Poll of the Day > Biden signs the 'Emmett Till' Bill, making Lynching a Federal Crime...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Judgmenl posted...

This.
Holy shit this thread is cancer.

Holy shit please stop talking about politics from a country where you don't understand the cultural significance.

I don't know the thing

But what I meant was, incase I was misunderstood, if a murder happens it's pretty obvious you should punish the murderer... but if a group of people murder someone then the entire group should be charged. Group accountability is a good here.

Skard proving once again that he doesn't live in our reality

adjl posted...

Then you don't understand the issue. When a hate crime occurs, every member of the targeted community is also victimized by the implicit threat of "you're next." When a personally motivated crime occurs, the immediate victims are the only ones threatened. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism, and as such, their impact goes beyond the immediate impact of the crime in question.

^ This. Hate crimes are targeting a GROUP using individual victims as proxies. This isn't hard to understand; what exactly do you think the term "put them in their place" means? >_>

An example even the willfully ignorant should be able to understand: all Americans were victimized on 9/11.

As an aside, one could argue that a lot of serial killings should be classified as hate crimes, as they are often motivated by bigotry and enacted in such a way as to spread terror among specific groups.

Gaawa_chan posted...

^ This. Hate crimes are targeting a GROUP using individual victims as proxies. This isn't hard to understand; what exactly do you think the term "put them in their place" means? >_>

An example even the willfully ignorant should be able to understand: all Americans were victimized on 9/11.

As an aside, one could argue that a lot of serial killings should be classified as hate crimes, as they are often motivated by bigotry and enacted in such a way as to spread terror among specific groups.

I didn't know anybody there.

the term domestic terrorism means activities that
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

It's already a terrorism.

Which one? what??

Zareth posted...

Skard proving once again that he doesn't live in our reality

I agree we don't have a shared reality. So what makes you certain your reality is the only one of consequence?

Gaawa_chan posted...

Hate crimes are targeting a GROUP using individual victims as proxies.

This is inaccurate. Often a crime is just a crime. But because the perpetrator and victim are of different races the perpetrator is charged with a hate crime even if it wasn't racially motivated. You may be referring to the problem hate crime legislation was intended to address but that is not what happens in practice. For that matter, some hate crimes that were racially motivated get a pass because the victim wasn't the expected race. Race is suppose to be a protected class regardless of which race it is.

Gaawa_chan posted...

what exactly do you think the term "put them in their place" means? >_>

I searched this topic for that phrase to see what you were referring to. I didn't find it. In recent memory the example that comes to mind was a topic about armed conflict with Russia. I'm not getting the connection.

Gaawa_chan posted...

all Americans were victimized on 9/11.

Okay.

Gaawa_chan posted...

all Americans were victimized on 9/11

I wasn't. Went about my day pretty normally. Most people weren't really affected by it in any significant manner. It was mostly moral posturing.

The bullshit the government pulled afterwards on the other hand, that had many a victim. That's what created our current fucked up safety over rights mentality. One tragedy 21 years ago and we're still taking our shoes off to get on a plane. Stupid.

By all means continue to flex about how you don't understand the concept of terrorism in a post 9/11 world, lol. Should have known I was setting my expectations too high, as usual.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Have you ever seen any crime show ever? When someone gets killed for any reason, all the people nearby get super paranoid for their safety.

And hate crimes go beyond that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Terrorism is a crime too. If hate crime = crime + terrorism, the current law specifically targets that.

Pedantically, a terrorist act only counts as terrorism if the goal is to effect political change. There's a lot of wiggle room in that definition such that it's not strictly limited to government responses, but there's still a key element of wanting formal policy changes that give in to the terrorists' demands. The aim of terrorists is to directly coerce their desired outcome out of those with the power to give it to them.

The changes hate crimes want to enforce tend to be more informal than that. They're not pushing for it to be illegal for black people to live there (for example), they're pushing for black people to feel so unwelcome and fearful that they all leave. It's less a matter of direct coercion and more a matter of intimidation.

