Guest sylensikeelyoo Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I feel like "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are kinda like thought policing. Think about it. Even when someone says something really fucked up to someone else, or when someone beats the shit out of someone until they die, it doesn't change the fact that you can't possibly know for sure what someone was thinking or feeling. I mean, granted, its most likely hate, but isn't all crime and offensive speech spawned out of some degree of hate? By convicting someone of a hate crime, or banning someone from a public forum of any kind for "hate speech," you are essentially saying that this is worse than normal because of their intentions behind what they did. Who are we to determine "intent?" That's thought crime. Now, before you say to me, Sy, you're drunk, gtfo and drink some coffee, let me explain something. Yes, saying mean, hurtful, and offensive things to people is wrong. Yes, beating the shit outta someone till they die is wrong. Neither of these things should be tolerated in our society. Period. At the same time, taking these things and labeling it as something SUPER BAD because of the intentions behind it is a slippery slope to thought policing. *slurps beer* 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I was just thinking about this today, Sy. Probably because I heard on the news that that Roof kid was charged with hate crimes. I think the term "hate crime" is just silly. Hate might be a motive for a crime, but it isn't a crime in and of itself. You're right that it's like charging someone with a thought crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sy, you're drunk, gtfo and go drink some... *reads again* Oh wait, it all makes sense now! *steals some of Sy's beer and makes a run for it* Seriously though, I haven't really thought about the implications of accusing someone of a hate crime before. I'm not entirely sure that I see how it could lead to thought policing, since investigating a person's motives behind an act of violence can provide a good explanation for why they did it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I can't say that I agree with the original post but I do enjoy beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sylensikeelyoo Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sy, you're drunk, gtfo and go drink some... *reads again* Oh wait, it all makes sense now! *steals some of Sy's beer and makes a run for it* Seriously though, I haven't really thought about the implications of accusing someone of a hate crime before. I'm not entirely sure that I see how it could lead to thought policing, since investigating a person's motives behind an act of violence can provide a good explanation for why they did it in the first place. Dammit CRAZY GUY! get back here with my beer! LOLZ But yeah I see what your saying but that's not what I meant. "Hate Crimes" are typically punished more severely than "normal crime"... For instance, if a group of dudes get into a fight at a bar, they may get minor assault charges, and a misdemeanor or disturbing the peace. They may not even do jail time. If a group of dudes get into a fight and a few of them are gay, your talking " hate crime" and they WILL do jail time, plus probation, plus heaftier fines. Establishing intent is fine of it helps the individual, like if the defendant has a cognitive disability. You still can't be sure what that defendant was thinking at the time, but you can argue that the defendant may not get the help he needs in regular corrections facilities and while you can still convict him of the crime he committed, a sentence more suitable to his needs may be the better option. But you gotta make sure to go off facts, not conjecture. "Hate crimes" are all about conjecture. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorPoet Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I really do not like the idea of "hate crimes". As much as I don't like the following, they are all true. 1. It is perfectly legal to be a racist asshole. 2. It is perfectly legal to be a homophobic bigot. 3. It is perfectly legal to be a sexist jerk. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions no matter how deplorable those opinions are. What are illegal are certain actions that people take based on those opinions, but the results of those actions are not any worse than the same crime perpetrated by others who had different motivations. If something is allowed under the law, it shouldn't be used to prosecute someone that committed a crime. Yes, they did something wrong and should be brought to justice, but I don't see how justice is served by subjecting them to greater sentences based on ideology that is perfectly legal for them to have under other circumstances. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sylensikeelyoo Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Thanks WP! That's exactly what I was trying to say, only not as eloquently as you did. lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Okay I can't say if it is effective or not but at least I can understand the motive behind adding extra offenses and thus a longer punishment for "hate crimes". Everybody is entitled to think anything they want. Thought is not a crime. However once somebody crosses the line to communicating hatred in a way that incites violence it is no longer purely thought. It has become communication and action to commit a crime. Basically the idea is that criminals who break the law for personal gain do not do as much harm as those who incite violence in order to suppress an entire group of people. Now those of you who want to argue that it doesn't work I'm not going to fight you an that because I don't have enough information to say. Crime within society certainly is a complicated business. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 *trips crazyguy* *snatches beer before he hits the floor* *looks at Sy* *drinks beer without breaking eye contact* *exclaims, "Fuck both of you.* *burps and walks away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Your on it Sy. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I've heard political correctness referred to as symbolism over substance. I agree with the OP. Political correctness has similarities to religious fundamentalism where thoughts are classified as "sin". No action is needed mere thoughts are sufficient to convict and infer guilt. Political correctness is a form of censorship. Society, or more correctly the media, becomes the prosecution, jury, judge, and determines the punishment and their authority is apparently unlimited. Paula Dean being a recent example of media vigilantes. She admitted to having used a racial slur in her past. The media determined her offense was worthy of effectively destroying her socially and financially. Did the punishment fit the crime? And when did using "certain" politically incorrect words become a crime? And what is the real difference between political correctness and Islam where the being "politically incorrect" according to Islamic law and tradition will get you killed. In the U.S. we don't kill people who have been found guilty of being politically incorrect we just destroy them financially and label them as social outcast. And they are apparently not entitled to a trial or even a defense. The media determines their guilt and their punishment and their authority is apparently unlimited and their punishment is final. No appeals are allowed. Political correctness has become so entrenched I don't see it going away and it's proven to be impossible to control. There is a huge difference between disliking someone or some group and doing actual harm to them. The line in the sand is clear. Doing something harmful to someone should be a crime. Thinking bad things about someone isn't a crime, if it is then we are all in serious trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Okay who has ever been sent to prison for thinking a thought? Usually hate crimes are murder, threatening to murder or vandalizing somebody's home with threats of violence. Granted, these things are crimes in themselves but can't you guys sympathize with the victims who are being targeted like this simply for who they are? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Just another thought. Don't those who post on this site use a lot of critical speech directed at Christian Fundamentalists that "they" would almost surely interpret as "hate" speech? Maybe that helps put this "hate speech" thing in a little different light. One man's legitimate criticism is often interpreted by another man as hate speech. It depends on which side of the fence you're on I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Just another thought. Don't those who post on this site use a lot of critical speech directed at Christian Fundamentalists that "they" would almost surely interpret as "hate" speech? Maybe that helps put this "hate speech" thing in a little different light. One man's legitimate criticism is often interpreted by another man as hate speech. It depends on which side of the fence you're on I guess. I would never condone an ex-C member threatening to harm a Christian. I know our moderators wouldn't either. Can't you tell the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Okay who has ever been sent to prison for thinking a thought? Usually hate crimes are murder, threatening to murder or vandalizing somebody's home with threats of violence. Granted, these things are crimes in themselves but can't you guys sympathize with the victims who are being targeted like this simply for who they are? I'm not disagreeing with ya MM, I just have a little different perspective. Let's say a gay man is beaten to death by a couple of thugs who hate gays. They are arrested and convicted. The usual punishment for a murder like this is life in prison, but because it is a "hate" crime no possibility of parole is added on. Why? If someone is guilty of beating another human being to death why should their punishment be different if the "hate crime" element isn't there? Both should be sent to prison for life without parole. In either case the victim is dead adding the hate crime element to a sentence doesn't appear to be an effective deterrent. A person that is convicted of murder and is out in seven years, which happens a lot now, now that is outrageous and that should not be tolerated by society. Taking a human life has to be punished more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I have a problem trying to separate freedom of speech with the idea of hate speech. Ugh... Where do we draw the line? Is it at the point where it incites violence action, or do we suppress opinion as well? I don't like the idea that speech is free but only for 'popular' ideas... don't get me wrong... I don't agree with those who are racist or homophobic bigots... but if we silence them because their views are icky - what's next? and who decides? idk... it's a difficult area. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Just another thought. Don't those who post on this site use a lot of critical speech directed at Christian Fundamentalists that "they" would almost surely interpret as "hate" speech? Maybe that helps put this "hate speech" thing in a little different light. One man's legitimate criticism is often interpreted by another man as hate speech. It depends on which side of the fence you're on I guess. I would never condone an ex-C member threatening to harm a Christian. I know our moderators wouldn't either. Can't you tell the difference? I think we are interpreting hate speech differently. Hate speech does not have to include a threat of violence. It is speech that is intended to be insulting and demeaning. It is the use of words to inflict pain and belittle another person. Our right to use such terms is protected by the Constitution as free speech. if speech isn't offensive to someone then it wouldn't need protecting. That said, obviously the use of such speech carries societal consequences and rightfully so, but those consequences should not include physical, emotional, or financial harm arbitrarily imposed by people who have no legal right or authority to punish anyone. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 23, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2015 Hate Crimes and Hate Speech can only occur when an unprotected class says or does something negative regarding a protected class. If you're not sure what the protected classes are this week, refer to your current PC Handbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Geezer you are confusing hate crimes with the way the business world distances itself from political poison. Recently Donald Trump made some speech "intended to be insulting and demeaning" that had "words to inflict pain and belittle" an entire ethnic group. And the government didn't do a thing about it because no crime had been committed. However all of Trump's business partners exercised their freedom to get the hell away from Donald Trump. These are very different things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 23, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2015 We don't need a special category for "hate crime" because a crime is a crime regardless of the victim or motivation. Not that I would, but let's say some guy at work is an asshole; he constantly steals my lunch, insults my wife, etc. One day I've had enough and I beat him up in the parking lot. I'm committed aggravated assault, plain and simple. But, if that guy happens to be black, gay, etc. I can also be saddled with another charge; A Hate Crime. Never mind the guy's an asshole and had it coming for good reason, the fact that he's a minority asshole affords him an extra level of protection and opportunity for revenge in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I agree with florduh, and his understanding of hate crime and hate speech. I think he pretty much hit the nail on head. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Okay I can't say if it is effective or not but at least I can understand the motive behind adding extra offenses and thus a longer punishment for "hate crimes". Everybody is entitled to think anything they want. Thought is not a crime. However once somebody crosses the line to communicating hatred in a way that incites violence it is no longer purely thought. It has become communication and action to commit a crime. Basically the idea is that criminals who break the law for personal gain do not do as much harm as those who incite violence in order to suppress an entire group of people. Now those of you who want to argue that it doesn't work I'm not going to fight you an that because I don't have enough information to say. Crime within society certainly is a complicated business. The OP has a point. But, I agree with mymistake (like I usually do), particularly the part I highlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 It makes sense for the justice system to identify a person's intent, motive and reasoning when evaluating a crime. If a guy robs a store because he hates the owner, it is different than the guy who robs a store because his family is starving. We identify crimes as a "crime of passion", for example, where someone may get a lighter sentence for murder than someone who commits murder in cold blood. I know this goes a bit against what I said before, but hey, sometimes that happens when I think. At the same time though, my problem is more with someone being charged with a "hate" crime. That shouldn't be up to law enforcement to decide, that should be left to judges and juries. Hatred may be a valid thing to look at when sorting through suspects, but a person should be considered loving until proven hateful in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 23, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2015 We identify crimes as a "crime of passion", for example, where someone may get a lighter sentence for murder than someone who commits murder in cold blood. A so called hate crime IS a crime of passion. You just don't think that particular passion (hate) is justified. Whatever the motivation of the perpetrator, the result is the same for the victim. There is no excuse for a violent crime upon a person. Passion be damned, it's not any measure of an excuse for committing a crime. Having the "wrong" motive for committing the crime shouldn't incur additional punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I feel like "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are kinda like thought policing. Maybe so. Maybe not. If I scrawled senseless graffiti on your car with a magic marker, you might get upset...maybe blame it on asshole kids in the neighborhood. But if I scrawled "All you women on this block are going to DIE!" it is going to generate fear...maybe not with you but someone else who sees it. Like your neighbors. People driving by. It's like the occasional moron drawing a swastika on the front door of a Jewish synagogue. It's more than just vandalism, it's a minor bit of terrorism. It doesnt just hurt one person. It hurts a group of people. It makes a bunch of people afraid. I think that's the general point of hate crime laws. They are anti-terrorism laws. People are gonna hate. But if they keep the hate in their heads and dont let it spill out into criminal behavior they will never get in any trouble. One might say all laws are thought policing. It's debatable. That's my take on it, anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts