And when you wrote your original statement, you were blatantly stating that the legislative intent was to make gays and blacks more important than whites?
That's the grandparents poster's statement, not mine. My first response in this thread was to disagree with what you're paraphrasing, in fact. (Go ahead, check.) Either that, or you're just finding it easier to take issue with something you've simply made up whole cloth.
Here is what you wrote: Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I am saying that is not the perspective it's coming from. It's coming from the perspective that prosecutors were unable to punish the effects of a burning cross placed in a yard above and beyond a property damage. I know some people at the HRC who actually work on what we're talking about - and I've never met a person who thinks the way you phrased that sentence. Nobody thinks it's worse to kill a black or gay than a white. It's not "even worse", it's just a separate crime to intimidate a minority, regardless of the original crime.
And like I've said, I am under no illusion that my description of perspective is necessarily how the laws are enforced. Wiretapping laws were never intended to prevent citizens from recording public government officials (cops) carrying out their duties, yet years later here we are.
I'm guessing you're personally upset at at being called out on not having read *any* of the actual legal sources. You haven't said otherwise, and your position indicates this as well. You seem insulted that I've dared pointed out that you haven't read squat on a subject you tried to "correct" me on. If it is actually true that you haven't read any legislative material on it... do try to get over it, please.
Why do you think I'm personally upset? I'm not. This is a random/. conversation. Hugs?? I don't have provable evidence that I am informed. Anyways, I have read parts of some laws. And I worked with people who were not legislators but, I guess the right term were lobbyists (not the term they used).
the legislative intent of any given law is intimately tied to the actual text of said enacted law.
I was just using your term, legislative intent. You said that the legislation comes from the perspective that it's worse to kill blacks than whites. You keep getting back to the actual text of said laws and their enforcement, which I am in complete agreement do not have the expected results of the people who wanted it in the first place. This conversation is getting blown out of proportions.
Your position would be analogous to claiming that the primary legislative intent for, say, criminal laws against stabbing someone with a knife, is to keep the community at large from becoming too uneasy.
No, that is only analogous if the primary intent of a stabbing law is to keep the community at large from being uneasy. Obviously, it isn't. Bias intimidation laws were wanted by people because there were no existing or inadequately existing laws against it.
---
Anyways I don't hate you and I agree with what a lot of you're saying. I'm talking about perspectives here, which is an unprovable point. I have a lot of experience to defend such perspectives, namely working with the HRC. I am simply trying to disprove the mistaken line of thought that liberals and/or gays think that it's worse to kill a black or gay person than a white person.
Yeah, you're right. However, that's the thing about the U.S. dollar - it's one of the only currencies that such actions can actually be taken, being a currency that others are based upon in exchanges. I hope it doesn't come to that because it would hurt the U.S. as much (or more?) than the creditors. My life savings would be ruined and also of almost all the people I know if that happened!
So you're telling me you research legislative intent for a living? And when you wrote your original statement, you were blatantly stating that the legislative intent was to make gays and blacks more important than whites? Then when I disagreed that such was the legislative intent, your response is that you directly asked me about something other than legislative intent? I never was talking about anything other than legislative intent.
I simply don't believe you. If you really do such a thing professionally, then you wouldn't have come to the conclusion that the legislative intent of bias intimidation laws were to make blacks and gays more important than others.
Since you've avoided an easy, direct question twice now
I have never once been talking about anything other than legislative intent - to do so would be falling into your strawman argument.
I'll be happy if you can show me otherwise, but I simply don't think your opinion on this matter is an informed one.
Ha - you're the one who does it professionally and came to the conclusion that the legislative intent of bias intimidation laws are that hurting blacks and gays is worse than hurting other people. It isn't - it is meant to be a punishment for intending to cause fear/intimidation/psychological harm/etc to a group of people. Typical example is a burning cross in a yard is simple property damage, but the intimidation to the neighborhood didn't have a crime against it. So bias intimidation laws are a response to that. Just because there are contrary and unjust examples to the laws application doesn't change its intent.
Oh, and you didn't show any evidence to your statements, either. I did some work for the HRC (gay mafia as you'd probably call it) which is why I'm so informed on this stuff.
This is definitely a solution that you've proposed.
