Acting with intent to commit the violation is what is punished, and appearance of a need for self preservation or the preservation of another makes a perfectly good excuse. Both must be considered. That I get. Why is whether or not the person hated the victim's group relevant?

Because it makes the act more corrosive to society. The intention to reinforce the oppressed status of the victim's group and/or the privileged status of the perpetrator's group makes the crime both more antisocial and a greater injustice. If that stance isn't spelled out in hate crimes law (and sometimes even when it is), such crimes get treated as lesser offenses if the court, community, or police share the perpetrator's bias.
04-04-2012, 05:24 AM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Because it makes the act more corrosive to society. The intention to reinforce the oppressed status of the victim's group and/or the privileged status of the perpetrator's group makes the crime both more antisocial and a greater injustice. If that stance isn't spelled out in hate crimes law (and sometimes even when it is), such crimes get treated as lesser offenses if the court, community, or police share the perpetrator's bias.

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.
04-04-2012, 03:48 PM
Taosaur
Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the perpetrator did it because you are white,

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.

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.
04-04-2012, 09:19 PM
StonedApe

Quote:

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
04-05-2012, 05:02 AM
Universal Mind
Quote:

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hate crime laws attack that bias on multiple levels:
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.
In a broader social context, they take an explicit stand that our society does not condone violent discrimination.
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.

Quote:

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.
04-05-2012, 04:46 PM
Taosaur

I don't think we can do much but agree to disagree on the subject. I think hate crime laws do at least moderately address all three points I mentioned, and I would say #2, explicitly defining our society's position on a given transgression, is one of the basic functions of criminal law. Yes, it's symbolic, but not in the pejorative, colloquial sense of "lacking real substance." The punishment/revenge element of our legal system is what I find "symbolic" in that sense.
04-05-2012, 05:57 PM
greenhavoc

State: Why did you kill him?
Me: Because he is gay and made a pass at me.
Hate crime/life

State: Why did you kill him?
Me: Because he raped my ol' lady.
Crime of passion/15 years

Seems legit.
04-05-2012, 11:48 PM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

State: Why did you kill him?
Me: Because he is gay and made a pass at me.
Hate crime/life
State: Why did you kill him?
Me: Because he raped my ol' lady.
Crime of passion/15 years
Seems legit.

There is much more mitigation/understandability in the second scenario. I can understand killing somebody who rapes my wife. I don't think it should be legal, but I might congratulate somebody who kills for that reason. A gay guy making a pass at me will just get a rejection, unless he touches me the wrong way, in which case a punch in the nose should be enough. Here's the way I see hate crime laws.

State: Why did you kill him?

Defendant: Because he is a member of the Asian race. I am so stupid that I hold ALL of them responsible for Pearl Harbor and 'Nam.

State: Hate crime, life in prison without parole.

State: Why did you kill him?

Defendant: I just love to laugh my ass off when I make an innocent person's brain end up all over a wall, knowing he will never enjoy anything again or reach his dreams in life or even exist again at all, and I get to watch people who love him very deeply experience something so terrible it defies description. I really enjoy it. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

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.
04-06-2012, 12:53 AM
Taosaur

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.
04-06-2012, 01:20 AM
DrunkenArse

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.
04-06-2012, 01:28 AM
Universal Mind

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.
04-06-2012, 02:49 AM
greenhavoc

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?
04-06-2012, 02:53 AM
DrunkenArse

Nope. Taosaur has a way with words. He's an excellent writer.
04-06-2012, 04:42 AM
Universal Mind

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.
04-06-2012, 04:57 AM
DrunkenArse

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.
04-06-2012, 05:18 AM
greenhavoc

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
04-06-2012, 06:33 AM
Universal Mind

This is funny...

Hating Hate Crime Laws - YouTube

Chris Rock Show -Hate Crimes - YouTube
04-06-2012, 08:12 PM
Taosaur

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.
04-06-2012, 08:32 PM
greenhavoc

You had me going. Good show
04-06-2012, 08:53 PM
Universal Mind

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?
04-07-2012, 01:14 AM
Taosaur

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.
04-07-2012, 01:56 AM
Universal Mind

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.
04-08-2012, 12:22 AM
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.

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.
04-08-2012, 03:04 AM
Universal Mind

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.