Bill to make attacks on Trump supporters a Hate Crime

Post Reply New Topic

Some indoctrination in childhood is probably unevitable and even unconcious - you just pass on your own values, the local society passes on their culture, that's how humans are.
We can make some corrections according to our philosophical beliefs but the vast majority of it is unconcious.

I'm not familiar with the quotes you gave, though. Different country, different culture.

I was a racist until I actually started hanging out with kids from other races.

I agree with this, and everything Magz has said.

If it's a hate crime to attack Trump supporters is it also a hate crime to attack non-Trump supporters?

Because, you know, equality and all that.

I still don't understand the doublespeak.

Absolutely.Actually, it's hypocrisy; both of which seem characteristic of Trump, his administration, and his followers.

Oops!  Did I just commit a hate crime?!

Only certain groups get protection.

Like, there may be a "disability hate crime", but not a "non-disability hate crime".

Wiki: Disability hate crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_hate_crime

Last edited by TheRobotLives on 18 Jun 2020, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

[my view]Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not dehumanisation so it's not hate speech by my definition.
However, attributing characteristics like hypocrisy to large groups of people with such a broad brush suggests possibility of unconcious (or concious) tribal mentality.[/my view]

Yes, a poor choice of words.

Why is it worse to beat someone up for being Jewish than because you just don’t like ‘em? Because it leads to social stratification, subjugation, dehumanisation, and genocide. Obviously beating someone up for any reason is wrong, but punishing it with five years in prison instead of four if it is racially motivated (for example) seems sensible.

I’m unaware of any country that has “one sided” hate crime. Some places have crimes that benefit the government (Poland of course being one of them) or the main religion, but those tend not to be classed as hate crimes.

That's why I don't agree with "hate crime".

Why can't there be a non-disability hate crime? Isn't hatred an equal opportunity sin?

Can't someone hate another person or group because they aren't disabled? Because of ableism or inequality?

I don't like the way proponents think hatred jeopardises specific groups and not others.

They also seem to think those victims deserve more justice, pity, or recompense than others.

It almost sounds like discrimination, dare I say the word.

Protect everyone from violence and crime, or protect no one. That's equality in my mind.

So in the real world constitutional protections against hate speech are designed to protect minority groups from psychological harm.

A white person calling a black person the n-word causes psychological harm, there is peer reviewed research to back this up.

A random person calling a Trump supporter dumb/ignorant is an opinion and am fairly sure trump supporters who call democrats "liberals" are guilty of the same crime.

They aren't opinions unless you say "In my opinion, you're dumb" or "I think you are dumb".

If you say "you're dumb", it's a declarative sentence similar to an expression of fact. It's hurtful and can cause psychological harm. Parents aren't allowed to say "you're dumb" or "you're ignorant" to their children, and grown adults should be afforded the same level of dignity.

I agree it's equally wrong for people to insult Trump supporters and "liberals".
Likewise, neither side is justified to verbally abuse the other.
Debating issues is fine, disagreement is fine, and anger is fine so long as no one is verbally or physically abused.

In think its contextual.

If a Trump supporter states they support something ignorant Trump says then its plausible they are equally ignorant as their beloved leader.

For example Trump says "maybe you could inject lysol to protect against Covid" or that he takes malaria tablets as a prevention against Covid depite obvious medical repurcussions. If a Trump supporter copies Trump (as many have) then I am entitled to say they did something ignorant.

BTW that's called informed conformity (From Asch's famous experiments, 1951) where a person is too ignorant to choose for themselves so they just conform to what others do or say (in this case trump supporters). This is the definition of ignorance.

Which has nothing to do the with the bill which is written about physical violence against Trump supporters, but even then why is it ok to be physically violent against a black man like George Floyd and not be charged with a hate crime??

One could similarly suggest that anyone parroting a claim such as a person having said "maybe you could inject lysol to protect against Covid", based on hearsay and then fails to verify the truth of the claim, preferring to conform with what others believe would also meet that standard of "ignorance"?
From Politifact (Only takes a couple of seconds to check, rather than blindy following the herd):

source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-donald-trump-said-about-disinfectant-/



You would need to prove that there was a racist CAUSE for what happened to George Floyd to be a "hate" crime, as opposed to a standard crime. It's amazing how many people lack the ability to discern the difference between racial factors (different race of the people involved) and racist factors (I do not recall having seen any presented in this case - happy to be corrected if I missed anything).

The problem is that the intellectually dishonest people who treat racial factors as though they mean it is automatically a racist crime are causing the term "racist" to lose value when the "racist" motive is proven to be lacking.

Personally, I can't see why "hate" crimes need to be treated as a separate crime: The "hate" involved would automatically "advance" it to be "pre-meditated"\intentional, meaning that it would receive a higher "degree" than a random attack (with associated penalty), wouldn't it?

If you are going to call attacking a person for their political beliefs a "hate crime" then surely it needs to be applied all rather than just attacking Trump supporters?

Time for a refresher: Did you read the actual linked article in the original post?

I don't imagine that the words "or anybody for political reasons" in the FIRST SENTENCE can have many other meaning than that the proposed law WOULD APPLY TO ALL?

Happy for you to clarify what you understood this to have meant, as you seem to have a different understanding of those simple words, so could you please educate me on your understanding of the phrase.

So wait.

Verbal abuse and slander is justified, as long as you're right and they're wrong?

Should that be on the rule books? Is that how marriages should work, or how people should raise their children?

In your example of Trump and the Lysol, I admit he sounded like a buffoon. I admit I cracked some jokes about him myself. But I draw the line at mocking other members and individuals as a response. If another member or person I knew supported Trump or supported the Lysol idea, I could still argue my point without the use of insults or personal attacks. I could say "Trump is wrong because ...... ". I could show proof if so needed. I can laugh about Trump or call him stupid, because he's the US President and I believe that makes him fair game. I can argue a point without belittling anyone, or hurling insults. If they still disagree, then we disagree. That's life. In most of the world people are free to have opposing opinions, and so long as that person isn't attacking me or breaking the law, I move on.

^ This is my new favorite quote of the week. People could learn a lot from it.