Are they similar concepts? Yes, and I get where you're coming from when you point that out. But as it stands now, most hate crimes don't meet the legal definition of terrorism, so trying to bring that charge in as an exacerbating factor wouldn't work. Establishing a variant charge that does capture the nuance aims to fix that. By and large, those committing hate-motivated crimes represent more of a danger to the public than those committing more individually-motivated crimes do, so having a more serious charge available to account for that makes sense.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It sounds to me that their shared identity is the problem here, not the actions of the perpetrator.

"There's a serial killer murdering every black person he can find! We need to hide!"
"Have you tried not being black?"

In an Internet full of unbelievable demonstrations of more profound stupidity than any sane person would ever have dreamed possible, I think that might genuinely be the most impossibly idiotic thing I have ever read. My God have mercy on us all.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm less bothered by their motivation than I am by what they did in pursuit of that motivation.

The issue is that the motivation dictates how much of a threat they continue to be. This is not a new concept: murder (in all its forms) is already divided by various "degrees" and variant charges that reflect the circumstances of the killing under the rationale that somebody who deliberately plans to kill somebody is going to be more dangerous to society than somebody who kills somebody out of carelessness. There's a lot more to consider than "you shot one person, go to jail for X years," which is why trials and lawyers and juries and sentencing hearings exist.

The vast majority of murder (et al) trials don't focus on determining whether or not the accused killed the victim. That's usually pretty readily established. They focus on the extent to which the killer needs to be held responsible for that death if society is to be protected from them. Many factors come into that decision, and motivation is absolutely one of them. Treating hate as an exacerbating factor is completely consistent with that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

But because the perpetrator and victim are of different races the perpetrator is charged with a hate crime even if it wasn't racially motivated.

That's generally not what happens. A hate crime may be suspected, but unless there's evidence suggesting it's a factor (such as Arbery's murderers shouting racial slurs after killing him), it's rare to see that turn into a conviction. Perhaps you should look at more real-world data instead of basing your understanding of the situation off of a South Park clip.

adjl posted...

Pedantically, a terrorist act only counts as terrorism if the goal is to effect political change.

I literally cited the law of your country for you before you posted this and you still try to lie. It's literally if it's intended to scare a group of people.

adjl posted...

hate crimes go beyond that.

As you previously argued, the reason for that is some people identify with the original victim more than others.

adjl posted...

"There's a serial killer murdering every black person he can find! We need to hide!"
"Have you tried not being black?"

I've been told that race is a social construct. So if you stop acknowledging it then it should no longer matter. Thus the serial killer won't be able to target them on that basis.
More importantly to your argument, if identifying as black isn't significant to them then they won't be victimized by the implicit threat that they are next. They simply won't associate them self with the crime.

adjl posted...

There's a lot more to consider than "you shot one person, go to jail for X years," which is why trials and lawyers and juries and sentencing hearings exist.

There are more prevalent reasons those things exist. Though what you're talking about is a matter of sentencing. There shouldn't be separate convictions when they killed one person but there were several ways to describe how the perpetrator killed them.

adjl posted...

Perhaps you should look at more real-world data

I don't consider being able to access this data to be common knowledge. Do you know where to find it?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I've been told that race is a social construct. So if you stop acknowledging it then it should no longer matter. Thus the serial killer won't be able to target them on that basis.

holy shit

race crimes won't magically go away if society stops acknowledging race what the actual fuck man

agesboy posted...

race crimes won't magically go away if society stops acknowledging race

Sure they will. They won't be race crimes anymore. They'll just be regular crimes.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Sure they will. They won't be race crimes anymore. They'll just be regular crimes.

Not really how it works.

Race being a social construct means people can define it wherever they want. This means a hate crime serial killer can choose whatever set of factors they want (including traditional definitions) and attack that group. As with all identity, you don't decide your identity, others do, accordingly the killer would be charged due to making any group identity they want to attack. What the identity is is irrelevant, it's a hate crime to do a crime because of the identity.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This means a hate crime serial killer can choose whatever set of factors they want

How would the potential victims know what factors the killer is using? If they can't identify that factor in the previous victims, or if they don't identify with that factor, then there is no implicit threat of "you're next" to victimize them in that way.

