• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Being offensive....

Actually in context it's quite clear that the message was "we don't tolerate your kind here".

Did she say that? No? Then leave it be.

Yeah, I imagine that'll be the argument used by the defence too. Unfortunately most folks are perfectly capable of putting 1 and 1 together to make 2. Best of luck, though.

So she's being charged with a hate crime because of what she MIGHT do? That doesn't sound paranoid to you? :wtf:

No, she isn't. That was my opinion, as indicated by my prefacing it with "I suspect".
 
Pulling on a scarf is harmless. It's extremely vaguely mildly invasive, but in the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant. It's not like anyone got beat up or anything like that.

No, it's assault.

:lol: Really? So if I'm at my store, and a kid comes along and tugs at a pant leg, am I gonna charge that kid with assault? No, I'll just smile and wave and let them go about their business. Assault would be if a customer whacked me across the head because we ran out of Jennie-O turkeys. A simple tug on an article of clothing is annoying, yes, but hardly assault.

Don't be obtuse. :rolleyes: As I stated before, going up to a Muslim and yanking on her headscarf or going up to a Jew and yanking off his Yarmulke qualifies as assault.
 
So she's being charged with a hate crime because of what she MIGHT do? That doesn't sound paranoid to you? :wtf:

No, she isn't. That was my opinion, as indicated by my prefacing it with "I suspect".

Thankfully, 'suspecting' is not enough in criminal law. You can only charge people based on what they HAVE done, not by what they might theoretically do. (If, for example, there's a drunk guy in a bar and he says "I'll kill the next motherfucker that comes in here!" you can't charge him with murder...because he hasn't done anything yet.)
 
This is a perfect application of hate crime law. The facts of the case wouldn't even merit a second glance, worse goes on every recess in primary school, it's the social context that elevates the significance of the crime. Counter-intuitively it's in cases involving more serious crimes (such as murder) that the merits of hate crime law are less clear.
No, it isn't. These so-called hate-crime laws are feel good legislation enacted by politicians tailored to a minority population rather than the public at large.

I wasn't aware that christians and caucasians were a minority in the United States - in any case the question would be "relative to what?" - but there you go.

So what happened here was of no more significance than an irritable old lady poking a man in the back with her cane so she can get past? We're not going to see eye-to-eye on that, JP.

This response makes as much sense as a football bat. :rolleyes: An irritable old lady poking someone in the back, with a cane, PROVIDED IT IS MALICIOUS IN NATURE, would qualify as assault.

DAMN :rolleyes:
 
So she's being charged with a hate crime because of what she MIGHT do? That doesn't sound paranoid to you? :wtf:

No, she isn't. That was my opinion, as indicated by my prefacing it with "I suspect".

Thankfully, 'suspecting' is not enough in criminal law. You can only charge people based on what they HAVE done, not by what they might theoretically do. (If, for example, there's a drunk guy in a bar and he says "I'll kill the next motherfucker that comes in here!" you can't charge him with murder...because he hasn't done anything yet.)

:wtf:

I appreciate your confidence in my ability to manipulate the legal system of Illinois from my suburban home in South Australia, but I (1) can't and (2) wouldn't. Which part of the distinction between my personal speculation that this woman may well be capable of more and the state of Illinois charging this woman with a hate crime is unclear, exactly?
 
Because in this case, speculation is irrelevant. All that matters is somebody yanked on an article of clothing. Sure, she *might* have some deep seated hatred of somebody or some group, but so what?
 
It's quite clear she does hold such hatred in my heart. As you say, though, that's beside the point. What isn't beside the point is her motive in committing this particular crime.
 
Sorry, Warped9, even though my post did deal with the concept of being easily offended and brittle, I think I derailed your thread to the point where maybe the mods should close this thread. :(

So if I'm at my store, and a kid comes along and tugs at a pant leg, am I gonna charge that kid with assault?

Only if the kid is white and you're not. :p
 
Yes, I do. I do everything possible, within reason, to show people respect and to not offend them.

As to hate crimes, which I haven't read the entire thread and have no idea how that came up, I think in particular instances they should be used to enhance sentences.
 
