Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think the idea is if there's punishment for attacking someone because of there, race, ethnicity, religion, beliefs, etc that it'll help reduce that behaviour and hopefully make for a less hateful society.

Then we should probably look at whether or not that actually works before we charge full steam ahead with it. I don't know first hand, of course, and I haven't looked it up, but popular conception of prison in this country is not a place where dividing lines get broken down, but where tribal instincts become even more prominent.

Furthermore, I'd argue that we don't want people assaulting each other or setting churches on fire or anything else regardless of motive. If the point of the law is to act as a deterrent, then we want to deter the behavior, period, not just certain examples of the behavior depending on motivation.

PC is. Whatcha gonna do?

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think the idea is if there's punishment for attacking someone because of there, race, ethnicity, religion, beliefs, etc that it'll help reduce that behaviour and hopefully make for a less hateful society.

Then we should probably look at whether or not that actually works before we charge full steam ahead with it. I don't know first hand, of course, and I haven't looked it up, but popular conception of prison in this country is not a place where dividing lines get broken down, but where tribal instincts become even more prominent.

Furthermore, I'd argue that we don't want people assaulting each other or setting churches on fire or anything else regardless of motive. If the point of the law is to act as a deterrent, then we want to deter the behavior, period, not just certain examples of the behavior depending on motivation.

That might be a sign that the US's penal system is too harsh, because a lot of country's justice systems don't focus enough on making criminals into better people to reintegrate into society imo. I don't think many current correctional facilities are a great environment for criminals to be in and

are not really learning the appropriate skills required in order to be a well-adjusted citizen.

 Cheesecat wrote:
That might be a sign that the US's penal system is too harsh, because a lot of country's justice systems don't focus enough on making criminals into better people to reintegrate into society imo. I don't think many current correctional facilities are a great environment for criminals to be in and

are not really learning the appropriate skills required in order to be a well-adjusted citizen.

Regardless, the only place where "hate crime" deterrents would make any sort of difference would be at the lower, "unpopular speech" end of the scale. Do we really think someone's willing to risk a 20 year aggravated assault condition, but not the extra 5 years tacked on due to his particular motivation? I don't.

You guys are already throwing college students in jail for tweeting offensive jokes, though, so tacking on an arbitrary mandatory minimum for any speech that included a "hate crime" component to it? Yeah, that'd probably work. And we've done the free speech dance often enough for you to know that I'd consider it abhorrent.

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think the idea is if there's punishment for attacking someone because of there, race, ethnicity, religion, beliefs, etc that it'll help reduce that behaviour and hopefully make for a less hateful society.

Then we should probably look at whether or not that actually works before we charge full steam ahead with it. I don't know first hand, of course, and I haven't looked it up, but popular conception of prison in this country is not a place where dividing lines get broken down, but where tribal instincts become even more prominent.

Find me a reliable way to actually see if this works, without applying it first to a social body, and I can assure you a tenure position in just about any social sciences department.

 Seaward wrote:

Regardless, the only place where "hate crime" deterrents would make any sort of difference would be at the lower, "unpopular speech" end of the scale.

I would posit that one end of the social 'hatred' spectrum is not without link to the other end of the spectrum. Look up the result of the debate between Brown and Goldhagen.

Do we really think someone's willing to risk a 20 year aggravated assault condition, but not the extra 5 years tacked on due to his particular motivation? I don't.

Indeed, if someone consciously made the choice, those 5 years won't matter much, beyond giving us regular citizen an additionnal 5 years without them on the street. Which is good. But I think this is a case of judiciary influence on society as a whole. We already know that there is a deep relation between morality and judiciary action.

You guys are already throwing college students in jail for tweeting offensive jokes

That's cute.

 Seaward wrote:
Do we really think someone's willing to risk a 20 year aggravated assault condition, but not the extra 5 years tacked on due to his particular motivation? I don't.

That's a good argument regarding immediate deterrence, but I would counter that hate crime legislation has more to do with social engineering than it does with direct prevention by way of penalty.

It is a message future generations that while assault (to pick a random crime) is bad, assault based on the conditions necessary for a hate crime is really bad.

 Seaward wrote:
Hold the phone. There's laws already on the books under which you could prosecute someone for kicking someone else to death?

Not specifically kicking someone to death, but that could be covered by either of those that I mentioned;
Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm i.e. the Defendant would be charged with murder but suffered from diminished responsibility, or loss of control

Constructive manslaughter (also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter). It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter. In this instance if evidence for murder was lacking (no intention to kill, or cause grievous bodily harm), the Prosecution could say that the person was killed unintentionally during the assault (the unlawful act).
The general practice in the UK is to charge someone with murder, but have manslaughter as a second charge

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
You are aware that this pilot scheme is a result of a set of real-world incidents and situations, as opposed to handed-down liberal dogma, aren't you? Or am I crediting you with too much?

Well, you could never credit me with too much.

Your statements aren't mutually exclusive, by the way. Just because so-called "hate crimes" have occurred doesn't mean the thinking on them by the guys in this thread isn't dogmatic PC bs.