What hate crime legislation does is to enforce a common definition of these factors and encourage people to identify with them more. Thus enhancing the implicit threat of "you're next".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As with all identity, you don't decide your identity,

Woke culture has been coming up with new identities and getting laws passed to force people to recognize them. If they get to choose how they identify then other people can choose how they don't identify.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What the identity is is irrelevant

I agree.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

it's a hate crime to do a crime because of the identity.

Now you're placing emphasis on the identity. We just agreed the identity was irrelevant.

People are actually pushed against anti-lynching bills just because they hate Biden, and they wonder why our country is so fucked, probably complain about how people aren't free thinkers and are too partisan as well.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I've been told that race is a social construct. So if you stop acknowledging it then it should no longer matter. Thus the serial killer won't be able to target them on that basis.

Are you genuinely so clueless that you believe that "race is a social construct" means people magically stop being black if they stop saying they're black? What that actually means is that race only has significance because part of society says that it does, and it's generally said to communicate the point of "there's no inherent reason for you to worry about race, so stop." A serial killer who is specifically targeting black people constitutes a part of society that is saying race is significant. You can be as open-minded about race as you want to be, but that dude's still going to be killing every black person he finds, and that means anyone that meets his definition of "black" needs to be afraid.

Believing that race is a social construct does not preclude acknowledging that said social construct exists and has significant effects. It just means that you believe those effects are stupid.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Though what you're talking about is a matter of sentencing. There shouldn't be separate convictions when they killed one person but there were several ways to describe how the perpetrator killed them.

They have different burdens of proof, so there kind of have to be different convictions, since that proof is presented during the criminal trial and not the sentencing process.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't consider being able to access this data to be common knowledge. Do you know where to find it?

Hate crime conviction numbers are pretty easy to find, as is data on murders sorted by the race of the victim and the race of the perpetrator. Right off the bat, comparing those two numbers will tell you that every instance of a minority being murdered by a white person doesn't count as a hate crime, since the former is going to be quite a bit smaller than the latter. More than that, hate convictions are generally pretty uncommon, and if anything, a whole lot of things that probably should count don't end up being counted because local governments either don't care about the extra victimization or they're too afraid of overreaching.

Regardless of what data you can find, though, basing your understanding of a complex social, political, and legal matter off of a 2-minute clip from South Park is always going to be a dumb idea. South Park is a satirical caricature of everything it represents. There's often a kernel of truth somewhere in that caricature, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is accurate enough to treat as being informative.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now you're placing emphasis on the identity. We just agreed the identity was irrelevant.

The specific identity is irrelevant. The fact that the crime is based on an identity - whatever that identity is - is what makes it a hate crime.

adjl posted...

people magically stop being black if they stop saying they're black?

I suppose that depends on what you think it means to be black.

adjl posted...

race only has significance because part of society says that it does

Right, and if society stops placing significance on it then it goes away.

adjl posted...

that means anyone that meets his definition of "black" needs to be afraid.

I thought you were opposed to victimizing them with the implicit threat of "you're next." If they don't realize they fit his definition of "black" then they won't be afraid. But now it sounds like you want them to be victimized that way.

adjl posted...

They have different burdens of proof

That's another issue I have with it.

adjl posted...

basing your understanding of a complex social, political, and legal matter off of a 2-minute clip from South Park is always going to be a dumb idea.

South Park said something I agree with and stated it in a concise manner that makes it convenient for posting. It is in no way the basis for my understanding of the subject.

adjl posted...

The fact that the crime is based on an identity - whatever that identity is - is what makes it a hate crime.

Everyone has an identity. Every victim of a crime has an identity. If it doesn't matter what the identity is then why should it be extra illegal to victimize some identities and not others?

Far-Queue posted...

