Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What is going on at BYU?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That isn't what I said. 

I know, it was my response to what you said.

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It isn't a "particular conception of the world" or "the way you see the world?" Ok. 

I feel that your couching my testimony and spirituals beliefs as a "worldview" that I have "bought into" diminishes them.  I can't imagine that you would ever describe your own testimony as a worldview that you bought into.

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'll kindly stop referring to you in any way whatsoever as you refuse to engage in an honest discussion. ✌️

I'm being completely honest and very open with you.  I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I seriously question this.  Are you aware of any evidence or proof that the intent was to disparage the gay community? 

I don't believe that is a fair characterization of what he said. I understood him to have issues with the claims that it was "hate" and that it "defaced" the sign.  I agree with the opinion that both of those statements are overwrought reactions.  

Do you have any links to this incident being reported in the press?  The original source was the Twitter feed of an BYU student who wanted anonymity to bash the school. 

I am. Just as I refuse to agree that differing viewpoints on same-sex sexual behavior constitutes hate speech. 

Then maybe you might want to consider wording your comment clearly rather than attributing motives to "faithful members" as a whole. Unless you actually meant what you typed. 

 

Seriously?  The Church is all innocent in any wrong doings against the LGBT community?  Come on Klindley, I think everyone is quite aware that the Church  thinks if you are gay you don't deserve the right to marry.   Even when the California Supreme court ruled that it was a civil right to allow everyone the ability to legally marry.  The Church may tolerate the legal right because at this point, they can't really do much about that. Do I need to go on about the hostility towards the LGBT community in it's efforts?  How about calling gay married couples apostates.  Does that sound like the Church aggressively going after those marriages in the now only legal way they can?  Or punishing their children by not allowing them baptism.  Yeah they aren't buying the whole "because we love you so much, its for their own good" smokescreen.   I have no issue with the Church deciding how to treat it's gay members within its organization.  It is their church after all.  But the Church has and continues to reach outside its religion organization to try and curb LGBT rights.  And that doesn't mean that those outside that religion feels the Church has been understanding and kind to its gay members.

I can tell you this in complete honesty, the LGBT community and those that support the rights of that community look upon the Mormons as one of the most aggressive religious organizations that repeatedly has a history of going after the LGBT community, their civil rights, the right to not be discriminated against and their right to find a fulfilling life with someone they love.  Every single LGBTb issue that goes before the Supreme Court, the Church is right there filing amicus briefs against EVERY LGBT issues.  Even as we speak, the Supreme Court are deciding issues of gay rights.  And as in the past, the Church is speaking out against those cases in their filings.

And this goes back way before Prop 8 ever appeared on the ballot with the tactics the Church used in Hawaii as well as false promises Church leaders made to their gay members.  When I tell people I used to be Mormon, not a single person has ever asked me why I am no longer a member.  Not one. Mostly they want to know how I got out of the Church.   I know the Church is constantly saying "we love those that are gay" but there passive aggressive treatment towards the LGBT community tells a different story.  

When I say I am not surprised by what happened at BYU, well I am not.  The idea of "can we do more towards those that are gay" must be slapped with statement by prophets stating that their marriages and those relationships are not real in the eyes of Church leaders.  And just where did Lloyd Scott condemn that tactic?  He seems to be more worried about the technical definition of deface than the message that is sending.  And you seem to look at the incident as bashing BYU rather than some passive aggressive move towards what the poster is about.

Look, I don't really care what the Church does against the LGBT community within its membership.  It is their choice.  But I do get a bit ticked off when people on this board think that somehow the Church is all love and hugs towards the gay community and then get upset with the firestorm the Church seems to regularly cause with LGBT issues. I do get upset when the Church tries to control LGBT behavior outside its membership.  Look at this list.  Is there any other Church that has been so aggressive against the LGBT community?

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they were tearing down posters, or if they were scribbling graffiti on them or damaging them in any way (the typically understood connotation of “deface”) I would say no, absolutely not. That would amount to vandalism or, in the case of unauthorized removal, theft. 
 

As it is, I’m not inclined to get spun up over it. I’m not even much worried about violation of the requirement that they be rubber stamped by admin unless it can be shown the actors were aware beforehand of the rule. It strikes me as being on the level of a parking violation in severity. Nothing to warrant getting hauled into the Honor Code office. 

 

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  But that isn't the question I asked.