By the same token, your saying something is dogmatic PC bs doesn't necessarily make it so. You're basically using that as rhetorical short-hand for "something I don't like because founding fathers etc.' Which is tedious. Actually apply some analytical and critical thinking for a change, instead of assuming something is a thing and then getting annoyed about that thing. GMP are recording sub-culture motivated attacks as hate crimes in an effort to track and raise awareness of them. The law hasn't been changed. And once again, IT'S A PILOT SCHEME. Do you know what that means?

Tribal beatdowns and fear of the Other have been a thing since we crawled out of the mire, and they're not going anywhere no matter how much your heart may bleed.

Wow. Congratulations. You've plumbed new depths. I've literally never encountered anyone so conservative that they think we should take our cues from cavemen. The Founding Cavemen, if you will.

Studying crime patterns and the like by the police? Fantastic, I have no problem with that. That's not ultimately what it comes down to, though.

Because as we all know, what eventually happens is that the government end up controlling our thoughts and we all end up in matching grey boiler suits, performing mandatory physical exercize in front of the TV every morning. And to think, it all starts with Greater Manchester Police recording sub-culture bias as a motivator in physical assaults.

Seriously man, we've all heard you sing this song before. Sing another one. You just sound like a paranoid conservative crank.

 Albatross wrote:
By the same token, your saying something is dogmatic PC bs doesn't necessarily make it so. You're basically using that as rhetorical short-hand for "something I don't like because founding fathers etc.' Which is tedious. Actually apply some analytical and critical thinking for a change, instead of assuming something is a thing and then getting annoyed about that thing. GMP are recording sub-culture motivated attacks as hate crimes in an effort to track and raise awareness of them. The law hasn't been changed. And once again, IT'S A PILOT SCHEME. Do you know what that means?

Is this a reading comprehension issue? Have you simply not comprehended the majority of the posts over the last few pages that have moved on from discussion of this particular police tactic to a conversation about hate crime legislation in general, or did you just not read them before piping up?

Wow. Congratulations. You've plumbed new depths. I've literally never encountered anyone so conservative that they think we should take our cues from cavemen. The Founding Cavemen, if you will.

Nor have you now, but as long as you're amusing yourself, shine on, crazy diamond.

Because as we all know, what eventually happens is that the government end up controlling our thoughts and we all end up in matching grey boiler suits, performing mandatory physical exercize in front of the TV every morning.

Actually, I think it ends with guys getting tossed in jail because they hurt someone's fee-fees over Twitter. You know, real stiff upper lip stuff.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not the reason.

It sort of has to be, due to the inability for anyone to find another that makes any sort of sense.

Have you read the reasoning of Chief Justice Rehnquist?

You may not agree with his reasoning, of course, but that is a different thing to it not making sense.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Have you read the reasoning of Chief Justice Rehnquist?

You may not agree with his reasoning, of course, but that is a different thing to it not making sense.

I have, yeah. He still doesn't have a compelling answer to the basic question of why some victims should be more protected than others.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Have you read the reasoning of Chief Justice Rehnquist?

You may not agree with his reasoning, of course, but that is a different thing to it not making sense.

I have, yeah. He still doesn't have a compelling answer to the basic question of why some victims should be more protected than others.

Your entire point is based on a rethoric that doesn't reflect the actual situation. Victims of hate crimes aren't protected more than others because the crime incur heavier charges. The judiciary action is post facto, while a higher protection would imply a series of action prior to the crime itself. As you observed yourself, the charge itself isn't much of a deterrent toward those that would readily commit violent actions. But it might have a deeper social impact.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
By the same token, your saying something is dogmatic PC bs doesn't necessarily make it so. You're basically using that as rhetorical short-hand for "something I don't like because founding fathers etc.' Which is tedious. Actually apply some analytical and critical thinking for a change, instead of assuming something is a thing and then getting annoyed about that thing. GMP are recording sub-culture motivated attacks as hate crimes in an effort to track and raise awareness of them. The law hasn't been changed. And once again, IT'S A PILOT SCHEME. Do you know what that means?

Is this a reading comprehension issue? Have you simply not comprehended the majority of the posts over the last few pages that have moved on from discussion of this particular police tactic to a conversation about hate crime legislation in general, or did you just not read them before piping up?

Yes, I struggled through your dense prose. You were talking about 'super-special sentences handed down to people because they are PC thing to do' - I'm pointing out the fact that this isn't happening with the GMP situation, the subject of this thread. Remember that? The subject?

Of the thread?

Wow. Congratulations. You've plumbed new depths. I've literally never encountered anyone so conservative that they think we should take our cues from cavemen. The Founding Cavemen, if you will.

Nor have you now, but as long as you're amusing yourself, shine on, crazy diamond.

Super comeback. You're quite the rapier.

Seriously, you Americans may be the authority on firearms, in fact there's no argument. However, when it comes to sarcasm, the big guns are on this side of the Atlantic.

Because as we all know, what eventually happens is that the government end up controlling our thoughts and we all end up in matching grey boiler suits, performing mandatory physical exercize in front of the TV every morning.

Actually, I think it ends with guys getting tossed in jail because they hurt someone's fee-fees over Twitter. You know, real stiff upper lip stuff.

You're still crying about that? Perhaps you're the one with the 'hurt fee-fees', so to speak.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Your entire point is based on a rethoric that doesn't reflect the actual situation. Victims of hate crimes aren't protected more than others because the crime incur heavier charges. The judiciary action is post facto, while a higher protection would imply a series of action prior to the crime itself. As you observed yourself, the charge itself isn't much of a deterrent toward those that would readily commit violent actions. But it might have a deeper social impact.

Deeper social impacts are pretty much what protected classes are all about. It's very much a case of disproportionate protection, not to mention social engineering that simply isn't the government's purview - assuming it even works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, I struggled through your dense prose. You were talking about 'super-special sentences handed down to people because they are PC thing to do' - I'm pointing out the fact that this isn't happening with the GMP situation, the subject of this thread. Remember that? The subject?

Of the thread?

I'll try again: there's a broader discussion going on. If you're incapable or uninterested in reading others' posts, it might be wise to stay out of it.

You're still crying about that? Perhaps you're the one with the 'hurt fee-fees', so to speak.

No, simply providing an example of the flights of lunacy that hate crime legislation can lead to.

 Seaward wrote:
not to mention social engineering that simply isn't the government's purview - assuming it even works.

So governing is not the government's job, now? Societies are dynamic systems, it's always been the job of the government to direct the motion of those systems. Hell, that's the semantical root of the word ; 'to steer [a ship]'.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So governing is not the government's job, now? Societies are dynamic systems, it's always been the job of the government to direct the motion of those systems. Hell, that's the semantical root of the word ; 'to steer [a ship]'.

Not what I said, though I think if you confuse social engineering with good democratic governance, we've reached the root of the problem.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So governing is not the government's job, now? Societies are dynamic systems, it's always been the job of the government to direct the motion of those systems. Hell, that's the semantical root of the word ; 'to steer [a ship]'.

Not what I said, though I think if you confuse social engineering with good democratic governance, we've reached the root of the problem.

Wether it is by legislation, by condemnation or even by publicity, all governmental action boils down to influencing the action of the individuals or groups making that society. That's the common definition of social engineering ; the effort to influence popular attitudes and social behaviour. A stricter signification refers to the same effort, but only in a scientific context, and distinguish it from political engineering.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Wether it is by legislation, by condemnation or even by publicity, all governmental action boils down to influencing the action of the individuals or groups making that society. That's the common definition of social engineering ; the effort to influence popular attitudes and social behaviour. A stricter signification refers to the same effort, but only in a scientific context, and distinguish it from political engineering.

So as long as we go by a definition too absurdly broad to be of any functional use to anybody, you didn't step on your own dong?

 Seaward wrote:

So as long as we go by a definition too absurdly broad to be of any functional use to anybody, you didn't step on your own dong?

Nah, I've got careful over the years.

 Seaward wrote:

So as long as we go by a definition too absurdly broad to be of any functional use to anybody, you didn't step on your own dong?

How would you define "social engineering" such that it is a useful term?

The problem with this hate crime thing is it is subjective. Subjective laws are stupid and unweildy.
If someone kicks the gak out of a goth because they wanted to kick the gak out of someone and not because the person was a goth, they shouldn't be charged with a hate crime because it wasn't. It is subjective, but i'm sure it makes lawyers happy.

The problem with hipsters (i don't have any problems with "sub-groups" apart from them [oh and junkies-well stealing junkies not all junkies, some junkies are cool ] so i'm going to focus on them ) is that they don't have any substance to them. All seems to be about being "cool" , they give me the urge to give them a sound kicking to check that they do have some kind of substance in them...namely blood.

My faveourite ad atm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VjtHt9thpUE#t=0s
The only good hipsters are underwear!

What do you mean hipsters lack substance aren't they about individualism, irony and bringing attention to out dated and/or not well known pop culture? Sounds to me like they stand for something.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Sounds to me like they stand for something.

They do. Brunch, and pictures of brunch.

 Cheesecat wrote:
What do you mean hipsters lack substance aren't they about individualism, irony and bringing attention to out dated and/or not well known pop culture? Sounds to me like they stand for something.

Personally, I love irony as well as all forms of black humour, a little bit of irony in a book can get me giggling to myself on the bus (kinda sad, but i find it that amusing i can't stop myself). I don't see the irony in how hipsters act, it all seems to be based about "look at my clothes, i'm cool" "look at my clothes I'm so individualistic (and to that i say bs- it's all a uniform like any other sub-culture) "I knew about this before anyone else" (oh ffs you elitist bastards).

Wearing golf pants isn't ironic, it's wearing golf pants.

They just seem so image based and that's what irks me.

Cheesecat, if it's pop culture it has to be well known otherwise it isn't pop culture.

I cannot see what a hipster stands for apart from their own self image .

wait...what's that? DO I SMELL HIPSTER! Prepare my K-Mart sneakers of substance finding! (or is wearing k-mart shoes ironic nowdays )

Bullockist wrote:
Cheesecat, if it's pop culture it has to be well known otherwise it isn't pop culture.

Yeah, you're right media references is probably a better term.