roachboy

it's hard to see through all the straw men...

"hate crime" legislation seems to me well-intentioned but also to somehow miss the point in that it reduces racism to a subjective state--which is obviously incomplete....racism is also a social phenomenon, and the most dangerous dimension of that phenomenon is that context can "normalize" racism. such legislation has nothing to say about that. but i frankly dont know how legislation could be fashioned that would outlaw the normalization of racist or homophobic attitudes. and it is pretty obvious that the production of political arguments that resonate with such attitudes--that presuppose them, that de facto legitimate them---are a working feature of petit bourgeois conservatism. but this is separate...it does follow, so far as i am concerned anyway, that a political movement (or individual politicians who speak to or about the constituency of such a movement) that relies on racism or homophobia to sell itself (or to sell an individual politico) is unacceptable. or should be.

that said, i dont see the problem with such laws--i would imagine that they function to define a particular type of intent--which is always to some extent a construct built backward from an act. if you have some guy who kills someone with premeditation and is an avowed homophobe--say--and the victim is gay and the evidence points to homophobia as a motivation, then why not treat it more severely than other types of intent in that it strikes directly at the individuals who commit crimes across such motives and indirectly at the context(s) within which such attitudes are understood as acceptable.

the entire right liberatarian misinterpretation of the notion of intent--which results in the notion of "thought policing"--seems to me fundamentally wrong in that it assumes that intent is not constructed across evidence and imputed to the accused on that basis--there is no claim that this construct accounts for intent itself (the subjective state of the accused in a trial) itself, and if such was anything like the working definition of intent it would be impossible to establish it ever. an action is what provides the logical center of arguments ABOUT intent that attempt to fit evidence into a type of explanation for the action.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

Subject 'A' killed a man

Subject 'A' killed a man because he was gay


anyone see a difference? The only difference is the why. Do we really think that demanding harsher punishment over murder, because of the reason a person was murdered, serves justice? Or is it that people who support this kind of hate crime legislation wish it to serve the purpose of social engineering?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

You have any stats on that oppressed white man thing?

archetypal fool

As Will already said, it comes down to personal politics and philosophies. In my opinion, if someone kills a friends because they duked it out once, the bad guy lost, then came back with a gun, it's sick, but there was "reason" or "motive" to do so: anger and revenge.

If my friend is a flamboyant homosexual, walking down a street and some homophobe pulls out a gun and kills him BECAUSE he is gay, there is no "motive", no "reason" or "rhyme" or "rationalizing" like the former example.

For me, there's a huge difference. One is out-right hate, the other revolves around an action. I don't know how else to put it.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

ubertuber

Yeah, I think so too... Your best reasons are not enough for me, and mine would likely not be enough for you. It's still interesting to hear a different point of view.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

jorgelito

All rape is a hate crime. Same with vandalism. Robbery too in many instances.

A man who murders his wife's lover is also commting a hate crime presuming he hates the wife's lover.

All terrorism is a hate crime. Those people hate a lot.

People who blow up abortion clinics are also committing hate crimes since they hate people who perform abortions.

Etc, etc, etc......

Hate crime legislation is very slippery slope.

Baraka_Guru

...and spray-painting swastikas on Jewish tombstones is a hate crime.... verbally attacking lesbians on the basis of their identity is a hate crime... Not only do they affect the victims, the emotional effect they have on their particular communities runs deep.

Hate crime legislation a slippery slope? The quicker the slide, the better.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Jinn

From where do you derive such generalizations? My guess is from your posterior region, but you're welcome to disprove me with actual studies.

If I can cite one instance of a rapist who raped for sex rather than power, or one tagger who tagged for the fun of it, challenge of it, or artistic ability of it, then your declaration of "all" is useless.

And a bad straw man, at that.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

abaya

Interesting... you completely avoided the questions that several of us asked in response to your previous post. Hope you're coming back to answer them.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Jinn

Honestly, if I dropped an un-defendable argument like "white males are the most persecuted" I wouldn't come back to defend it either.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Telluride

I think that opposing same-sex marriage is a pretty clear sign of anti-gay sentiments. The legal status of the relationship between consenting adults doesn't have much real-world affect on the lives of others. In my opinion, there is no reason to oppose same-sex marriage unless you have a problem with the people who want to marry.

Hate crime laws are another story. Allowing the government to hand out extra punishment to criminals motivated by certain political/social views is a dangerous road to go down. There's nothing inherently homophobic (or racist, sexist, etc.) about opposing hate crime laws. But, in fairness, I'm guessing that most "hatemongers" probably oppose hate crime laws as well.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

seretogis

I'm hesitant to throw out the "anti-gay card" simply because it should be a last resort when arguing with people who are opposed to same-sex marriage. There are indeed legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage legislation (mine is to avoid further legislating a social contract -- my solution would be for ALL marriages to become "civil unions" in the eyes of the State), however I can think of none to justify the support of "..ONLY between a man and a woman.." constitutional amendments and the like.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

dksuddeth

well, first off you misquoted me....and horrendously at that. Was that on purpose?

What I SAID was that white males are the most DISCRIMINATED against at this time, what with affirmative action and all.

