20 Jun 2020, 3:06 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 Jun 2020, 5:04 pm
sly279 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
To call someone ignorant carries multiple meanings. Most of which are quite insulting and not neutral.
To me, an ignorant person is one who holds to certain beliefs whose obvious falsity stares one in the face. What would properly be called “willful ignorance.”
Ignorant in the neutral sense is almost never used these days.
To me, an ignorant person is one who holds to certain beliefs whose obvious falsity stares one in the face. What would properly be called “willful ignorance.”
Ignorant in the neutral sense is almost never used these days.
It’s used in place of stupid, dumb, ret*d. It too is being seen as insult as it is.
The word was invented by bunch of college graduates as a way to belittle people they deemed beneath them.
It is used to say oh you disagree with me so you stupid. But disagreeing on so doesn’t make you smarter or the, dumber. Especially on things where the person using it isn’t in the right.
It’s nit being used in technical sense. Like oh you ignorant on the matter of rocket science, coming from a person who works at nasa doing rocket science.
It like ret*d shouldn’t be used
ret*d is also a similar science term that was similarly turned into way to insult people.
There are those in science fields who fight to still use it but the damage is done on both.
wtf? 
It seems you are (at least partially) ignorant of the definition of the word “ignorant.”
Here’s the definition:
It seems to me that people calling someone ignorant about something does in fact align with its definition that they’re I knowledgeable about it. Nowhere have I seen it used to imply someone is of low intelligence, always that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
And as for the word “ret*d.” I referred to boogaloos as “f*****g ret*ds,” on social media yesterday and someone messaged to tell me the word is offensive and not to use it.. and I replied and told them these people are hindering the progress of civilized society; (literally) retarding it, sooo I do believe my use of the word is correct.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.20 Jun 2020, 5:19 pm
20 Jun 2020, 5:38 pm
20 Jun 2020, 5:50 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 Jun 2020, 5:52 pm
Redd_Kross wrote:
Why is the designation "hate crime" necessary?
I wonder if it makes a difference in terms of provocation / reasonable cause / diminished responsibility?
In other words, if I tell a Native Indian to "go back to her own country" and it turns out we're in it, and then she slaps me in the face, will classing that as a "hate crime" mean my being a complete dick in the run-up to the assault can be completely ignored?
Because otherwise I can't see any reason for the distinction.
I wonder if it makes a difference in terms of provocation / reasonable cause / diminished responsibility?
In other words, if I tell a Native Indian to "go back to her own country" and it turns out we're in it, and then she slaps me in the face, will classing that as a "hate crime" mean my being a complete dick in the run-up to the assault can be completely ignored?
Because otherwise I can't see any reason for the distinction.
Are you asking why it’s necessary as a request for it to be used in relation to trump supporters? Or just in general?
In general, I think it’s to do with determining motive for a crime. When people’s motivation for a crime against someone stems from hatred for them based on race/gender identity/sexual orientation/religion/disability etc and no other primary reason, it’s considered particularly heinous and thus its been decided that such criminal acts will be punished harshly.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 Jun 2020, 5:55 pm
Bravo5150 wrote:
Most hate crimes involve severe damage, for example if I shove a bottle rocket in one of your orifices and light it while my buddy holds you down on the ground.
Wut?
No. Hate crimes can be verbal threats or even hateful graffiti. They’re not necessarily physical assaults at all. They’re simply crimes motivated by hate.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
20 Jun 2020, 6:09 pm
20 Jun 2020, 6:13 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
Bravo5150 wrote:
Most hate crimes involve severe damage, for example if I shove a bottle rocket in one of your orifices and light it while my buddy holds you down on the ground.
Wut?
No. Hate crimes can be verbal threats or even hateful graffiti. They’re not necessarily physical assaults at all. They’re simply crimes motivated by hate.
I meant graffiti included in the idea of physical damage, though I was uncertain about the threats. Thanks for clarifying on the verbal threat issue.