However, the real world examples of a publicly approved "scanners" is analogous to public key verification services. There's a famous example of a Dutch verification company which was compromised and therefore broke the system you described.
Interestingly enough, there was a guy in my HOA (condo association) that was running for the president or whatever the name of the head executive officer was. Someone else in the HOA was a former member of the FBI and illicitly and illegally did a background check on him - the type of background check that was only available to the FBI and not someone just renting a home. He told everyone about what this guy did (robbery from OVER THIRTY years ago) and nobody voted for him.
Perfect example of why it's bad to have this information in the government's hand in the first place. Once it's there, it's inevitable that it is going to be exploited and misused in a manner the original framers didn't intend.
Uncle Sam's signature is already basically worthless as far as its promises to pay back its debt.
Although there's no proof otherwise because such a thing hasn't happened yet, it's safe to say this is 99% incorrect. The US has never not paid its debt. What people think is a worse case scenario isn't that the US won't pay back debts, it's that it will create so much currency to issue debt that the currency will be horribly devalued.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You did not comment on the law, you commented on the perspective that bias intimidation laws are actually meant to be laws that make some people more important than others. And I told you, correctly, that such a perspective is flat out wrong. The intent of the laws, regardless of what actually happens via their application, is to enable a punishment of people who want to intimidate and hurt minorities.
FYI, I understand why you or others would come to the conclusion that hate crime laws are unjust. It can seem like it does make it worse to kill a black person than it is a white person. Perhaps a regular mugging of a person who turned out later to be gay can be punished worse, by luck of the draw, that they were gay even though the mugger didn't know it. What I am telling you is not that the actual specific laws cannot let this injustice happen - they unfortunately can - what I am telling you is that it's not the reason such laws were created. And you explicitly implied that it was the reason/perspective that the laws were created.
OK you've taken what I said and changed it to something else - the police state. I totally agree that our country's police state is awful. No, I don't think the world is a better place for such ideas.
That being said, I disagree, as most people do, that using a webcam to spy on someone, and broadcast it publicly, should not be a crime. Something that does no harm to others should not be a crime, and whatever the fuck one does in the privacy of their own home/dorm is their own business. That's not what happened in this case. Someone invaded the privacy of someone else's home/dorm (even though they shared it), and broadcast what they were doing in the privacy of their home/dorm to the internet with the intent to invade someone else's privacy. This is not a case of you setting up a webcam in your own home/dorm. You do not, and should not, have the right to do whatever the hell you want to your roommate, just because you also share the home/dorm.
I didn't say the wording of the law. You specifically wrote "Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc." and that is not the perspective. I specifically replied with supposed to be.
In other words, nobody ever says it's worse to kill a black person than a white person. Maybe a small percentage do, but not those who write laws.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Close... it's not when someone wants to hurt/kill another because of such things, "bias intimidation" laws are supposed to be when someone wants to hurt/kill multiple people beyond the original crime. For example, burning cross is only in one victim(s) yards, but is mean to hurt/kill people in the neighborhood.
If a person of one race kills someone of another race because he or she thinks that the victim, and others of the victim's race, are subhuman and don't deserve to exist, then it's a hate crime.
You are incorrect, in most states, AFAIK.
1. The term "hate crime" is a media term, the law term is "bias intimidation". 2. The reason for bias intimidation laws are for when one commits a crime against someone/thing/people with the intention of harming many more. If you kill someone because you hate them, it's not actually a bias-intimidation law. It's only if you kill someone because you intend to intimidate people like them when it becomes a bias intimidation law. It's an important distinction in such cases where opponents falsely believe that the law makes minorities (blacks, gays, etc.) more "important" than others. 1. If you kill a gay dude and it had nothing to do with the fact that the dude was gay, it is not (supposed to be) a bias intimidation crime. 2. If you kill a gay dude because you hated this guy because he was gay, it is not (supposed to be) a bias intimidation crime. 3. If you kill a gay dude with the intent to scare/harm other gays, then it is.
Now, the problem and debate stems from the fact that bias intimidation laws are incorrectly applied to #1 and #2. It seems like #2 is incorrectly believed by people is actually what "hate crimes" are supposed to be, and yes it is unfortunately applied by some prosecutors. P.S. I'm gay.
I already replied to you, but once again your argument is not sound.