I was using comparison and contrast as a means of keeping this thing in perspective.

Quote

 

Neither am I (and I haven't gotten spun up over it).  In fact, I was less "spun up" over this incident than you seem to be over me using the word deface.

 

 

 

Yes. You were so nonchalant about it that after using inflated verbiage to characterize what was done, you brought up the BYU Honor Code to signify your nonchalance.

Quote

Strawman.  I didn't suggest that anyone be hauled into the Honor Code office

No. You only quoted at length from the code and engaged in a bit of public shaming as an indicator of (ahem) your nonchalance.

Quote

 

Your dodge of the question tells me that you aren't willing to go quite so far as to deem this appropriate behavior for BYU students.

 

 

 

You seriously think I was dodging? I thought I was quite clear in my implication -- so much so that even you, apparently, had no trouble surmising what I was saying. But if you need me to spell it out for you, so be it:

Do I believe BYU students ought to obey administrative rules with respect to posting publicity materials on campus? Yes. I also think they ought to obey parking regulations and observe the "keep off the grass" signs and return library books on time and meet deadlines for the submission of research papers and essays and assignments and the like. When they don't, am I apt to invoke the Honor Code and raise a great fuss about the noble name of "my alma mater" having been thus besmirched? Nah. That seems over the top to me. As I said, "overwrought." 

 

Quote

That was my main point, and I think we agree.  It seems that, really, you just wanted to argue with me over my use of the word deface.

"Words matter." That's the catch-phrase I keep hearing today. I might refine it a bit to say, "Connotations matter."

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
6 hours ago, kllindley said:

I looked up overwrought and I retract it. My intent was exaggerated or overstated. 

For the record, I still deeply doubt that it was someone actually protesting the article. 

"Exaggerated" and "overstated" work as well. Often, one who is overwrought engages in exaggeration and overstatement.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I was using comparison and contrast as a means of keeping this thing in perspective.

Yes. You were so nonchalant about it that after using inflated verbiage to characterize what was done, you brought up the BYU Honor Code to signify your nonchalance.

No. You only quoted at length from the code and engaged in a bit of public shaming as an indicator of (ahem) your nonchalance.

You seriously think I was dodging? I thought I was quite clear in my implication -- so much so that even you, apparently, had no trouble surmising what I was saying. But if you need me to spell it out for you, so be it:

Do I believe BYU students ought to obey administrative rules with respect to posting publicity materials on campus? Yes. I also think they ought to obey parking regulations and observe the "keep off the grass" signs and return library books on time and meet deadlines for the submission of research papers and essays and assignments and the like. When they don't, am I apt to invoke the Honor Code and raise a great fuss about the noble name of "my alma mater" having been thus besmirched? Nah. That seems over the top to me. As I said, "overwrought." 

 

"Words matter." That's the catch-phrase I keep hearing today. I might refine it a bit to say, "Connotations matter."

Yes, words matter.  And here is the full, unedited content of my post (page 1 of this thread) that you are calling "overwrought":

Quote

I wouldn't consider this hate speech either.  But it is inappropriate to deface someone's authorized campus poster with unauthorized signs.  Whomever taped those papers to the newsstand likely thought that they were doing the right thing in supposedly standing up for church doctrine but I believe they were breaking BYU rules (and thus the honor code) in so doing.

I welcome correction if things have changed and students are now allowed to post signs on campus without receiving proper permission.

So overwrought.  So over the top.  So many negative connotations.  Oh wait - no, there's none of that.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, words matter.  And here is the full, unedited content of my post (page 1 of this thread) that you are calling "overwrought":

So overwrought.  So over the top.  So many negative connotations.  Oh wait - no, there's none of that.

You left out the the implications later in the thread to the effect that you think (paraphrasing here) the purity of your “alma mater” was sullied because some rapscallion taped something to the bottom of someone’s poster. 
 

Oh, the humanity! 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You left out the the expressions later in the thread to the effect that you think (paraphrasing here) the purity of your “alma mater” was sullied because some rapscallion taped something to the bottom of someone’s poster. 
 

Oh, the humanity! 

Really?  That's what you think you read?  Here's what actually happened:

Bernard Gui wrote...

On 11/9/2019 at 5:14 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Ripped down posters, defaced posters, permanent marker comments scribbled over offending posters, and counter-message poster pasted over each other are regular features on campus bulletin boards. Usually with a liberal cocktail of obscenities thrown in for added effect. This BYU thingy is nothing in comparison.

