Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Squirrel

Should hate speach and hate crimes exist

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Moderator T
11 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Terrorism is the use of violence against a target audience in order to advance a political goal.  I have no problem with that being a separate crime because the aim of the act is not even necessarily to kill.  Wounding is OK.  Maiming is even better.  The fear and pushing for a change through that fear are the objectives.  

Murder is killing someone to kill them.  Most violent "hate crimes" that end in death fit that description.  Those that have a wider objective, i.e. terror in a target population (race) in order to make a political impact (influence voting) is terrorism.  No terrorism that I know of is committed against the target population out of love so the "hate" designation is redundant.  

Would you then describe the actions of the KKK in the past such as lynching a black person and leaving their body in public or burning crosses or painting swastikas on people's garage doors to intimidate a segment of the populace as terrorism?  These are crimes of hate done to instill fear and push a social or political stance/objective.  I'd be fine with that definition and removing "hate crimes" as a whole.  I think it is definitely on a much different level than say some jerk screaming a racial slur while beating someone up because they rear ended their car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
2 minutes ago, Moderator T said:

Would you then describe the actions of the KKK in the past such as lynching a black person and leaving their body in public or burning crosses or painting swastikas on people's garage doors to intimidate a segment of the populace as terrorism?  These are crimes of hate done to instill fear and push a social or political stance/objective.  I'd be fine with that definition and removing "hate crimes" as a whole.  I think it is definitely on a much different level than say some jerk screaming a racial slur while beating someone up because they rear ended their car.

Yes.  That is pretty much what I am thinking.  The primary aim is to cause terror and produce a reaction in a target population.  Death is a byproduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
2 hours ago, JerryL said:

Yes.  That is pretty much what I am thinking.  The primary aim is to cause terror and produce a reaction in a target population.  Death is a byproduct.

In that case I'd say that's fair.  Hate speech could then be split to either go into local menacing/threatening laws for severe stuff and otherwise left to public opinion, which, in today's internet social media world, is a employment/fame/financial death sentence anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
11 hours ago, Timothy said:

Killing someone as part of a robbery is effectively indifference.  You don't care about them one way or the other and your own greed is more important to you.  Killing someone motivated by hatred of who they are isn't indifference, it's assigning a negative value to their life.  I don't agree that indifference and assigning no value to someone's life is worse than assigning a negative value to their life.

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

 

I disagree. Complete indifference to the value of another’s life is far, far worse than assigning a negative value to a collection of individuals. A psychopath is worse than a racist because the former is a threat to far more people. And being completely indifferent, or blind, to the value of any human life that stands in your way demonstrates a complete failure of human  compassion and empathy necessary for social integration and cohesion. People like that cannot be reasoned with.

Racists and bigots at least have the capacity to be reasoned with. 

And again, “hate” can and has been molded into anything that the power dynamic wants it to be. And this is bad for all of us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
13 hours ago, Timothy said:

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

Should there be different degrees of murder (1st, 2nd, manslaughter) depending on the intent of the murderer?

I see two justifications for hate crimes:

1) We care about the intent of a crime, for example we tend to treat premeditated murder different than spur of the moment murder, or deliberate murder from murder due to negligence.

2) Hate crimes, like terrorism, spreads fear in the targeted communities.  It does more harm to the broader community beyond the people physically impacted than normal crimes.

 

6 hours ago, JerryL said:

Terrorism is the use of violence against a target audience in order to advance a political goal.  I have no problem with that being a separate crime because the aim of the act is not even necessarily to kill.  Wounding is OK.  Maiming is even better.  The fear and pushing for a change through that fear are the objectives.  

Murder is killing someone to kill them.  Most violent "hate crimes" that end in death fit that description.  Those that have a wider objective, i.e. terror in a target population (race) in order to make a political impact (influence voting) is terrorism.  No terrorism that I know of is committed against the target population out of love so the "hate" designation is redundant.  

 

6 hours ago, Moderator T said:

Would you then describe the actions of the KKK in the past such as lynching a black person and leaving their body in public or burning crosses or painting swastikas on people's garage doors to intimidate a segment of the populace as terrorism?  These are crimes of hate done to instill fear and push a social or political stance/objective.  I'd be fine with that definition and removing "hate crimes" as a whole.  I think it is definitely on a much different level than say some jerk screaming a racial slur while beating someone up because they rear ended their car.

 

I think for Terrorism, specifically Domestic Terrorism, you maybe have to use the old definition of pornography vs art rule where 'I know it when I see it'.  (I am not really advocating this, but maybe a teensy-weensy bit).

Take Timothy McVeigh - Domestic Terrorist - no argument.  The DC sniper, yep.  The Dallas police shooter or Las Vegas shooter - maybe? Two guys who are technically KKK by affiliation getting into a fight and hurting a black guy - no.  A conspiracy involving two or more KKK guys to mail bombs to prominent black businesses/people - yes, possibly but not for sure.