Yeah, the things you say are true. It is FUCKED UP what the federal government does in the situations you mentioned. However, the "theoretical" case of what the law is is that the government shouldn't just pick out certain people and fuck their lives in the expectation that it will scare other people is just plain wrong - bias intimidation laws aren't that, and the law shouldn't be like that.
However, the logical argument in a blind, just world, is that the punishment for hurting one people is 1 XXX, and hurting two people is 2 XXX. Bias intimidation laws are quite logical laws which exist for the fact that certain laws only affect hurting 1 XXX, but the same crimes which hurt 100 XXX should be punished at least more than 1 XXX.
I like your argument, but I think it was misplaced. All of the things you say are true. But you missed the point.
What the OP was saying (or at least I'm going to argue:) is that there is a difference between a crime against a person and a crime which is intended against a large group of people. Theoretically it can be against a group of white people too.
If you killed a guy, that sucks. If you killed a guy because you intended to intimidate a whole group of people, that both sucks and is bias intimidation against a group of people.
For example, white guy 1 TP's a black neighbor's house. Guy 2 puts a burning cross in a black neighbor's house. Guy 1 was a prank; guy 2 was a chilling attack on the entire black people of the neighborhood. Guy 1 and guy 2's property damage are equal. However, the effect of guy 2's crime is waaaaaay worse. Hence, bias intimidation laws are meant to augment regular property laws. They are not meant to imply which neighbors are better than others - even if occasional prosecutors and media fuck that part up.
First of all, "hate crime" is a made up word. The laws are actually called "bias intimidation" laws. They are meant to address the problem of burning a cross in a yard - a mere property crime the equivalent of TP-ing someone's house, but in fact have horribly worse consequences on people and society.
A murder is a murder. A white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) does not get a harsher sentence if they did the same damed thing.
A person, any person, is guilty of a bias-intimidation crime if their crime was intended for a larger group of people. It's actually a simple concept that is completely misunderstood (and probably misused by prosecutors).
If you TP a neighbor's house as a prank, you didn't intend to scare the whole neighborhood. You've committed a simple property crime. If you TP your black neighbor's house in a white neighborhood as a prank, you didn't intend to scare the whole neighborhood. You've committed a simple property crime. If you TP your black neighbor's house in a white neighborhood with the intent to scare the black people in the neighborhood, you have committed a simple property crime... but you've actually meant to intimidate other people with bias, with far reaching consequences on the neighborhood and society, hence the bias intimidation law.
A bias intimidation law is meant to address the problem of a burning cross in a yard - it is equivalent to TP-ing someone's yard in property law terms, but is horrendously more damaging.
It is not, was not intended for, and should not, be a law against the thought and emotion of hate. In fact, bias intimidation crimes have a VERY high bar - although you would like to think so you fucking idiot, in fact it is rare that a bias intimidation conviction happens. For example, 70% of people in American jails are black convicts with black victims, and less than 1% of them arrived there from bias intimidation on black people.
What, like "hate crime" is some huge serious thing that is difficult to get charged with?
There is actually a difficult bar for a crime to be a bias-intimidation crime.
"Hate crime" and "hate crime laws" are just one of a million government excuses used to justify arresting people and selling them into slavery.
Well, I disagree with where you're coming from. But I agree with where you're going. There should only be like 100 reasons to justify arresting people. The fact that there is a million excuses is a horrible existence for society, and we don't even know it - because even though we commit crimes every day, it's arbitrarily random on how we citizens are charged and convicted.
BTW, remember that "government" is a synonym in democracies for "the most people that voted for something". If you don't like such mob rule, it's an argument for something other than a democracy. Not making an argument here - just sayin'.:)
What do you mean? It was a crime. Many of the things you do as "pranks" in college are crimes. Just because something is juvenile doesn't make it not a crime. I did tons of shit in college that were crimes and I was never convicted of anything - but that doesn't make them not crimes.
Regardless of all the talk about hate crimes, the victim's mental health, and college pranks, what Ravi did was a crime and was never in doubt of not being a crime by anyone. The controversy is about the degree of punishment.
Why don't you tell us why assault based on gender/sexual orientation/race is not worse than regular old violence
An assault on anyone is equally as bad. It is not worse than someone else. P.S. I am a gay dude.
