Poll of the Day > Lynching has only now just become a hate crime

(+) Yeah! (+)

Better late than never I guess

Nice link.

Otherwise, considering lynching doesn't always involve race, sexual orientation, or any personal character, it's a curious decision. Does this mean an all-white, cis het male mob could be charged with a hate crime for lynching a white, cis het male victim?

The_Viscount posted...

Nice link.

Otherwise, considering lynching doesn't always involve race, sexual orientation, or any personal character, it's a curious decision. Does this mean an all-white, cis het male mob could be charged with a hate crime for lynching a white, cis het male victim?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/596219-house-passes-bill-making-lynching-a-federal-hate-crime

It is defined in the bill as bodily injury on the basis of perceived race, color, religion or nationality.

I fail to see why assaulting someone based on race is somehow worse than assaulting someone just because.

basically telling the victim it's not as bad

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I fail to see why assaulting someone based on race is somehow worse than assaulting someone just because.

Well thats probably because youre a fucking idiot.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I fail to see why assaulting someone based on race is somehow worse than assaulting someone just because.

basically telling the victim it's not as bad

Because the community they're targeting is also a victim. The perpetrators are trying to send a message through violence. It's a form of terrorism.

Can't we just be able to hang people we don't like without bringing in unnecessary implications?

What has the world come to...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I fail to see why assaulting someone based on race is somehow worse than assaulting someone just because.

Extremely dumb take.

These laws aren't about saying one crime is worse than the other. They're about affording more protections to the disenfranchised, and helping to ensure justice is served to those who haven't historically had fair representation under the current system.

Anyone who fails to see the need for this sort of legislation has their head up their ass at best, or is a racist moron at worst.

A hate crime is just a crime.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I fail to see why assaulting someone based on race is somehow worse than assaulting someone just because.

basically telling the victim it's not as bad

You don't understand anything.

The_Viscount posted...

Nice link.

Otherwise, considering lynching doesn't always involve race, sexual orientation, or any personal character, it's a curious decision. Does this mean an all-white, cis het male mob could be charged with a hate crime for lynching a white, cis het male victim?

What kind of weirdo logic is this?

The_Viscount posted...

Nice link.

Otherwise, considering lynching doesn't always involve race, sexual orientation, or any personal character, it's a curious decision. Does this mean an all-white, cis het male mob could be charged with a hate crime for lynching a white, cis het male victim?

That didn't take long

Lynching is just a mob killing someone for a crime (real or not) without due process

Zeus defending lynching in zero minutes flat lol

im almost proud zeus is (as far is i know) my only mutual block partner

well, i blocked him when he shit up the anime topics on his main and havent bothered with this alt (which he's blocked me on because i made mean tos-friendly statements about him) because it's kinda funny, but still

The_Viscount posted...

an all-white, cis het male mob

Somehow I don't see them stopping to ensure they have a tolkien minority in their midst.

KodyKeir posted...

Somehow I don't see them stopping to ensure they have a tolkien minority in their midst.

a hobbit?

jiffdiff posted...

Because the community they're targeting is also a victim. The perpetrators are trying to send a message through violence. It's a form of terrorism.

Good post.

The_Viscount posted...

Nice link.

Otherwise, considering lynching doesn't always involve race, sexual orientation, or any personal character, it's a curious decision. Does this mean an all-white, cis het male mob could be charged with a hate crime for lynching a white, cis het male victim?

nah thats just mans inhumanity to other mans no big deal .

rjsilverthorn posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/596219-house-passes-bill-making-lynching-a-federal-hate-crime

It is defined in the bill as bodily injury on the basis of perceived race, color, religion or nationality.

So it's also redefining lynching?

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I fail to see why assaulting someone based on race is somehow worse than assaulting someone just because.

basically telling the victim it's not as bad

Generally the issue with most hate crime legislation.

jiffdiff posted...

Because the community they're targeting is also a victim. The perpetrators are trying to send a message through violence. It's a form of terrorism.

...which is true of non-racial/gendered/whatever lynching.

EvilMegas posted...

What kind of weirdo logic is this?

What kind of weirdo logic is the legislation?

FatalAccident posted...

Zeus defending lynching in zero minutes flat lol

Considering lynching is already a crime because murder is a crime (as is assault) and nobody suggested it shouldn't be, your post is all kinds of stupid. And it's doubly stupid considering again, how many all-white, cis het majority-male mobs lynched white, cis het male victims. The way that the law exists is either it suggests those lynches weren't lynchings (ie, redefining lynchings so the previous lynchings aren't considered lynchings at all) or defining those as hate crimes as well.

jiffdiff posted...

Because the community they're targeting is also a victim. The perpetrators are trying to send a message through violence. It's a form of terrorism.

Pretty much. Assaulting somebody on a personal basis means you have one target. Assaulting somebody on a racial basis means you have as many targets as there are people of that race, which carries the implicit threat of "I'll be coming for you next" to every member of that community, usually with the intent of scaring all of them away.