I’m comparing my observations from University of Washington, Evergreen State College, Pierce College, Bellevue College, Central and Western Washington Universities. Not so much with some schools I have seen the South. 

And I responded... (my post quoted in its entirety)

On 11/9/2019 at 5:57 PM, rockpond said:

I hold my alma mater, BYU, to a higher standard. 

Your paraphrase is longer than my entire statement and includes ideas that I didn't even imply -- purity sullied and rapscallion.  Talk about overwrought... look in the mirror, Scott.

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Really?  That's what you think you read?  Here's what actually happened:

Bernard Gui wrote...

And I responded... (my post quoted in its entirety)

Your paraphrase is longer than my entire statement and includes ideas that I didn't even imply -- purity sullied and rapscallion.  Talk about overwrought... look in the mirror, Scott.

To paraphrase means to use different, not necessarily fewer, words. And admittedly, my paraphrase involved hyperbole, which is obvious exaggeration for rhetorical, sometimes comedic, effect.
 

Usually, hyperbole is not intended to be taken literally, though it is generally intended to make a sincere point. 
 

Your use of “deface” in this instance to refer to the taping of items onto the bottom of a newsstand display might be regarded as hyperbole — though I don’t think you intended it that way. I think you meant it to be taken literally. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To paraphrase means to use different, not necessarily fewer, words. And admittedly, my paraphrase involved hyperbole, which is obvious exaggeration for rhetorical, sometimes comedic, effect.

Your paraphrase was incorrect.  And it was also a misrepresentation as my original statement was not overwrought but you used hyperbole to make it sound like it was.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Usually, hyperbole is not intended to be taken literally, though it is generally intended to make a sincere point.

What was your sincere point?  To misrepresent my posts here in order to support your false conclusion?

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your use of “deface” in this instance to refer to the taping of items onto the bottom of a newsstand display might be regarded as hyperbole — though I don’t think you intended it that way. I think you meant it to be taken literally. 

I used the word deface because, by definition, it is accurate.  You seemed to imply some extra connotation to it - that's on you, not me.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Your paraphrase was incorrect.  And it was also a misrepresentation as my original statement was not overwrought but you used hyperbole to make it sound like it was.

What was your sincere point?  To misrepresent my posts here in order to support your false conclusion?

I used the word deface because, by definition, it is accurate.  You seemed to imply some extra connotation to it - that's on you, not me.

From Oxford online:

de·face

/dəˈfās/

verb

verb: deface; 3rd person present: defaces; past tense: defaced; past participle: defaced; gerund or present participle: defacing

spoil the surface or appearance of (something), for example by drawing or writing on it.

"he defaced library books"

———-

I believe when most people encounter the word, they interpret it to mean that something is being materially damaged, altered, marred or spoiled in some way. It’s a common connotation pervasively understood. It’s not something I invented. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From Oxford online:

de·face

/dəˈfās/

verb

verb: deface; 3rd person present: defaces; past tense: defaced; past participle: defaced; gerund or present participle: defacing

spoil the surface or appearance of (something), for example by drawing or writing on it.

"he defaced library books"

———-

The surface and appearance of the newsstand was spoiled.  To a great degree?  No.  But my post didn't suggest that either.  (Spoil is defined as "diminish or destroy the value or quality of".)

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe when most people encounter the word, they interpret it to mean that something is being materially damaged, altered, marred or spoiled in some way. It’s a common connotation pervasively understood. It’s not something I invented. 

Your belief about how most people may encounter the word does not mean that I was "overwrought" in using it.

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"materially damaged, altered, marred or spoiled in some way"

Notice how you, in paraphrasing the definition, added to it?  Materially, damaged, alterred, and marred do not even appear in the definition.  It seems that you are the one that is overwrought about this.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The surface and appearance of the newsstand was spoiled.  To a great degree?  No.  But my post didn't suggest that either.  (Spoil is defined as "diminish or destroy the value or quality of".)

Your belief about how most people may encounter the word does not mean that I was "overwrought" in using it.

Notice how you, in paraphrasing the definition, added to it?  Materially, damaged, alterred, and marred do not even appear in the definition.  It seems that you are the one that is overwrought about this.

I was describing what I believe the word connotes to a typical person. I believe that to be a safe assumption. 
 