Are there studies? who knows and who cares...you wouldn't believe them anyway. I'd hear nothing but excuses about how the study is skewed to produce particular results or that it's just karma for the last 200 years or some other such crap. If you refuse to see reality, far be it from me to rock your fantasy.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Who cares if there isn't any evidence or data to support dksuddeth's theory that it's not Blacks or Asians or Latinos who are discriminated against...no way José. It's white men. It's the people who have been in charge of everything for hundreds of years. It's the people who occupy the richest of the rich not only in the US, but worldwide. It's the only race and gender that has ever been president of the US. It's the race and gender that's most likely to get hired for a job, or star in a movie, or do much of anything.

I can make up things, too:
- Asians can fly and fire energy blasts
- Jules Verne hated cream pies
- George W. Bush is actually a woman
- Axe body spray is people!
- If you play a trombone backwards, you can travel through time


See how silly that is?

seretogis

Racism isn't racism if it's directed toward white men, it's just payback for hundreds of years of injustice perpetrated by other people who look just like them.

Is that what you're trying to say?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Willravel

Seretogis, dksuddeth said this:
The most? Are you really going to line up behind that? Everyone is discriminated against. I've been discriminated against, and I'm German/Irish. Am I the most discriminated against? Shit no. Not even close. White males still run the show, and are still probably the least discriminated against. The idea that we are the most discriminated against is delusional (note: I'm calling the idea delusional, not the person that had the idea).

Telluride

I'm not sure how legalizing same-sex marriage results in a social contract, but I wouldn't define your position as anti-gay. On the other hand, I wouldn't define your position as simply being opposed to same-sex marriage, either. Most people who oppose same-sex marriages aren't calling for all marriages to be redifined as civil unions. They usually want marriage for heterosexual couples and no marriage for same-sex couples. I guess I should rephrase my statement to say, "Believing that same-sex couples don't deserve the same legal status as heterosexual couples is a pretty clear sign of anti-gay sentiments."

People generally don't demand discrimination against a group of people unless they have a problem with that group of people. This applies to everything from the old caste system in India to bans on same-sex marriage to Jim Crow laws to affirmative action.

It's okay for some people punished for the actions of others simply because they looked similar? Wow! If that doesn't set up an endless cycle of hostility, I don't know what will! That's bound to stir up resentment from the people being punished for shit they didn't do.

EDIT: I've surpassed 300 posts.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

FoolThemAll

You'd think that would be generally true, but in my experience it frequently isn't. There aren't any good reasons to support such discrimination, but there are non-bigoted reasons. If I accepted the idea that gay marriage destabilizes the institution, or that a lower childbirth rate could result, I could support the discrimination without the aid of any animosity toward the group.

Why would I accept such an idea, if not for pre-existing bigotry? Well, there's groupthink, casual/lazy examination of the evidence, and getting my information from people with an ideological axe to grind. Any of those can result in my acceptance of a position that, in reality, isn't very sound. And the alleged prerequisite of bigotry can be bypassed entirely.

Of course, there are people who claim to "hate the sin, not the sinner", yet show at least a little disdain for the noticeable ones that pass their way. And even the ones who show friendliness outwardly might have a prejudice they hide within. But I prefer to take an innocent until proven guilty stance with this stuff.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

seretogis

I was referring to marriage itself as a social contract. It is something which social institutions should define, not government. Government should only recognize/support a legal binding of people such as a civil union or business partnership. It should not become involved in "defining marriage" any moreso than it should be invovled in defining the qualifications necessary to become a stand-up comedian.

Agreed.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

pig

seretogis,

i agree on your take on civil unions...i'd extend it to polyamorous groups as well...i don't really see the problem with bigamy, personally.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

If that's the case, then deregulating marriage is something you'd support. If homosexuals are allowed to be joined in a legal union, with all of it's various benefits, then the other stuff is their business. Let them go find a pastor or a priest or imam that is willing to do it. Shoot, do it yourselves. I'll do it. Philosophical marriage can be what you want it to be.

When the government says that Frank can't visit Jim in the hospital because he's not a 'spouse', it's wrong. It doesn't matter if you agree with their lifestyle or whatever. Many of my friends are gay, but if I ever saw them consummating I'd get sick to my stomach. It's not about that. It's about their rights. It's about all men being created equal.

pig

will, i don't think there's any disagreement on that between yourself and seretogis.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

I was adding on more than anything else.

pig

ahhh...i'll quit playing mediator then

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

seretogis

I completely agree. deregulation is the way to handle the issue, not piling more regulations on.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Willravel

I see allowing gay marriage as a step towards deregulation. Continuing the ban on gay marriage is the continuation of the regulation. I'm not sure, but I believe that we may disagree on this point.

seretogis

Piling more regulation on top of regulation is not a step towards deregulation. It simply would result in a smaller number of people (bigamists for instance) being discriminated against. Complete deregulation is the only reasonable way out, imo.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

FoolThemAll

I think I agree with you here. Legalizing gay marriage would seem to lead to a closer resemblance between legal marriage and the ideal civil union thing. I guess I'd have to know what the ideal means, how a proper civil union (from a libertarianish perspective) would differ from what the government currently does with marriage. But gay marriage would at least establish that legal marriage is a legal contract that doesn't necessarily involve God, tradition, or procreation. (Las Vegas eloping should've already taken care of the first two.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

Of course deregulation is best, but this kind of thing happens one of two ways: 1) revolution, featuring beheadings and such, or 2) slow, gradual change. Legalizing gay marriage is part of the slow, gradual change towards deregulation. You see how allowing gay marriage is more free than not allowing it, right? Allowing gay marriage isn't regulation, it's deregulation.