20 Jun 2020, 6:38 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 Jun 2020, 6:52 pm
Redd_Kross wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Not sure what you are asking. Which crime are you asking about? You assaulting her (words are assault), or she commiting battery (battery is when you physically touch someone) on you in response? Women can get away with slapping men anyway. Whether ethnic tension is involved or not.
As an aside: Funny you mention it. There was prominent poet who used to do essays on PBS TV who was a member of the California Salish tribe. He mentioned that a group of young White guys on the street noticed his brown skin, and yelled at him to "go back to where you came from"(thinking that he was Hispanic I suppose), when of course White Europeans are the interlopers in his country. He said that he doubled over laughing. He added that it "was not a hate crime, but a crime of irony".
As an aside: Funny you mention it. There was prominent poet who used to do essays on PBS TV who was a member of the California Salish tribe. He mentioned that a group of young White guys on the street noticed his brown skin, and yelled at him to "go back to where you came from"(thinking that he was Hispanic I suppose), when of course White Europeans are the interlopers in his country. He said that he doubled over laughing. He added that it "was not a hate crime, but a crime of irony".
I'm asking why anyone would bother specifically denoting certain types of attack against certain groups of people "hate crimes". There are already laws in place to deal with bullying, discrimination, threatening behaviour, vandalism, arson, verbal abuse, physical assault etc. etc. So what's the deal here? Is it really about somehow protecting victims and punishing attackers more (for crimes that were punishable anyway)? Or is it actually about trying to separate out cause-and-effect so those who spew forth intolerance can do so with impunity, and their targets will end up getting punished much harder if they react? Basically a defensive measure by the establishment to safeguard inherent bias from change, and indeed reality?
Yeeeeah.. except that’s not reality.
Jurisdictions all over the world have Human Rights Codes protecting certain classes of people from discrimination in the workplace & in life. These typically include race, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion, disability etc. These same groups are prone to being victims of crimes motivated by hate for them - hence hate crime laws and their more severe penalties.
What is so difficult to comprehend about making more severe penalties for committing crimes against people motivated by your hatred for their minority group or class of people?
Clearly judicial systems all over the world have decided that crimes comitted out of hate are particularly heinous and deserving of harsh penalties. And here you’re attempting to argue that it’s in fact the perpetrators of the crime who are being discriminated against because they’re punished harshly for being awful people..
Ridiculous.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.20 Jun 2020, 7:39 pm
20 Jun 2020, 8:11 pm
I could give a *#&$ what advocates for a cheeto dust covered dictator "feel" about their status quo.
There is nothing weaker than obeying the status quo.
You're going to rant about left wing violence but a "grassroots" movement full of AR-15s & pipe bombs is somehow not a threat?
I don't care about offending the grab em by the "praise the lord & pass the ammunition" party.
I'm not the complacent type & I find myself seeing this type of politics as harassment. You want hate crimes to stop? Get rid of the hate crime capitalist.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
20 Jun 2020, 8:25 pm
20 Jun 2020, 9:25 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
I'm asking why anyone would bother specifically denoting certain types of attack against certain groups of people "hate crimes". There are already laws in place to deal with bullying, discrimination, threatening behaviour, vandalism, arson, verbal abuse, physical assault etc. etc. So what's the deal here? Is it really about somehow protecting victims and punishing attackers more (for crimes that were punishable anyway)? Or is it actually about trying to separate out cause-and-effect so those who spew forth intolerance can do so with impunity, and their targets will end up getting punished much harder if they react? Basically a defensive measure by the establishment to safeguard inherent bias from change, and indeed reality?
Yeeeeah.. except that’s not reality.
Jurisdictions all over the world have Human Rights Codes protecting certain classes of people from discrimination in the workplace & in life. These typically include race, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion, disability etc. These same groups are prone to being victims of crimes motivated by hate for them - hence hate crime laws and their more severe penalties.