The guy who goes around kidnapping only black kids, or hispanic kids, or some group/type by psychologically driven impusles that puts a whole community or group of people on edge - terrorist?  I don't know.  Sometimes terror and 'hate' can be induced as a  byproduct and not the intention - which I don't think you can then label it as Hate/Terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
On 7/27/2020 at 3:22 AM, JerryL said:

Terrorism is the use of violence against a target audience in order to advance a political goal.  I have no problem with that being a separate crime because the aim of the act is not even necessarily to kill.  Wounding is OK.  Maiming is even better.  The fear and pushing for a change through that fear are the objectives.  

Murder is killing someone to kill them.  Most violent "hate crimes" that end in death fit that description.  Those that have a wider objective, i.e. terror in a target population (race) in order to make a political impact (influence voting) is terrorism.  No terrorism that I know of is committed against the target population out of love so the "hate" designation is redundant.  

I agree that most actual hate crimes are also terrorism.  But not all.  Sometimes there isn't a political intent just a sadistic desire to bully and/or a hatred that isn't developed enough to have a bigger objective.

On 7/27/2020 at 9:15 AM, Buckwheat Jones said:

I disagree. Complete indifference to the value of another’s life is far, far worse than assigning a negative value to a collection of individuals. A psychopath is worse than a racist because the former is a threat to far more people. And being completely indifferent, or blind, to the value of any human life that stands in your way demonstrates a complete failure of human  compassion and empathy necessary for social integration and cohesion. People like that cannot be reasoned with.

Racists and bigots at least have the capacity to be reasoned with. 

And again, “hate” can and has been molded into anything that the power dynamic wants it to be. And this is bad for all of us.

 

It's the difference between amoral and immoral.  If you are willing to hurt or murder someone because of your hatred for their group, that means that your hatred is stronger than any respect you might have for life, and you are more likely to do it again.

It's easier to take away financial incentives to kill someone.  Greed generally has a more rational basis than hatreds which involve more deeply ingrained emotion.

As for someone being a threat to more people, that also serves to dilute the threat.  A more focused hatred makes someone a bigger threat to each individual in that group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
3 hours ago, Timothy said:

I agree that most actual hate crimes are also terrorism.  But not all.  Sometimes there isn't a political intent just a sadistic desire to bully and/or a hatred that isn't developed enough to have a bigger objective.

So why does that deserve a special designation under the law?  If the injuring and the killing, not a bigger aim, are the objectives, we already have laws that cover those on the books.  If it is based on hate or sadistic fury towards you based on wealth, or possessions, or body type, or age, why is it somehow worse if it is based instead on skin color?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, JerryL said:

So why does that deserve a special designation under the law?  If the injuring and the killing, not a bigger aim, are the objectives, we already have laws that cover those on the books.  If it is based on hate or sadistic fury towards you based on wealth, or possessions, or body type, or age, why is it somehow worse if it is based instead on skin color?  

A crime is a crime a killing is a killing. Or is there a skin tone chart? White 10 yrs for killing him, mediterainian 11 yrs, african 15 yrs. a crime is a crime and hateful. As for assigning additional time for hate guess what it was there before the hate crime bs started. It’s called mitigating factors allowed in sentencing. I guess if I run a muck I should just make sure I only kill white people. I guess minorities already learned that it explains Chicago’s murder rate and black on black homicide and crime. Black lives only matter when killed by whitey should be blm’s title. BLOM

Edited by Squirrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
On 7/28/2020 at 2:45 PM, Timothy said:

I agree that most actual hate crimes are also terrorism.  But not all.  Sometimes there isn't a political intent just a sadistic desire to bully and/or a hatred that isn't developed enough to have a bigger objective.

It's the difference between amoral and immoral.  If you are willing to hurt or murder someone because of your hatred for their group, that means that your hatred is stronger than any respect you might have for life, and you are more likely to do it again.

It's easier to take away financial incentives to kill someone.  Greed generally has a more rational basis than hatreds which involve more deeply ingrained emotion.

As for someone being a threat to more people, that also serves to dilute the threat.  A more focused hatred makes someone a bigger threat to each individual in that group.

I think my point continues to stand for the reasons I’ve already posted. I don’t find your argument compelling. Regardless of that, “hate crimes” are problematic because of the latitude that the definition has. And that river is wide and deep. I’ve already seen the ridiculous things that the left wants to call hate. 

Have a problem with gay lifestyle because your bible tells you it’s immoral? Then it’s “hate” because it’s easier to be intellectually lazy instead of tolerant and understanding. Especially when you have to force yourself to give the koran a pass. 

I despise double standards, and I’ve never met a liberal who will criticize a Muslim for the same things they’ll chew on a Christian for. 

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...