 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him might
> not have been racist?
I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while* screaming
racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to death, then paint
racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a "hate crime". (Yeah,
real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/16/09 16:20, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
>> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him
>> might
>> not have been racist?
>
> I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while*
> screaming racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to
> death, then paint racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a
> "hate crime". (Yeah, real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
You're arguing an extreme.
If a person has a proven penchant for saying racist things, and then
beats up a black guy, and there isn't an obvious motive (money, self
defense, organized crime), I'm sure many will push for it to be treated
as a hate crime.
But that's a guess. I never observed if this kind of stuff happens.
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/16/09 16:20, Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black
>>> guy,
>>> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him
>>> might
>>> not have been racist?
>>
>> I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while*
>> screaming racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to
>> death, then paint racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a
>> "hate crime". (Yeah, real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
>
> You're arguing an extreme.
> If a person has a proven penchant for saying racist things,
I'm not sure how much you're allowed to bring that sort of thing into
question, if it didn't happen during the actual commission of the crime.
I was just saying that there are clearly cases where it's a hate crime, and
clearly cases where it isn't, and you'd have to look at the individual cases
and lawyers prosecuting them to see how they turn out if it's not extreme.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> or social status, which is correlated to race.
As in, "I'm not racist, I'm just opposed to people with certain
lifestyle/moral/political views" (that are overwhelmingly correlated to
race)? When attribute x is associated with race, it's still racism, in
the end effect. Kind of like saying "I don't hate women, I just have an
issue with people who menstruate". The motivation is a paper-thin
excuse covering what the real problem is, at least for the targeted
group. It doesn't matter *why* you're bigoted, just the fact that you are.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-7-2009 4:50, Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> or social status, which is correlated to race.
>
> As in, "I'm not racist, I'm just opposed to people with certain
> lifestyle/moral/political views" (that are overwhelmingly correlated to
> race)? When attribute x is associated with race, it's still racism, in
> the end effect. Kind of like saying "I don't hate women, I just have an
> issue with people who menstruate". The motivation is a paper-thin
> excuse covering what the real problem is, at least for the targeted
> group. It doesn't matter *why* you're bigoted, just the fact that you are.
My remark was about political preferences of groups of people in the US,
not about interaction between members of groups.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> My remark was about political preferences of groups of people in the US,
> not about interaction between members of groups.
I was just ranting on a different comment like what I put that was after
some news article about Sotomayer or such...you're just a trigger,
m'boy. ^_^;
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-7-2009 11:13, Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> My remark was about political preferences of groups of people in the
>> US, not about interaction between members of groups.
>
> I was just ranting on a different comment like what I put that was after
> some news article about Sotomayer or such...you're just a trigger,
Then it is OK, I might have read it as if I was a racist. Good to know
that I should not read it that way.
> m'boy. ^_^;
Interesting phrase. Normally only used if the one who says it is either
much older (and you clearly aren't) or if there is another big status
difference like between slave and slaveholder. So I'll file this as a
humorous instance of the latter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 17-7-2009 11:13, Tim Cook wrote:
>> m'boy. ^_^;
>
> Interesting phrase. Normally only used if the one who says it is either
> much older (and you clearly aren't) or if there is another big status
> difference like between slave and slaveholder. So I'll file this as a
> humorous instance of the latter.
See also: "Dang whippersnappers!" and "Kids these days. Why, when *I*
was your age, *mumble mumble* through six feet of snow! Uphill! Both
ways!"
...so more of a humourous, plainly wildly innacurate instance of the
former, poking fun at the curmudgeonly attitude of a stereotypical old
person.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-7-2009 21:06, Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 17-7-2009 11:13, Tim Cook wrote:
>>> m'boy. ^_^;
>>
>> Interesting phrase. Normally only used if the one who says it is
>> either much older (and you clearly aren't) or if there is another big
>> status difference like between slave and slaveholder. So I'll file
>> this as a humorous instance of the latter.
>
> See also: "Dang whippersnappers!" and "Kids these days. Why, when *I*
> was your age, *mumble mumble* through six feet of snow! Uphill! Both
> ways!"
>
> ...so more of a humourous, plainly wildly innacurate instance of the
> former, poking fun at the curmudgeonly attitude of a stereotypical old
> person.
Ok that leaves the quite inaccurate age problem. If I was a woman I
might be honoured.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Somewhat related to some discussions here (I am too lazy to find the
right spot). In
http://www.ted.com/talks/nina_jablonski_breaks_the_illusion_of_skin_color.html
Nina Jablonski refers to Obama as the: 'first moderately pigmented
President of the USA' (at 12:15).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