And no, taping something to the bottom of a news stand does not diminish the quality of anything. The thing can be easily removed with no damage or alteration to what it was applied to.  “Marred” appeared in a definition that was cited earlier in the thread, and I don’t believe a reasonable person would dispute that “mar” is a synonym for “deface.” 
 

I think you used “deface” and invoked the Honor Code to make the thing seem more egregious than it was. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was describing what I believe the word connotes to a typical person. I believe that to be a safe assumption.

Given how you like to read stuff into my comments that isn't there and provide biased "paraphrases", I don't really trust your judgment in this regard.

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And no, taping something to the bottom of a news stand does not diminish the quality of anything. The thing can be easily removed with no damage or alteration to what it was applied to.  “Marred” appeared in a definition that was cited earlier in the thread, and I don’t believe a reasonable person would dispute that “mar” is a synonym for “deface.” 

You actually don't know that it can be removed without tearing the newsstand poster underneath.  This is a nit that you've decided to make a huge deal over.  Again, you are the one with the overwrought response dwelling on this word as if I meant something terrible with it.

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you used “deface” and invoked the Honor Code to make the thing seem more egregious than it was. 

Just as a reminder, my post said:

  1. This was not hate speech.
  2. That the person or persons who allegedly did this likely had honorable intentions.
  3. But that it was, in my understanding, a violation of BYU campus policies.

Again, I was not and have not been overwrought about this.  I'll admit that from time to time on this board, I do get upset about certain things.  Sometimes my emotions get the better of me and I post things that I wish I hadn't.  This was not one of those times.  I haven't felt that this was a big deal at all and my posts here demonstrate that.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

taping something to the bottom of a news stand does not diminish the quality of anything.

If you look at the opening post with the picture, it is not taped to the bottom of the newsstand frame which is likely metal, but to the middlish of the newsstand poster (the tape is in the middle which drops the paper to cover the bottom of the poster).  Depending on the quality of the tape and the newsstand poster cardboard, removing the tape might tear the poster (I just ripped an invoice a few weeks ago when I accidentally got tape on it...one that normally didn't tear as well, really upsetting because I needed to use that invoice to pick up something and it tore off the id info, so I had to stop pulling it off and cut the tape and leave it on)

The White comment actually covers writing, small print so might not be necessary, but it is obstructing the poster's info.  The picture with Pres. Nelson is actually bigger and might be covering more writing.  If something covers part of the message, I would say it diminished the quality.

It would also be distracting and looks rather tacky, imo, and cheap...making the whole impression of lower quality, less professional.

They could have easily taped it to the metal frame, but chose not to.  Wonder why.

I actually wondered when I first saw the picture if they taped it there so as to cause hesitation to remove it ( say by a passerby) in case it ripped the poster beneath.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 11/11/2019 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said:

It’s still very unlikely.

stats on hoaxes of hate crimes usually indicates that they’re rare. Less than 1% sort of rare. 

a lot of these hoaxes has some immediate benefit to the arbitrator of said hoax. This byu stunt currently doesn’t seem to have any beneficiary, isn’t “hate,” but reads as a self-righteous morality lesson to someone who likely only skimmed or didn’t read the article. 

See here

And here

the last one had this stat: 

“Mr. Riley quotes from a study that claims to have identified 400 fake hate crimes between 2010 and 2017. Even if we accepted that as true, during that same period the FBI reported almost 50,000 hate crimes”

 

with luv,

BD

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It’s still very unlikely.

stats on hoaxes of hate crimes usually indicates that they’re rare. Less than 1% sort of rare. 

I have some reservations/concerns about hate crimes, and about statistics about them.  "Hate crime" is an enormously subjective term.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

However, one major problem with this is how hate crime is defined. According to the FBI, “A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” The underlying problem with this definition is it elevates non-criminal activity to the level of a crime. Spray painting a phallus on the side of a building is vandalism. Spray painting a swastika on the side of a building is a hate crime. To get a true understanding of hate crime, the underlying action must be fully understood. When we eliminate motivation from the equation and separate events into the categories of violent crime, non-violent crime and misdemeanor, we find the percentage mix looks like this:

Year

Violent

Criminal - Non-Violent

Non-Criminal

2011

1%

17%

82%

2012

1%

20%

79%

2013

1%

19%

81%

2014

1%

20%

79%

2015

1%

20%

79%

2016

1%

19%

80%

2017

1%

20%

79%

The first major problem we run into, then, is that the vast majority of recorded hate crimes fall into a number of activities that normally fall under misdemeanor or even civil categories. These actions include vandalism, simple assault and a vague category the FBI uses called “Crimes Against Society.” Vandalism alone makes up a third of all events. It is troubling that the State elevates non-criminal matters into a criminal one based nothing on perpetrator motivation. The aforementioned swastika spray paint is no more difficult to clean off than a person scrawling their name.