The law has always been neutral toward crime, but enforcement of the law was not. Minorities were being murdered, justice was not being done, and tension would build.
Yeah, that sucks. That is also one of the reasons (which I agree for) that bias-intimidation laws exist. However...
Maybe some day we won't need those laws, but America is still struggling with basic things like equality for all.
America addressing the basic things like equality for all is no excuse for fucking with the law. The law should be blind and equal towards all. As a gay man starting a family, I am very aware of America's culture. But I'm telling you, I don't want "special" treatment, I want equal treatment, which means the law should apply equally to me and not especially to me. My goal is when there is NO mention of minorities in the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you and I agree on the right stuff. But I disagree on the application you mention.
+1. "Hate crime" is a very media-tinged description of the law. The actual laws are not based on the "emotion" of hate at all - they are called "bias intimidation". They are meant to address the crimes that are meant to intimidate a large group of people through a smaller crime. The classic example is a burning cross in a yard - a crime which is similar to TP-ing (toilet papering) a person's yard in terms of property damage, but has implications and damage to a community well beyond the personal property damage of the victim.
I disagree. As a gay man, I could technically choose to have sexual relationships with women at the age of 30, well after the sexual functions in my brain are set in stone, even if I couldn't get a boner. I can't really change the color of my skin or my gender (easily). I can still say yes to a girl in a bar, which is the equivalent of what happens in games. I've never seen a game where getting an erection is actually a part of gameplay.
In other words, I don't think choosing your sexual orientation at character creation would be an improvement in a game, unless the gameplay actually involved the potential of your male character to get an erection or your female character to get wet.
I disagree. Slashdot articles have classical liberalism tendencies. I would have use the word "libertarian" but that word has baggage attached to it. I think it's common and natural in logical people, which techies tend to be. This topic has the elements of such tendencies.
Slashdot Mirror
OK! Not trying to piss you off. Glad you don't think that. We just got sidetracked. Have a nice day!
And when you wrote your original statement, you were blatantly stating that the legislative intent was to make gays and blacks more important than whites?
That's the grandparents poster's statement, not mine. My first response in this thread was to disagree with what you're paraphrasing, in fact. (Go ahead, check.) Either that, or you're just finding it easier to take issue with something you've simply made up whole cloth.
Here is what you wrote: Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I am saying that is not the perspective it's coming from. It's coming from the perspective that prosecutors were unable to punish the effects of a burning cross placed in a yard above and beyond a property damage. I know some people at the HRC who actually work on what we're talking about - and I've never met a person who thinks the way you phrased that sentence. Nobody thinks it's worse to kill a black or gay than a white. It's not "even worse", it's just a separate crime to intimidate a minority, regardless of the original crime.
And like I've said, I am under no illusion that my description of perspective is necessarily how the laws are enforced. Wiretapping laws were never intended to prevent citizens from recording public government officials (cops) carrying out their duties, yet years later here we are.
I'm guessing you're personally upset at at being called out on not having read *any* of the actual legal sources. You haven't said otherwise, and your position indicates this as well. You seem insulted that I've dared pointed out that you haven't read squat on a subject you tried to "correct" me on. If it is actually true that you haven't read any legislative material on it... do try to get over it, please.
Why do you think I'm personally upset? I'm not. This is a random /. conversation. Hugs?? I don't have provable evidence that I am informed. Anyways, I have read parts of some laws. And I worked with people who were not legislators but, I guess the right term were lobbyists (not the term they used).
the legislative intent of any given law is intimately tied to the actual text of said enacted law.
I was just using your term, legislative intent. You said that the legislation comes from the perspective that it's worse to kill blacks than whites. You keep getting back to the actual text of said laws and their enforcement, which I am in complete agreement do not have the expected results of the people who wanted it in the first place. This conversation is getting blown out of proportions.
Your position would be analogous to claiming that the primary legislative intent for, say, criminal laws against stabbing someone with a knife, is to keep the community at large from becoming too uneasy.
No, that is only analogous if the primary intent of a stabbing law is to keep the community at large from being uneasy. Obviously, it isn't. Bias intimidation laws were wanted by people because there were no existing or inadequately existing laws against it.