Sorry, Warped9, even though my post did deal with the concept of being easily offended and brittle, I think I derailed your thread to the point where maybe the mods should close this thread. :(

So if I'm at my store, and a kid comes along and tugs at a pant leg, am I gonna charge that kid with assault?

Only if the kid is white and you're not. :p
I've no problems. It's all good.
 
Hate crimes are thought crimes.

Not only that, but it values one victim as being more significant than another based solely on who the attacker was.
No, it's not about either criminalizing thought or valuing one victim over another. It's about what type of crime it is based on motivation. This is not unusual; it's why there's a difference between First Degree Murder and Manslaughter and Self-Defense.
 
No, but I have a hard time finding dates because I have a very non PC sarcastic sense of humor that most people don't get.

I made a joke about how I should learn Chinese because they are our overloads and a friend went nuts because he said the same thing around a group of people, including an Asian and everyone got pissed off at him. :lol:
 
Do you worry overmuch about offending anyone?

I usually tread carefully around new people until I get to know them and have a better idea as to what they may or may not find offensive. I do this because I can have a pretty broad sense of humour, but I've no interest in making anyone unduly uncomfortable.

That said I've found people who are unrealistically sensitive. They're so focused on their own perceptions and their own comfort zones that they don't make allowances for anyone else.

My view is that I don't intentionally seek to offend anyone directly, but that if a harmless remark is taken out of context or construed to mean something entirely different than what I intended then that's too damned bad for them. Get over it and live in the real world.

I recall a woman who was my superior several years ago who took offense over hearing a somewhat racy joke between myself and my male coworkers. She called me aside and asked if I respected her. I replied that I had no reason to not respect her since she hadn't yet done anything to earn any disrespect from me. She responded that if I did respect her then how could I have made such racy remarks among coworkers. And, no, the joke had nothing to do with her.

I was floored. I replied that no disrespect was intended and that the joke was no more offensive than what could be heard on Just For Laughs on the Comedy Channel. It was intended as wry, goodnatured humour.

I got the sense where this was going and decided to draw a line then and there. I said that she was unrealistic if she expected to come into a workplace and expect everyone to stop being who they were just to accommodate her. She had to accept that she was now working with a bunch of middle-class men who periodically might get a bit raunchy with their remarks. It didn't mean they disrespected her, but that a little locker room like humour didn't hurt anyone.

She countered that she had a good sense of humour and was still offended. I countered that everyone thinks they have a good sense of humour, but what we all have are different senses of humour and if we're going to interact with each other then we have to make allowances for each other to some extent.

Things were left like that with her somewhat unsure of whether she'd gotten her point across. For myself I shrugged it off, and although I didn't change my behaviour around my male coworkers I did make a point of avoiding certain subjects when she was within earshot.

That said far more often than not most women I've known can be just as raunchy if not sometimes more so than guys. Most women I've known can see humour in sexually tinged observations.

I do believe, however, that how a remark is made and in what context goes a long way in diffusing it from being potentially offensive.

Truth is I'm offended all the time by things I see and hear around me everyday. I'm offended whenever I have to deal with or endure something I don't like. What it comes down to for me is whether it is really personally offensive or intrusive. I'm offended by the idea of gay marriage yet in the larger scheme of things this doesn't really affect me personally. So like with so much else I suck it up and chalk it up to living in the real world.

Are you easily offended? Or do you have a tendency to cause offense unintentionally or otherwise?

Anyone?

Usually in very large companies like the one I work for they do a lot of sexual sensitivity training..basically it amounts to: if you don't know how its going to effect someone within earshot, DONT say anything, even a joke. The company would probably tell you you were in the wrong if it had come to that.

RAMA

My turn to offend.
I feel that the whole sexual harrassment thing's been so abused since the 1980's when it first started, that it's pretty much used as a weapon, usually by women, to get at someone she does not like, or dissed her.

It's abused like national security has been the past near 20 decades.
 
I never care if someone gets upset. As I mentioned in another thread, I'm a libertarian, pansexual pagen.

Do you oil the pan before you have sex with it?

