Aaaand, you made that accusation just because you’re not able to convince me that you’re right about a topic on which reasonable people often disagree. Which… I don’t give a shit of you’re gay or not, but that is WAY over the line. SO fuck off.

Sailorman, over the line. Actually, most of your post is over the line, but I’m copying out this bit. Dial down before you post again on this thread.

He just had to show me how he hasn’t the knowledge to debate correctly without initiating direct insult, which brings his knowledge in other areas into question.

Wow! You are full of false delemmas, bad analogies, and circular arguments. You’re a real pro at it, Willie. Just remember one thing, and that is that you are not the one in danger of attack because of what and who you are. Therefore, anything that “might’ help us be safer is better than nothing at all. Since the only people that would be punished by a hate crime law are those that attack people for their race, sexual orientation, or like in my case, their gender ID, why are you so damned against it? Will the law make YOU any less safe?

Even if the law is a feel good law it’s better than nothing as well. If you have something against any comfort the law may give us then you are only showing us that you could really care less about our worries or our safety.

So when you see the day when gay men or GLBT people in general going out to beat up and murder heterosexuals then you can come talk to me, but until that day comes you will lose the argument or any of your circular debates that are ridiculous to say the least. We have to worry about being attacked for our sexuality, you don’t. That is the difference and that is the reason for needed hate crimes laws. If another bastard murders another one of my transgender girlfriends I want the creep to feel the extra sting in his ass when he hears “twenty five” more years added to his sentence. And if you don’t like that, tough beans, Willie! I like it fine!

And the little *g* was meant to say that it seems like the trinitarian is now saying, “You’re strenuously avoiding recognizing God’s tripartite nature!” And I’m still going, “But where is it in the Bible? I honestly don’t see it, so tell me where you do.”

All I want is some evidence that since hate crime laws were enacted in 1969, they’ve made anyone safer.

Glad to hear it. I’d be happy to continue the discussion when you’re interested in arguing in good faith, instead of pretending ignorance whenever an inconvenient point is raised.

Can you think of a hate crime intended to terrorize every black in America? All the hate crimes I can think of have been regional. Though it’s true that people outside of a region get to worry that the criminals will travel.

if a crime should have an extra penalty because it is intended to terrorize people in a particular group, shouldn’t a crime have at least an equal penalty when it is intended to terrorize everyone?

So a hate group that intended to terrorize every black person in America should have a worse penalty than the Hillside Strangler, since he only terrorized the population of Los Angeles?

And as for what you say is a “false dilemma,” if a crime should have an extra penalty because it is intended to terrorize people in a particular group, shouldn’t a crime have at least an equal penalty when it is intended to terrorize everyone?

Should criminals who terrorize everyone face greater sentences than criminals who only target a smaller group?

False dilemma. But you knew that.

The Hillside Strangler terrorized everyone in Los Angeles. Serial killers often intend to terrorize everyone. Should criminals who terrorize everyone face greater sentences than criminals who only target a smaller group?

Amp, I’m also not seeing your argument that hate crimes are probably unnecessary. The example of burning a pile of trash on the lawn has already been given. If I spraypaint “Die blogger” on your car, that’s, what? Vandalism?

The point of hate-crime laws is that there are acts whose intent is not simply to do something already criminal (such as steal money); they’re to harm and intimidate people we don’t like, because we perceive they belong to a group we despise. The KKK didn’t just burn crosses to threaten the particular black family on whose lawn they burned it.

And Bush is having trouble getting his big fence because of the question of effectiveness. “Abstinance-only” appears to be going down in flames at last. Why? Effectiveness. It may not matter as much as you or I would wish, but it matters.

But In my opinion, it’s perfectly valid to have a “topic of dicussion” (hate crime laws) without being required to discuss every other related topic (other laws.)

Of course it is. And I don’t want to discuss every other law here: that would be ridiculous.

How the heck do I know which laws out of all laws I’d oppose and which I wouldn’t, seeing as we’re not talking about them?

Er…well, I guess you would read them and think about them and then decide your opinion of them. I don’t see what this has to do with anything we’ve been discussing.

How do you get off on a claim that the defining thread of the laws which I (or anyone) like/dislike is minority status

It’s not about what you like. It’s about what you require to be proven as a prerequisite to enaction.

But you are getting fairly close to suggesting that any dislike of hate crime laws is inherently anti-gay.

Er. No, actually, I’m not.

There are plenty of reasons why a reasonable person could oppose enacting hate crime laws. However, “because the proponents haven’t proven that they work” is not one of them. Unless, of course, we habitually apply that same test to all laws, which is fine…but, as a society, we don’t.