---
Anyways I don't hate you and I agree with what a lot of you're saying. I'm talking about perspectives here, which is an unprovable point. I have a lot of experience to defend such perspectives, namely working with the HRC. I am simply trying to disprove the mistaken line of thought that liberals and/or gays think that it's worse to kill a black or gay person than a white person.
Yeah, you're right. However, that's the thing about the U.S. dollar - it's one of the only currencies that such actions can actually be taken, being a currency that others are based upon in exchanges. I hope it doesn't come to that because it would hurt the U.S. as much (or more?) than the creditors. My life savings would be ruined and also of almost all the people I know if that happened!
So you're telling me you research legislative intent for a living? And when you wrote your original statement, you were blatantly stating that the legislative intent was to make gays and blacks more important than whites? Then when I disagreed that such was the legislative intent, your response is that you directly asked me about something other than legislative intent? I never was talking about anything other than legislative intent.
I simply don't believe you. If you really do such a thing professionally, then you wouldn't have come to the conclusion that the legislative intent of bias intimidation laws were to make blacks and gays more important than others.
Since you've avoided an easy, direct question twice now
I have never once been talking about anything other than legislative intent - to do so would be falling into your strawman argument.
I'll be happy if you can show me otherwise, but I simply don't think your opinion on this matter is an informed one.
Ha - you're the one who does it professionally and came to the conclusion that the legislative intent of bias intimidation laws are that hurting blacks and gays is worse than hurting other people. It isn't - it is meant to be a punishment for intending to cause fear/intimidation/psychological harm/etc to a group of people. Typical example is a burning cross in a yard is simple property damage, but the intimidation to the neighborhood didn't have a crime against it. So bias intimidation laws are a response to that. Just because there are contrary and unjust examples to the laws application doesn't change its intent.
Oh, and you didn't show any evidence to your statements, either. I did some work for the HRC (gay mafia as you'd probably call it) which is why I'm so informed on this stuff.
Well, it still has debt that it hasn't paid off yet, I know. But it has never defaulted on its loans nor said it won't pay, AFAIK.
This is definitely a solution that you've proposed.
However, the real world examples of a publicly approved "scanners" is analogous to public key verification services. There's a famous example of a Dutch verification company which was compromised and therefore broke the system you described.
Interestingly enough, there was a guy in my HOA (condo association) that was running for the president or whatever the name of the head executive officer was. Someone else in the HOA was a former member of the FBI and illicitly and illegally did a background check on him - the type of background check that was only available to the FBI and not someone just renting a home. He told everyone about what this guy did (robbery from OVER THIRTY years ago) and nobody voted for him.
Perfect example of why it's bad to have this information in the government's hand in the first place. Once it's there, it's inevitable that it is going to be exploited and misused in a manner the original framers didn't intend.
Perhaps you've stumbled upon some reason the AC posted anonymously :)
Uncle Sam's signature is already basically worthless as far as its promises to pay back its debt.
Although there's no proof otherwise because such a thing hasn't happened yet, it's safe to say this is 99% incorrect. The US has never not paid its debt. What people think is a worse case scenario isn't that the US won't pay back debts, it's that it will create so much currency to issue debt that the currency will be horribly devalued.
And I'll repeat again. This is what you wrote:
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You did not comment on the law, you commented on the perspective that bias intimidation laws are actually meant to be laws that make some people more important than others. And I told you, correctly, that such a perspective is flat out wrong. The intent of the laws, regardless of what actually happens via their application, is to enable a punishment of people who want to intimidate and hurt minorities.
FYI, I understand why you or others would come to the conclusion that hate crime laws are unjust. It can seem like it does make it worse to kill a black person than it is a white person. Perhaps a regular mugging of a person who turned out later to be gay can be punished worse, by luck of the draw, that they were gay even though the mugger didn't know it. What I am telling you is not that the actual specific laws cannot let this injustice happen - they unfortunately can - what I am telling you is that it's not the reason such laws were created. And you explicitly implied that it was the reason/perspective that the laws were created.
OK you've taken what I said and changed it to something else - the police state. I totally agree that our country's police state is awful. No, I don't think the world is a better place for such ideas.