Now, it could be characterized as terrorism instead of identifying it specifically as a hate crime, but as a concept, terrorism tends to focus on effecting political change, or otherwise making changes at a broader organizational level. Terrorizing communities to the point of motivating individual members to leave is subtly different from that, so explicitly spelling it out as being illegal instead of letting a racist dickbag get off on terrorism charges because their lawyer exploited those subtleties is a good idea.

Conveniently, spelling it out like this is also good for the free speech proponents: So long as the exceptions are clearly spelled out and decided individually, you have the potential to object to each decision as it arises. You don't have to argue "racial slurs shouldn't be illegal because that violates free speech," you have to argue "racial slurs shouldn't be exempt from free speech protections because...", which generally isn't something anyone can argue without outing themselves as a racist dickbag. Meanwhile, "being critical of the government shouldn't be exempt from free speech protections because..." is a very easy argument to make.

jiffdiff posted...

Because the community they're targeting is also a victim. The perpetrators are trying to send a message through violence. It's a form of terrorism.

This. Lynching is not just a crime aimed at the individual victim. If you don't understand that, you probably need to do some reading up on the subject.

It's not exactly a secret; the people who have engaged in lynching will out right tell you that they want to "put group X in their place."

The_Viscount posted...

...which is true of non-racial/gendered/whatever lynching.

It's axiomatically not. If you lynch somebody because they're white, you are sending a message to all white people that they are not safe. That message becomes somewhat less threatening when whites are the overwhelming majority, but it is nonetheless the core goal of that violent act. If you simply assault a victim who happens to be white, without their race being the basis of that assault, you're not trying to send a message and it's therefore not lynching.

adjl posted...

It's axiomatically not. If you lynch somebody because they're white, you are sending a message to all white people that they are not safe. That message becomes somewhat less threatening when whites are the overwhelming majority, but it is nonetheless the core goal of that violent act.

This is correct. Viscount doesn't seem to understand hate crimes at all. Hate crimes can be committed against any categorized group noted under law. So if a hate crime law specifies that it acknowledges people being targeted for their sex/gender, this does not just mean "cis women and trans people."

It just so happens that hate crimes happen most often against these groups for a variety of reasons, but if Viscount could be bothered to, oh, I don't know, read the fucking laws, he might have noticed that the language does not exclude majority/dominant sociopolitical groups from the possibility of having a hate crime committed against them recognized.

At best, he could argue that it is unfortunate that such events are less likely to be taken as seriously in discourse due to the bizarre nature of our society, but that is even speculation on my part and that's not what he's saying. He's just whining about nothing.

Idk if Zeus doesnt understand the concept of lynching as a hate crime or

Gaawa_chan posted...

This is correct. Viscount doesn't seem to understand hate crimes at all. Hate crimes can be committed against any categorized group noted under law. So if a hate crime law specifies that it acknowledges people being targeted for their sex/gender, this does not just mean "cis women and trans people."

It just so happens that hate crimes happen most often against these groups for a variety of reasons, but if Viscount could be bothered to, oh, I don't know, read the fucking laws, he might have noticed that the language does not exclude majority/dominant sociopolitical groups from the possibility of having a hate crime committed against them recognized.

At best, he could argue that it is unfortunate that such events are less likely to be taken as seriously in discourse due to the bizarre nature of our society, but that is even speculation on my part and that's not what he's saying. He's just whining about nothing.

If it helps guide your expectations of his understanding of the situation, Viscount is Zeus.

adjl posted...

If it helps guide your expectations of his understanding of the situation, Viscount is Zeus.

Nah I got that. Does he want us to continue calling him Zeus or?

Gaawa_chan posted...

Nah I got that. Does he want us to continue calling him Zeus or?

*Shrug* Just thought I'd clarify, just in case you thought you were dealing with somebody a little less... Zeusy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Too soon.

"What about the poor, straight, white males who are being lynched everyday? Don't they deserve to be included?"

Zeus has defended literally nazis. His posts in this topic are not surpising.

GanonsSpirit posted...

Zeus has defended literally nazis. His posts in this topic are not surpising.

It's usually less overt defense and more pointing out that they're not technically Nazis because it's no longer 1940 and we're not in Germany, while suspiciously not actually providing any commentary on whatever Nazi-ing they're doing. A favourite argument of his is "Wearing a police uniform doesn't make you a police officer, why would wearing a swastika make you a Nazi?", which is all kinds of fallacious.

EvilMegas posted...

"What about the poor, straight, white males who are being lynched everyday? Don't they deserve to be included?"

Unfucking real innit? It's downright tragic when you realize there are a million other moronic assholes just like that, and they vote

Pretty sure hanging someone is murder.

Judgmenl posted...

Pretty sure hanging someone is murder.

Unless you end up with a hung jury.