Digging further, the increase in reported hate crimes is driven primarily by these non-criminal acts.

murray1.PNG

The disparity between real crime where people are harmed or property is irreparably lost and simple misdemeanor activity is staggering. The reason for this is that the State has incentives to elevate these normally trivial events into the realm of high crime as doing so creates the impression the State is protecting the public from dangerous elements. Saying the State found 7,000 incidents of hate crime sounds much more impressive than saying they found 78. Prosecutors, particularly those who are elected to their positions, are able to wear a badge of honor on the campaign trail if they put a hate criminal behind bars, even though it’s normally drumming up someone who exchanged a few mean words with a passer-by.

And there are all sorts of social/political pressures on examining the verity/legitimacy of alleged hate crimes.  We see similar pressures pertaining to sexual assault allegations, hence the "Believe All Women" thing.

Quote

a lot of these hoaxes has some immediate benefit to the arbitrator of said hoax. This byu stunt currently doesn’t seem to have any beneficiary, isn’t “hate,” but reads as a self-righteous morality lesson to someone who likely only skimmed or didn’t read the article. 

See here

And here

the last one had this stat: 

“Mr. Riley quotes from a study that claims to have identified 400 fake hate crimes between 2010 and 2017. Even if we accepted that as true, during that same period the FBI reported almost 50,000 hate crimes”

with luv,

BD

Again, there are some serious problems with the very notion of "hate crimes."

Meanwhile, regarding the prevalence of hate crime "hoaxes," it is interesting that you have one figure (less than 1%), while this article comes up with a very different number:

Quote

Hate Crime Hoaxes Are More Common Than You Think
A political scientist found that fewer than 1 in 3 of 346 such allegations was genuine.

Fewer than 1 in 3 was genuine.  That would mean that more than 66% of such allegations were hoaxes/questionable. 

Quote

Mr. Reilly eventually compiled a database of 346 hate-crime allegations and determined that less than a third were genuine. Turning his attention to the hoaxes, he put together a data set of more than 400 confirmed cases of fake allegations that were reported to authorities between 2010 and 2017. He allows that the exact number of false reports is probably unknowable, but what can be said “with absolute confidence is that the actual number of hate crime hoaxes is indisputably large,” he writes. “We are not speaking here of just a few bad apples.”

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have some reservations/concerns about hate crimes, and about statistics about them.  "Hate crime" is an enormously subjective term.  See, e.g., here:

And there are all sorts of social/political pressures on examining the verity/legitimacy of alleged hate crimes.  We see similar pressures pertaining to sexual assault allegations, hence the "Believe All Women" thing.

Again, there are some serious problems with the very notion of "hate crimes."

Meanwhile, regarding the prevalence of hate crime "hoaxes," it is interesting that you have one figure (less than 1%), while this article comes up with a very different number:

Fewer than 1 in 3 was genuine.  That would mean that more than 66% of such allegations were hoaxes/questionable. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I definitely hold issue with your first article. Vandalism can be elevated to a hate crime because the psychological and real-time effect on a minority community can be very different. Someone tags my house with common graffiti, that’s a nuisance and may cause some property damage i want paid. Someone paints a message attacking my mixed family, immigrant spouse, or other forms of hate it effects how i’ll see my neighbors and leave me on edge for weeks. “Smaller” incidents towards friends of mine (being told to go back where you came from, being lambasted by a white lady for having her son with long hair and notably Native American with several racially tinged epithets, friends being told to speak English) near my current place of residence leaves me on edge for a day or two. Do i know that’s likely to not happen. Yes, of course. But it’s still isolating and fear inducing and even moreso when the actions are questioned as “real” or not. 
 

i also hold heavy reservation  with what you’ve said around sexual assault. But I don’t want to go down the article/research rabbit hole. There’s plenty of research that runs counter to this one person’s research in the WSJ. It caught traction though because of one money-grubbing idiot who wanted a publicity stunt from real concerns and fear that have increased in minority communities. 
 