That being said, I disagree, as most people do, that using a webcam to spy on someone, and broadcast it publicly, should not be a crime. Something that does no harm to others should not be a crime, and whatever the fuck one does in the privacy of their own home/dorm is their own business. That's not what happened in this case. Someone invaded the privacy of someone else's home/dorm (even though they shared it), and broadcast what they were doing in the privacy of their home/dorm to the internet with the intent to invade someone else's privacy. This is not a case of you setting up a webcam in your own home/dorm. You do not, and should not, have the right to do whatever the hell you want to your roommate, just because you also share the home/dorm.
I didn't say the wording of the law. You specifically wrote "Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc." and that is not the perspective. I specifically replied with supposed to be.
In other words, nobody ever says it's worse to kill a black person than a white person. Maybe a small percentage do, but not those who write laws.
Am I bad for being a tiny little bit happy when I hear these stories?
Yes. You should worry about others, less you end up in an apocalyptic society.
Hate crime legislation comes from the perspective that, while it's bad enough for a person to want to hurt or kill another, it's even worse when someone wants to hurt or kill another because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Close... it's not when someone wants to hurt/kill another because of such things, "bias intimidation" laws are supposed to be when someone wants to hurt/kill multiple people beyond the original crime. For example, burning cross is only in one victim(s) yards, but is mean to hurt/kill people in the neighborhood.
I'm with you 99%. But...
If a person of one race kills someone of another race because he or she thinks that the victim, and others of the victim's race, are subhuman and don't deserve to exist, then it's a hate crime.
You are incorrect, in most states, AFAIK.
1. The term "hate crime" is a media term, the law term is "bias intimidation".
2. The reason for bias intimidation laws are for when one commits a crime against someone/thing/people with the intention of harming many more. If you kill someone because you hate them, it's not actually a bias-intimidation law. It's only if you kill someone because you intend to intimidate people like them when it becomes a bias intimidation law. It's an important distinction in such cases where opponents falsely believe that the law makes minorities (blacks, gays, etc.) more "important" than others. 1. If you kill a gay dude and it had nothing to do with the fact that the dude was gay, it is not (supposed to be) a bias intimidation crime. 2. If you kill a gay dude because you hated this guy because he was gay, it is not (supposed to be) a bias intimidation crime. 3. If you kill a gay dude with the intent to scare/harm other gays, then it is.
Now, the problem and debate stems from the fact that bias intimidation laws are incorrectly applied to #1 and #2. It seems like #2 is incorrectly believed by people is actually what "hate crimes" are supposed to be, and yes it is unfortunately applied by some prosecutors. P.S. I'm gay.
I already replied to you, but once again your argument is not sound.
Yeah, the things you say are true. It is FUCKED UP what the federal government does in the situations you mentioned. However, the "theoretical" case of what the law is is that the government shouldn't just pick out certain people and fuck their lives in the expectation that it will scare other people is just plain wrong - bias intimidation laws aren't that, and the law shouldn't be like that.
However, the logical argument in a blind, just world, is that the punishment for hurting one people is 1 XXX, and hurting two people is 2 XXX. Bias intimidation laws are quite logical laws which exist for the fact that certain laws only affect hurting 1 XXX, but the same crimes which hurt 100 XXX should be punished at least more than 1 XXX.
I like your argument, but I think it was misplaced. All of the things you say are true. But you missed the point.
What the OP was saying (or at least I'm going to argue :) is that there is a difference between a crime against a person and a crime which is intended against a large group of people. Theoretically it can be against a group of white people too.
If you killed a guy, that sucks. If you killed a guy because you intended to intimidate a whole group of people, that both sucks and is bias intimidation against a group of people.
For example, white guy 1 TP's a black neighbor's house. Guy 2 puts a burning cross in a black neighbor's house. Guy 1 was a prank; guy 2 was a chilling attack on the entire black people of the neighborhood. Guy 1 and guy 2's property damage are equal. However, the effect of guy 2's crime is waaaaaay worse. Hence, bias intimidation laws are meant to augment regular property laws. They are not meant to imply which neighbors are better than others - even if occasional prosecutors and media fuck that part up.
First of all, "hate crime" is a made up word. The laws are actually called "bias intimidation" laws. They are meant to address the problem of burning a cross in a yard - a mere property crime the equivalent of TP-ing someone's house, but in fact have horribly worse consequences on people and society.
A murder is a murder. A white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) does not get a harsher sentence if they did the same damed thing.