People who can't grasp the purpose or need behind hate crime bills are fucking morons

Pretty much.

I'm old enough to remember the lynching of James Byrd Jr. that happened about an hour away from where I live. They dragged that man behind a pickup truck until his body was dismembered. Do people think that the black community in Jasper or surrounding counties weren't on edge after that lynching?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

suppose that depends on what you think it means to be black.

please stop replying to this man

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

How would the potential victims know what factors the killer is using? If they can't identify that factor in the previous victims, or if they don't identify with that factor, then there is no implicit threat of "you're next" to victimize them in that way.

That applies to literally all crimes. Without proof there isn't a case, if they reveal their motive, you can act on it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now you're placing emphasis on the identity. We just agreed the identity was irrelevant.

It being irrelevant doesn't make it non-existant. What your nation is is irrelevant and yet throughout human history we have fought and banded together on arbitrary shared ideas of what a national identity is.

You don't need a good reason to do something for it to be a crime, quite the opposite.

adjl posted...

The specific identity is irrelevant. The fact that the crime is based on an identity - whatever that identity is - is what makes it a hate crime.

This one.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought you were opposed to victimizing them with the implicit threat of "you're next." If they don't realize they fit his definition of "black" then they won't be afraid. But now it sounds like you want them to be victimized that way.

You don't have to agree with someone's identifying criteria to be threatened by what they mean. If a guy said "I'm gonna kill all them there Africans" and kills a black American, they can reasonably assume he identifies black Americans as Africans and thus they should be afraid, even if they don't identify themselves as African.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Everyone has an identity. Every victim of a crime has an identity. If it doesn't matter what the identity is then why should it be extra illegal to victimize some identities and not others?

In law it is not, it doesn't make a distinction on which identities, just clarifies the general groups. If you feel it isn't enforced that way, it's up to you to sue since it's a bit illegal to not uphold the law.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Right, and if society stops placing significance on it then it goes away.

No, it just stops being significant. There will always be differences between people even if everyone stops caring about them. Those differences just won't matter.

Moreover, society has not stopped placing significance on the differences in question, nor has the serial killer basing his murder spree off of them, so that's a hypothetical scenario with absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought you were opposed to victimizing them with the implicit threat of "you're next." If they don't realize they fit his definition of "black" then they won't be afraid. But now it sounds like you want them to be victimized that way.

There's a considerable difference between not caring about visible differences and not knowing about visible differences. I really don't know why you're having such difficulty understanding this.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's another issue I have with it.

It shouldn't be. The simple reality of the matter is that proving murder is very different from proving manslaughter. You're never going to be able to escape that because there are so many different variables involved in any given instance of killing a person.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

South Park said something I agree with and stated it in a concise manner that makes it convenient for posting. It is in no way the basis for my understanding of the subject.

In that case, I invite you to share your actual basis, since South Park's inherently flawed assessment isn't exactly helping your case.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Everyone has an identity. Every victim of a crime has an identity. If it doesn't matter what the identity is then why should it be extra illegal to victimize some identities and not others?

And again, we come back to the same fundamental misunderstanding that shows up in South Park's interpretation: The victim of a crime having an identity does not mean that that identity was the motivation for the crime.

More broadly, there is indeed some gatekeeping as to which identities warrant protection. The fact that (as you say) everyone has some kind of identity kind of necessitates that, since otherwise you lose sight of that core tenet of "this crime vicitimizes a broad class of people and should therefore be treated more seriously." That's generally going to be drawn on somewhat arbitrary lines that are more or less universally agreed upon (except by hate criminals), mostly on the basis of traits that are so intrinsic to people that they can't be changed, such as race or sexual orientation. That's decided on a case by case basis, so if you disagree with the designation of any particular class as being protected or not, you'll have to do so on a similarly case-by-case basis.

Far-Queue posted...

People who can't grasp the purpose or need behind hate crime bills are fucking morons

Lynching hasn't been a hate crime before this?!

moog posted...

Lynching hasn't been a hate crime before this?!

Not federally