I likely won’t have time to respond as much past this though. So i’m content with the agree to disagree thing that we usually end up on in a few more posts 😋

 

with luv, 

BD 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

“Mr. Riley quotes from a study that claims to have identified 400 fake hate crimes between 2010 and 2017. Even if we accepted that as true, during that same period the FBI reported almost 50,000 hate crimes”

7 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

i also hold heavy reservation  with what you’ve said around sexual assault. But I don’t want to go down the article/research rabbit hole. There’s plenty of research that runs counter to this one person’s research in the WSJ. It caught traction though because of one money-grubbing idiot who wanted a publicity stunt from real concerns and fear that have increased in minority communities. 

It really is unfortunate that we live in times of such extreme polarization and over the top aggressive activism, we are faced with having to second guess many polls and research studies.  With the revelation of IRS abuses led by Lois Lerner favoring leftist foundations and suppression of conservative and religious groups, the exposure of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page indicating high level corruption of the FBI, the politicization of the Justice Department by the Clinton and Obama administrations, revelation of former CIA director John Brennan for having voted for communist candidates, the obstinacy of NOAA to refuse Congress' request for climate information in order to cover for false reporting of climate data, the entrenchment of the vast bureaucracy in legislating, prosecuting, mandating regulations far in excess of the normal functions of the three branches, etc - - - we would have to expend a great deal of time and effort to verify and correlate various polls, studies and records.

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I definitely hold issue with your first article. Vandalism can be elevated to a hate crime because the psychological and real-time effect on a minority community can be very different. Someone tags my house with common graffiti, that’s a nuisance and may cause some property damage i want paid. Someone paints a message attacking my mixed family, immigrant spouse, or other forms of hate it effects how i’ll see my neighbors and leave me on edge for weeks.

I understand and appreciate your perspective.  I also don't dispute the potential adverse effects of such things.

My concern pertains to the risk of, for lack of a better term, "sprawl" in the criminal justice system.  I do not trust the government's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate "hate crimes."  Prosecutors already have way too much discretion and authority, and "hate crimes" legislation is, in some ways, tantamount to giving them carte blanche to overcharge.  Overcharging crimes, then pleading out for a lesser charge or sentence, is the sine qua non of prosecutorial behavior.  "Hate crimes" legislation gives prosecutors legal leeway to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, based on nothing more than the prosecutor's subjective / politicized perspective.  

From this article again (emphases added):

Quote

However, one major problem with this is how hate crime is defined. According to the FBI, “A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” The underlying problem with this definition is it elevates non-criminal activity to the level of a crime. Spray painting a phallus on the side of a building is vandalism. Spray painting a swastika on the side of a building is a hate crime.
...
The first major problem we run into, then, is that the vast majority of recorded hate crimes fall into a number of activities that normally fall under misdemeanor or even civil categories. These actions include vandalism, simple assault and a vague category the FBI uses called “Crimes Against Society.” Vandalism alone makes up a third of all events. It is troubling that the State elevates non-criminal matters into a criminal one based nothing on perpetrator motivation.

Yep.

I denounce crimes motivated by hatred, whether against the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  I simply do not think we as a society can meaningfully and fairly adjudicate such things.

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

“Smaller” incidents towards friends of mine (being told to go back where you came from, being lambasted by a white lady for having her son with long hair and notably Native American with several racially tinged epithets, friends being told to speak English) near my current place of residence leaves me on edge for a day or two. Do i know that’s likely to not happen. Yes, of course. But it’s still isolating and fear inducing and even moreso when the actions are questioned as “real” or not. 

And yet, we still must rely on evidence and a presumption of innocence.  For example, there are few phrases more cringe-inducing to me than "Believe All Women."  Any sociopolitical pressure point that causes us to return to errors in our past need to be addressed.  We cannot uncritically accept each and every claim of a "hate crime" simply because applying the normative legal standards to them might cause some agitation.

Lots of people express frustration and irritation with legal safeguards, like the presumption of innocence, due process, standards of proof, competent evidence, and so on.  However, our legal system exists to protect all of us.  Those same frustrated/irritated people become decidely less so when they are the beneficiaries of those legal safeguards.

Quote

I likely won’t have time to respond as much past this though. So i’m content with the agree to disagree thing that we usually end up on in a few more posts 😋

with luv, 

BD 

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...