Where in my quote did I say anything about any crime, I am talking about crimes that are prosecuted as hate crimes.
Ok let me add a few details, When my 20 racist friends and I go kill a black man in the neighborhood, with ambiguity as to whether it was an attempt to scare the other black people in the neighborhood, we will receive a harsher penalty because it is a hate crime, because according to your views it has consequences beyond that, it terrorizes other black people. But any crime has such consequences, if we just murdered another white guy, would that not terrorize other people in the neighborhood as well? Why does one require harsher punishment?
Hmm maybe you were not but I was thats why it was my example.
Yeah they need an additional charge of terroristic threats. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Hate Crime legislation is not needed.
This is your opinion and not a fact that can be stated with any certainty.
Yeah because any and all laws on the boos are good ones. :rolleyes:
And yet some people in this thread have claimed that it is a hate crime and was racially motivated.
True, however hate crime legislation is completely unnecessary and at odds with the 14th Amendment.
Are you just being deliberately obstinate to avoid admitting you were wrong about your characterization of my post or are you just genuinely this stupid? This is almost the exact opposite of what I said. Let me break this down for you:
No, sir. I said it should NOT be characterized as a hate crime:
Only a liar or a fool could possibly claim that I was calling this act a hate crime. Which are you?
Uh, no. If you’re going to build a strawman, at least dress it like me. This is what I actually said:
In no way, shape or form does say that hate crime laws are bad. To the contrary, it says they are a good thing, when applied properly. Trying to twist this into making the claim that I am calling hate crime laws bad is disingenous and intellectually dishonest.
I called you out on this bullshit in a previous post, as well. I’m still waiting for you to address that one. You’re so worked up about attacking me for whatever reason that it’s completely escaped your attention that we are essentially taking the same position with some minor differences, and it’s making you look really stupid. Wipe the froth off your chin, actually read my post and then get back to me when you’re prepared to be reasonable and admit you screwed up.
Where have I equated racism with hate crimes? I’ve been arguing exactly the opposite: that a crime may have an element of racism (or any other bigotry you care to name) and still not be a hate crime. I think the definition of hate crime should be narrower than how it’s currently used.
But it was also the act of a mentally unstable man. I guess that still makes it a hate crime, but I don’t think he should have been tried for it. I don’t think he should have been tried for any of the murders: he should have been put in an institution and spent the rest of his life doped to the eyeballs. He was too crazy to be responsible for his actions, or his beliefs, including the racist ones.
I don’t enough about Goetz to debate him in this context, but I’d argue that a hate crime ought not to be sympathetic or forgivable by its nature. If it is, maybe it isn’t really a hate crime you’re talking about.
By wanting to narrow the focus of hate crimes you are de facto equating hate crimes as racist acts only. That’s not currently how its written or intended. Any egregious act of violent prejudice by anyone against anyone in certain protected social groups qualifies.
Colin Ferguson was a red-blooded bigot who may well have been mentally unstable… but he was sane. Sometimes “crazy” means “he knows exactly what the fuck he’s doing is absolutely ill-advised and wrong, but he doesn’t give a shit.”
[Miller=quote]I don’t enough about Goetz to debate him in this context, but I’d argue that a hate crime ought not to be sympathetic or forgivable by its nature. If it is, maybe it isn’t really a hate crime you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE]
Possibly. But what may be considered a hate crime is often flexible depending on the passions of the community. They’re plenty of people who thought the rioters who pulled Reginald Denny out of his truck on the corner of Florence and Noamandie deserved sympathy and forgiveness, including Denny himself. Objectively I say it’s a hate crime. But sympathy and forgiveness are weird emotions anyway.
Y’know, I just caught this part–must have overlooked it before. This is goddamn hilarious, considering this is exactly what you’ve been doing with me. You can either refute my points concerning your baseless attack on my post, or you can admit you were wrong. Ball’s in your court, pal.
I’ll feel perfectly fucking fine, thank you very much, because I’m not going to eat a salad that tastes like RAID.
The WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME of this scenario is that a bag of food is ruined. Not that puppydogs are poisoned by the dozens, not that dear old grandma asphyxiates on RAID-soaked bagels, not that the psycho will clutch his throat and keel over while munching on chips. The worst case is that they get home, discover that the bag of food smells like RAID, and return it to the store to get a refund.
Y’all are aware that insecticides smell awful and don’t taste like a nummy treat, right?
I love this. You’re extremely worried that a can might puncture and contaminate your food, causing grievous injury–but when someone gets sprayed in the face with insecticide, the dude’s not hurt?
He wasn’t permanently blinded, sure. But I guarantee he got a higher dose of insecticide than anyone is ever going to get from a can leaking in a bag.
Nothing. Despite the UL that blacks are especially racist against whites, it’s obvious that the slur game doesn’t go both ways. This fact was explored decades ago in the famous SNL sketch with Chevy Chase exchanging racist epithets with Richard Pryor - Pryor’s character ran out of slurs long before Chase did.
No, because the present answer still is “nothing”. That and theoretically, Chase never ran out of slurs, he just stopped for the sake of a short sketch (there’re plenty I can think of that he never mentioned), while Pryor definitely did run out. Since Pryor had to repeat “honky” thrice while Chase still had some in reserve was enough to justify “long” IMO.
Theoretically? Man, it was fiction! You can’t be seriously citing it as a definitive list of racial epithets, can you? I mean, I’m a pasty-faced Wonderbread hick of a Mick, so maybe that’s why I can think of a few that Pryor didn’t use, but even if Pryor ran out, it was serendipitous: the repitition of honkey in the way he said it made the skit hysterically funny, in a way that it wouldn’t have been funny if he’d just kept on with new slurs.
Why?! I don’t know everything, but I’ve heard (and read on messageboards) blacks saying anti-white things, but I’ve never heard any slurs. OTOH, I’ve heard a variety of anti-black slurs coming from whites in my adult life, including brand new ones (“golfer” anyone?). If you know of any anti-white slurs in current use then why don’t you tell us what they are?
You’ve never heard the word cracker? Or whitebread? And white boy, while tame, is still pretty popular. There’s also the less common peckerwood. I find that one amusing, actually.
If you won’t accept Pryor’s list as definitive, what about “Colored Spade” from the musical “Hair?”
Namecalling invective by blacks towards whites has always been limited. Seriously. Bigots are endlessly inventive when it comes to dehumanizing people with names, particularly bigots who’re white racists. Pryor knows this as well as the black members of the audience. One of the reasons the skit was so funny it that it works on two levels: the desperate repetition of “honky” is funny in an of itself, as Dorkness said, and that black people in the audience knew damn well Pryor was pretty much running out of names. He already used “redneck,” “ofay,” “peckerwood,” “cracker” and “white trash” in the skit. What else in popular black 70s culture was there? “White boy” wasn’t widely used until the early 1980s. “Whitebread” simply isn’t an epithet. Granted, there’s “White devils” by the Black Muslims, but that one never went far outside the Nation Of Islam.
I agree with pizzabrat. For all the animosity and discrimination, African-Americans have never produced many derogatory terms for white people. Possibly the bitterest, most invective-packed terms are “white folks” followed closely by “The White Man.”
Really? Huh: that’s my preferred term for talking about race. There’s white folk and black folk and other folk; the word “folk” makes the term sound non-bitter to my ear.
If you’re saying that white bigots came up with more obnoxious epithets, I can certainly agree with that. But pizzabrat’s claim was a lot more, well, black-and-white than what you seem to be saying.