It’s kinda like how Bush will say, “Border fence? Okay. Abstinence-only sex ed? Sure! Global warming legislation? Well…you guys haven’t PROVEN that it works; I can’t support it.” (And no, I’m not saying that anyone here is “like Bush”.)

It’s tempting to interpret my objection as an assertion that we shouldn’t take laws’ effectiveness into account when deciding if we like them or not. But that’s not it at all: it’s about whether proof is required, not about what we do once we have the proof.

Perhaps I’m misreading you. Would you like to clarify your position a bit?

I think I’ve been clear to the point of ridiculousness here. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer. It seems a very obvious, uncontroversial concept, and I am truly at a loss as to how to simplify it any further. I will ask you to go back to the paragraph that starts with, “There are plenty of reasons…” and make sure that you understand what I’m saying, and that I’m not saying that we should enact laws that we know to be ineffective. Because if you don’t understand (not necessarily agree with, but understand) that point, then I can see how everything I’ve said would just be a whole mess of confusing for you.

I know that fear can be impossible to live with. I have enormous sympathy for people who live in fear. One of the reasons I hate war and capitalism is they create enormous stress, and PTSDs are horrible, horrible things.

But fear can make people call for terrible solutions, too. If we let fear rule us, the Bushes of the world win.

If your folks here that are against us having hate crimes laws that make it tougher on those that want to attack us, and I also consider any want for bringing violence to a certain group to be premeditated, fine, you just don’t care about GLBT people, I can accept that reality.

You know, as I said much earlier in this thread, I’m borderline on the hate crimes question myself. I wrote:

I do see a theoretical need for hate crime laws in something like the example of a brick with “die Jews die” written on it chucked through a window. (Nor do I see any free speech issue; no message written on a brick thrown illegally through a window is legally protected speech.)

But how often does an example like that — a crime that would get a slap on the wrist, if not for hate crimes legislation — actually come up? I don’t know, but I’d need to be shown that it happens fairly regularly to be convinced that we have a pressing need for a law to address such instances.

My other concern is that, because hate crime laws do give judges and prosecutors even more discretion than usual, they will be disproportionately used against poor people and people of color. Given the legal system’s performance generally, I think that’s a well-founded concern.

I’m not going to actively oppose hate crimes legislation. But nor am I particularly in favor of them, for the above reasons.

Plus, as I mentioned in comment #88, hate crime laws as they’re currently written raise some concerns about due process.

Admittedly, I don’t outright oppose hate crimes legislation, but I come close.

But I don’t think that my reasons for (almost) opposing hate crime laws are founded in bigotry; nor do I think that opposition to ineffective criminal laws, or worries about new laws bringing about new abuses by the system, are necessarily just pretexts for bigotry. I think these are legitimate concerns.

And what I always admired about people like Quentin Crisp was that they didn’t let themselves live in “fear times ten.”

That is so condescending, Will.

Aaaand, you made that accusation just because you’re not able to convince me that you’re right about a topic on which reasonable people often disagree. Which… I don’t give a shit of you’re gay or not, but that is WAY over the line. SO fuck off.

Sailorman, over the line. Actually, most of your post is over the line, but I’m copying out this bit. Dial down before you post again on this thread.

1. You do realize you just made Bush’s argument for the war on terror? Don’t worry about whether it’s effective. Don’t worry about whether it weakens individual freedom. Just do it, or you’re evil!

Oops. Just realized that might be a very weak argument with you. Do you support Bush’s War on Civil Liberties, er, Terrorism?

2.Well, when we couldn’t get fire insurance because the word was out that the Klan would burn down our home, I lived in a great deal of fear. But I don’t believe extra penalties for attacking or killing people who worked for civil rights would’ve made any of us safer.

And what I always admired about people like Quentin Crisp was that they didn’t let themselves live in “fear times ten.” Once you start thinking that way, you can never be “too safe.” You just get more afraid, and soon you’re living inside gated communities and fearing everyone who’s not just like you. (I don’t know if there are any GLBT gated communities, but it’s the next logical step for Log Cabin Republicans and other GLBT folk who are ruled by fear and can afford to buy a home.)

3. Do you want different levels of “protection” within the GLBT community? I could see an argument that society is least accepting of Ts, then Gs, then Ls, and then Bs, and the law should reflect that hierarchy. Would that make you feel safer?

4. Actually, it was the KKK that put the word out they would burn us down. They never showed up, but we still couldn’t get fire insurance, and I still remember the phoned-in death threats and Dad showing me how to carry the shotgun to him if he needed it.

I have been beaten and called a faggot, but the exact expression of it was “hippie-faggot,” if I remember correctly. Still, being beaten and not knowing whether you’ll be killed isn’t fun.