A person, any person, is guilty of a bias-intimidation crime if their crime was intended for a larger group of people. It's actually a simple concept that is completely misunderstood (and probably misused by prosecutors).
If you TP a neighbor's house as a prank, you didn't intend to scare the whole neighborhood. You've committed a simple property crime. If you TP your black neighbor's house in a white neighborhood as a prank, you didn't intend to scare the whole neighborhood. You've committed a simple property crime. If you TP your black neighbor's house in a white neighborhood with the intent to scare the black people in the neighborhood, you have committed a simple property crime... but you've actually meant to intimidate other people with bias, with far reaching consequences on the neighborhood and society, hence the bias intimidation law.
A bias intimidation law is meant to address the problem of a burning cross in a yard - it is equivalent to TP-ing someone's yard in property law terms, but is horrendously more damaging.
It is not, was not intended for, and should not, be a law against the thought and emotion of hate. In fact, bias intimidation crimes have a VERY high bar - although you would like to think so you fucking idiot, in fact it is rare that a bias intimidation conviction happens. For example, 70% of people in American jails are black convicts with black victims, and less than 1% of them arrived there from bias intimidation on black people.
What, like "hate crime" is some huge serious thing that is difficult to get charged with?
There is actually a difficult bar for a crime to be a bias-intimidation crime.
"Hate crime" and "hate crime laws" are just one of a million government excuses used to justify arresting people and selling them into slavery.
Well, I disagree with where you're coming from. But I agree with where you're going. There should only be like 100 reasons to justify arresting people. The fact that there is a million excuses is a horrible existence for society, and we don't even know it - because even though we commit crimes every day, it's arbitrarily random on how we citizens are charged and convicted.
BTW, remember that "government" is a synonym in democracies for "the most people that voted for something". If you don't like such mob rule, it's an argument for something other than a democracy. Not making an argument here - just sayin'. :)
Or how about IT WASN'T A CRIME AT ALL?
What do you mean? It was a crime. Many of the things you do as "pranks" in college are crimes. Just because something is juvenile doesn't make it not a crime. I did tons of shit in college that were crimes and I was never convicted of anything - but that doesn't make them not crimes.
Regardless of all the talk about hate crimes, the victim's mental health, and college pranks, what Ravi did was a crime and was never in doubt of not being a crime by anyone. The controversy is about the degree of punishment.
Why don't you tell us why assault based on gender/sexual orientation/race is not worse than regular old violence
An assault on anyone is equally as bad. It is not worse than someone else. P.S. I am a gay dude.
The law has always been neutral toward crime, but enforcement of the law was not.
Minorities were being murdered, justice was not being done, and tension would build.
Yeah, that sucks. That is also one of the reasons (which I agree for) that bias-intimidation laws exist. However...
Maybe some day we won't need those laws, but America is still struggling with basic things like equality for all.
America addressing the basic things like equality for all is no excuse for fucking with the law. The law should be blind and equal towards all. As a gay man starting a family, I am very aware of America's culture. But I'm telling you, I don't want "special" treatment, I want equal treatment, which means the law should apply equally to me and not especially to me. My goal is when there is NO mention of minorities in the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you and I agree on the right stuff. But I disagree on the application you mention.
+1. "Hate crime" is a very media-tinged description of the law. The actual laws are not based on the "emotion" of hate at all - they are called "bias intimidation". They are meant to address the crimes that are meant to intimidate a large group of people through a smaller crime. The classic example is a burning cross in a yard - a crime which is similar to TP-ing (toilet papering) a person's yard in terms of property damage, but has implications and damage to a community well beyond the personal property damage of the victim.
I disagree. As a gay man, I could technically choose to have sexual relationships with women at the age of 30, well after the sexual functions in my brain are set in stone, even if I couldn't get a boner. I can't really change the color of my skin or my gender (easily). I can still say yes to a girl in a bar, which is the equivalent of what happens in games. I've never seen a game where getting an erection is actually a part of gameplay.
In other words, I don't think choosing your sexual orientation at character creation would be an improvement in a game, unless the gameplay actually involved the potential of your male character to get an erection or your female character to get wet.
I disagree. Slashdot articles have classical liberalism tendencies. I would have use the word "libertarian" but that word has baggage attached to it. I think it's common and natural in logical people, which techies tend to be. This topic has the elements of such tendencies.