Just asking for...curiousity. :shifty:

Meaning I go after whomever I'm attracted to, regardless of sex. Males, females, transgenders, intersexed, and aliens.

Think Captain Jack Harkness, and it pretty much sums it up. :bolian:

That damn Captain Jack Harkness, so sexy and plays with people's feelings! :mad: ;)

J.
 
Nine times out of ten political correctness is just a thoughtless buzzword assholes use when they get offended by people getting offended at them for behaving like assholes.

It's completely divorced from its original meaning and intent, and is largely empty rhetoric held up by those who worry about "The War on Christmas" or the Nanny State or evil socialism taking over the US and similar non-issues based on grossly exaggerated or outright false examples.

Are there people who get offended too easily? Absolutely, just as there are people who seek to cause offense too easily and then hide behind the shield of political correctness to turn the criticism around as if they're fighting for freedom or something. But being offended by something has nothing to do with political correctness in and of itself.

On a related note, in my experience nine times out of ten those who bitch about hate crimes legislation are people who are historically ignorant or have never been terrorized for being a member of a protected class (white people are protected too, BTW). Therefore they think burning a cross on a black person's lawn is simple vandalism and spray-painting "Jews Must Die" on a synagogue is just harmless graffiti with no intent to terrorize or force people to leave.
 
On a related note, in my experience nine times out of ten those who bitch about hate crimes legislation are people who are historically ignorant or have never been terrorized for being a member of a protected class (white people are protected too, BTW). Therefore they think burning a cross on a black person's lawn is simple vandalism and spray-painting "Jews Must Die" on a synagogue is just harmless graffiti with no intent to terrorize or force people to leave.
I disagree. Burning a cross on someone's yard or spray painting are already addressed in laws that cover menacing, assault, and a myriad of other offenses. "Hate crime" is a "thought crime" plain and true. If I, as a while person, punch a minority, it will be labeled as a hate crime rather than assault.
 
Locutus of Bored said:
Nine times out of ten political correctness is just a thoughtless buzzword assholes use when they get offended by people getting offended at them for behaving like assholes.

It's completely divorced from its original meaning and intent, and is largely empty rhetoric held up by those who worry about "The War on Christmas" or the Nanny State or evil socialism taking over the US and similar non-issues based on grossly exaggerated or outright false examples.

Are there people who get offended too easily? Absolutely, just as there are people who seek to cause offense too easily and then hide behind the shield of political correctness to turn the criticism around as if they're fighting for freedom or something. But being offended by something has nothing to do with political correctness in and of itself.

On a related note, in my experience nine times out of ten those who bitch about hate crimes legislation are people who are historically ignorant or have never been terrorized for being a member of a protected class (white people are protected too, BTW). Therefore they think burning a cross on a black person's lawn is simple vandalism and spray-painting "Jews Must Die" on a synagogue is just harmless graffiti with no intent to terrorize or force people to leave.
The previous post is made of awesome and common sense. So people will obviously hate it.
 
On a related note, in my experience nine times out of ten those who bitch about hate crimes legislation are people who are historically ignorant or have never been terrorized for being a member of a protected class (white people are protected too, BTW). Therefore they think burning a cross on a black person's lawn is simple vandalism and spray-painting "Jews Must Die" on a synagogue is just harmless graffiti with no intent to terrorize or force people to leave.
I disagree. Burning a cross on someone's yard or spray painting are already addressed in laws that cover menacing, assault, and a myriad of other offenses.

Yeah, it's addressed in existing law as vandalism, and thus would have the same weight as some punk kids playing mailbox baseball and not as a concerted effort to intimidate a person or group to leave because they're not wanted there.

How do you know it was meant to be "menacing" without making a judgment call on the intent on the perpetrator based on direct evidence or the historical context of the crime? If you can tolerate those judgment calls on intent being made, why is the same thing when applied to hate crime unacceptable?

"Hate crime" is a "thought crime" plain and true. If I, as a while person, punch a minority, it will be labeled as a hate crime rather than assault.

Not unless there is reasonable evidence that you punched that person because they were a minority. It's not like they automatically charge every white guy who hits a black guy in a drunken bar brawl with a hate crime.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top