A teacher made me sit out recess in the hot sun because I told her I didn’t know who made the earth and I didn’t care. Not much of a psychological scar created by a Bible thumper, but the fact I remember it says it’s a small one.

Cops have made me nervous ever since my hippie days. There are some great cops out there, but the police can create problems for anyone who questions authority. When I was arrested for having hash in the car entering the US, a federal offense, my first thought was that it was planted, but it turned out to have been lost by a previous passenger.

Gang bangers are scary to everyone, even or especially other gang bangers. That’s why they act and dress that way. I’ve often lived and walked in neighborhoods where there are gang bangers. I’m always extra-cautious around them, because people who believe in assault and theft frighten anyone with a brain.

Also, is it football Sunday? I’ve never been much for team sports.

Bjartmarr Writes:
October 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am
My point is that we currently do not require that proponents of proposed legislation (of any kind) prove that it “work” in order to enact it. It might be a good idea to do so, but we don’t.

You seem to be resting on the same issue that people have recently addressed here. But In my opinion, it’s perfectly valid to have a “topic of dicussion” (hate crime laws) without being required to discuss every other related topic (other laws.)

Therefore, requiring that proponents of pro-minority legislation (but no-one else) prove that their laws “work”, is inherently anti-minority.

Anti minority?

How the heck do I know which laws out of all laws I’d oppose and which I wouldn’t, seeing as we’re not talking about them? How do you get off on a claim that the defining thread of the laws which I (or anyone) like/dislike is minority status, especially since most people have given a variety of reasons OTHER than “we dislike minorities” to support their views against hate crimes?

Comment 218 isn’t fair in my opinion. But you are getting fairly close to suggesting that any dislike of hate crime laws is inherently anti-gay. And that’s simply ridiculous.

Perhaps I’m misreading you. Would you like to clarify your position a bit? Because if you plan to claim that I can’t disagree with you regarding hate crimes without being anti-minority, it’d be good to get that out in the open.

# Julie Ziegenfuss Writes:
October 19th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

All I can say at this point is that any citizens that are more susceptible to attack, like GLBT people and police officers, should have an extra protection or discouragement thereof. It’s pretty obvious to me people care more about police officers than they do GLBT people in that both groups are more susceptible to attack, and it’s because people don’t really care.

Are you incapable of seeing the pretty important difference between police officers and other people?

Just to name three differences out of many, police officers 1) occupying their status as volunteers; 2) are state agents; 3) are saddled with greater responsibilities to others than is the average citizen. We don’t give cops special protection because they’re better than “normal” people (feel free to become a police officer if you want those benefits). We give cops protection because we want people to be police officers.

If you folks here that are against us having hate crimes laws that make it tougher on those that want to attack us, and I also consider any want for bringing violence to a certain group to be premeditated, fine, you just don’t care about GLBT people, I can accept that reality.

Fuck you. Really. Fuck you.

Because unless I’m mistaken, you just accused me of “not caring” about a group of people who I DO care about, and who includes some of my closest family members and good friends.

Aaaand, you made that accusation just because you’re not able to convince me that you’re right about a topic on which reasonable people often disagree. Which… I don’t give a shit of you’re gay or not, but that is WAY over the line. SO fuck off.

1. You keep saying “protection,” but you haven’t offered any evidence
that hate crime laws provide any. Wouldn’t you like to know whether
“protection” is effective?

Julie Z: And why is it so darned important to know that right now. We need it now, and you want to stand around speculating about whether it works or not while many are dying or being put in hospitals. Thanks for the help!

2. Since you like extra penalties for attacks on cops and GLBT people,
are you satisfied with the current levels of extra penalties?

Julie Z: Hell, I don’t care if they just CALL IT “extra penalties,” anything will help right now. You try living your life in “fear times ten” and we’ll see how much more extra penalties YOU want?

3. Do you think cops and GLBT folks should have the same additional
laws, or should one group get more additional laws than the other? If so,
which?

Julie Z: I think that because the police are even more of a target for being killed and because of their putting their lives at risk for your hide and mine that the penalty should be stiffer for killing a cop than a transwoman like myself.

4. How many hierarchies do you want in the ways that the law values
people?

Julie Z: It’s all about other groups having special or extra that bothers you, isn’t it, Will? Tell me something, Will, who is it that’s shooting at you and targeting you for violence? It sure ain’t no gay basher, KKK dude, a Nazi bigot, or a Bible thrasher, and for the cops, every gang banger and murderer on the street.

Oh well, after all, it’s not your problem, crack open a beer and turn on the tube, it’s football Sunday, it’s a wonderful life!