dagblog - Comments for "Arguing Double Standards"

Less than 7K crimes were

rmrd0000 — Mon, 28 May 2012 16:01:34 +0000

Less than 7K crimes were labeled hate crimes by the FBI in 2010. Of those with racial bias, 69.8% were anti-black and 18.2 were anti- white. Of those with religious bias, 65.4% were anti-Jewish. About 30% of the hate crimes were property damage and aproximately 30% involved intimidation.

58.6 of the hate crime offenders were white. 18.4% were black.

If someone burns a cross when a black family moves in, it is meant to send a warning to other black families.

I think you're a bit

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 27 May 2012 21:46:45 +0000

In reply to Wait a second - burning a

I think you're a bit entangled here, but I can't stop to disentangle. Maybe later.

Let me just say, burning a cross is a specific act, yes, but with a larger purpose. If we prohibit that one act but ignore the purpose, we leave open a wide array of other acts with the same intention and the same impact.

If we say we can't discern this "larger purpose" and it doesn't matter, then why ban cross burning? Actually burning a cross is a fairly benign act in and of itself. Generally speaking, no harm is done. No one gets hurt. No property is damaged.

We don't ban cross burning because of the act per se; we ban it because of what it means and what it is intended to do.

Wait a second - burning a

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 27 May 2012 04:19:08 +0000

In reply to You see, you're arguing the

Wait a second - burning a cross is a specific act, beating someone up is a 2nd. If you want to make burning a cross illegal when used as harassment or intimidation, fine - define an appropriate statute. Beating someone up is already legal - adding a 2nd charge because they beat them up for being black, rather than ugly, obnoxious, foreign, female, or whatever is just arbitrary. Conspiracy to threaten a group is already illegal - why does it matter whether they're black, Jewish, Vietnamese, short, disabled, Republican, gay, whatever?

As for slippery slope, we have enough slippery slopes that aren't theoretical - a guy was convicted of abetting Al Qaeda purely from translating & posting Web content. We have terrorism laws used for drug enforcement, and now drones are being rolled out over the US.

But to bring it back to the point, strong people do intimidate weak people every day - older vs. younger, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, majority vs. minority, healthy vs. disabled.

If a school bully steals lunch money from the younger grade every day, I still don't get why it's significantly different from picking on the skinniest in class or picking on those with brown skin. It's still an abuse of power, it still demands correction.

You see, you're arguing the

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 27 May 2012 03:55:06 +0000

In reply to So we'll protect short people

You see, you're arguing the absurd to make your point.

This is the same problem we have with the slippery slope argument.

You take the logical form of the argument, but strip out all the content and assume that we can't make distinctions based on history and facts, even if they aren't cut and dried.

Just off hand...

The group as a group must have been subjected to well-established hate, discrimination and intimidation over time that substantially impinged on its freedom, safety, and even flourishing.

So, in the case of blacks and Jews, we have burning crosses and swastikas...

These are dynamic judgments. Our understanding of a group's situation may change over time and the group's situation may change over time. Moreover, just because we might want to consider a group's inclusion under hate crimes protection--and accept or reject it--doesn't mean all groups must be included, nor that no group can be protected if all groups aren't protected.

First, he wasn't on

Donal — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:32:10 +0000

In reply to Come on, Neighborhood Watch

First, he wasn't on neighborhood watch, now it isn't that formal. You're arguing in circles and avoiding the point that they didn't do the obvious test.

Come on, Neighborhood Watch

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:28:04 +0000

In reply to Not being on duty, but acting

Come on, Neighborhood Watch isn't always that formal - just "keep an eye out" - and it's typically all about calling 911.

So you normally walk on Tuesdays, but you see an open window on Thursday and you can't call 911 or check it out without "acting as if you were"?

Not being on duty, but acting

Donal — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:20:02 +0000

In reply to No, from near beginning it

Not being on duty, but acting as if you were would be an even better argument for a drug and alcohol test.

So we'll protect short people

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:10:15 +0000

In reply to I think the penalty should

So we'll protect short people and skinny people now with hate crimes legislation? Any crime against females, unless they're seriously bulked up? A grownup taking advantage of a kid is intimidation to kids everywhere - another instance. How about if Occupy Wall Street threatens bankers - is that a hate crime because of intent to intimidate?

How about if there's a conspiracy to target more than one person, there be the 2nd charge of conspiracy to target more than one person. No need to create special privilege or protection. If there's especially premeditated crime, rather than a common racial flare-up, you use the premeditation in sentencing.

It does seem slightly bizarre

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:03:28 +0000

In reply to But they did investigate

It does seem slightly bizarre not to charge someone who has just killed an unarmed person...and to let him go.

It feels even more bizarre that it took a PR campaign to force the authorities into charging him and holding a trial.

Are police in the habit of simply taking the word of someone who's just killed someone else at face value?

I think the penalty should

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 25 May 2012 12:58:08 +0000

In reply to Yes, while hate crimes

I think the penalty should change.

If you kill someone because of personal animus or because you don't like his jokes, your act doesn't serve to intimidate members of the Bad Joke Tellers of America.

But if you kill someone who is a member of a group that is oppressed or has been oppressed, then you're sending a wider message of intimidation toward that group.