What is so difficult to comprehend about making more severe penalties for committing crimes against people motivated by your hatred for their minority group or class of people?
Clearly judicial systems all over the world have decided that crimes comitted out of hate are particularly heinous and deserving of harsh penalties. And here you’re attempting to argue that it’s in fact the perpetrators of the crime who are being discriminated against because they’re punished harshly for being awful people..
Ridiculous.No I'm not. I'm asking, what's in it for Trump supporters? Why the distinction? Is it because is separates out cause and effect by shielding bigotry from the outraged response it deserves? In other words, by making attacks on Trump supporters (as a recognised group of people) a "hate crime" is the US Government effectively legitimising Christian white male supremacy and protecting it from harm? Even though the initial dose of hatred comes from within that same group, who are now somehow the poor, beleagured, unfortunate victims here?
As the individual who has just launched an "Is it okay to punch Nazis?" topic I am finding your complete volte face here a bit bizarre.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 Jun 2020, 9:39 pm
Redd_Kross wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
I'm asking why anyone would bother specifically denoting certain types of attack against certain groups of people "hate crimes". There are already laws in place to deal with bullying, discrimination, threatening behaviour, vandalism, arson, verbal abuse, physical assault etc. etc. So what's the deal here? Is it really about somehow protecting victims and punishing attackers more (for crimes that were punishable anyway)? Or is it actually about trying to separate out cause-and-effect so those who spew forth intolerance can do so with impunity, and their targets will end up getting punished much harder if they react? Basically a defensive measure by the establishment to safeguard inherent bias from change, and indeed reality?
Yeeeeah.. except that’s not reality.
Jurisdictions all over the world have Human Rights Codes protecting certain classes of people from discrimination in the workplace & in life. These typically include race, sexual orientation and gender identity, religion, disability etc. These same groups are prone to being victims of crimes motivated by hate for them - hence hate crime laws and their more severe penalties.
What is so difficult to comprehend about making more severe penalties for committing crimes against people motivated by your hatred for their minority group or class of people?
Clearly judicial systems all over the world have decided that crimes comitted out of hate are particularly heinous and deserving of harsh penalties. And here you’re attempting to argue that it’s in fact the perpetrators of the crime who are being discriminated against because they’re punished harshly for being awful people..
Ridiculous.No I'm not. I'm asking, what's in it for Trump supporters? Why the distinction? Is it because is separates out cause and effect by shielding bigotry from the outraged response it deserves? In other words, by making attacks on Trump supporters (as a recognised group of people) a "hate crime" is the US Government effectively legitimising Christian white male supremacy and protecting it from harm? Even though the initial dose of hatred comes from within that same group, who are now somehow the poor, beleagured, unfortunate victims here?
As the individual who has just launched an "Is it okay to punch Nazis?" topic I am finding your complete volte face here a bit bizarre.
What do you mean what’s in it for them?
They want it written into law that hating them for what they represent is illegal. And that’s absurd because what they represent is deplorable.
They’re also making a mockery of black people and their allies. Over the last CENTURY of efforts, black Americans and lawmakers (lawmakers more specifically) have been unable to pass a law making lynching black people a federal hate crime. So this whole charade, even though it’s unlikely to be successful, is a slap in the face to people who are actual victims of hate crimes. All of this nonsense is just a big white supremacist F U to black Americans at this particular time in history.
What’s not to get about that?
A bit bizarre? It’s only Now that you phrase your question about being what’s in it for trump supporters vs why do hate crimes exist. I was answering your queries as stated. Now that you’ve asked about what’s in it for trump supporters, well, see my answer above.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Defender flaw linked to ransomware attacks |
13 Aug 2026, 4:15 pm |
| Thank you Donald J Trump! |
30 Jul 2026, 2:12 am |
| Hate the Copilot Key? Here's How to Finally Turn It Off |
13 Aug 2026, 4:11 pm |
| Dad wants to illegally make me a contractor. |
23 Jul 2026, 11:54 am |
