I was hoping that you were joking. I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with the power majority in this country.

You can't prove that there isn't "social control" in that analogy. Maybe that was the guys intent. His intent was to terrorize anyone that cheats. You don't know, and the law won't know.

Furthermore, someone who kills a person and says specifically "I hate this specific race" may have no intent on social control, but simply killed the person. Even if the most obvious "hate crime" is given, there's likely no proof there's "social control" unless he says "I plan to terrorize all persons of XYZ ethnicity". And then, I agree...some form of exacerbated punishment needs to be doled out. But I'm not sure that happens much.

Let's put this one out there:
If the precedent for the law was to protect the majority from the minority, then clearly if a black person kills a white person, and says expressly that he hates white people... he should only get simple murder. Or does it apply to all? And then, what necessity is the precedence if it applies to all?

I'm not sure it's a "specious interpretation", it's the interpretation of a definition of minority.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

I know you won't, because you can't disprove, but please do instead of simply saying "incorrect".

If I have you down correctly, it will be something like "I don't want to waste time on it" which is the surest sign that you can't disprove.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, everyone else knows what "social control" means.

This is when I must tell you to research. The origin of hate crime legislation does not mean that those who target the majority cannot be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It means that the legislation covers group victimization that is GENERALLY that of the minority.

When using broad terms such as "social control" one can construe it into any such form.

Yes, I know. I was using that person's definition.

Thank me later.....

First off, Elephant Walk, you tried to reduce "hate" in the sense that it is used for hate crimes to "anger" and negative emotionality. There is a huge difference between someone being murdered as a result of a bar fight (hint: most violent crimes have minimal planning and minimal targeting therefore the emotions and "hatred" are extremely shortlived and fleeting) as compared to someone who has a sense of group threat or rage that is directed at particular groups.

If you can't see the racial and ethnic references, think of it in terms of sexual offenses. There are sexual predators who target children and women and there are perpetrators of crimes such as rape and sexual assault which are about power (and not sex). The laws are geared toward the fact that these tend not to be as random in terms of intent and target as some other crimes are. All crimes are generally based on the daily routine activities of the perpetrator and the victims (hence you're more likely to be victimized by family, friend, or level of acquaintance than you are a complete stranger). But, crimes that target on the bases of sex, age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. are even more non-random. The perpetrator goes into it with that intention.

And, yes, we know all of this because of years of quantitative and qualitative research. I don't understand why people can't grasp that our social world is complex yet humans are generally profilable and predictable based on what we have studied about human behaviors.

Social control is not a broad term.

It means exactly what it sounds like. It is a macro-level approach to a sense of threat. Harming someone who cheats on you because you hate cheaters (as many people do) is not a social control mechanism.

This is difficult because we're not speaking in specific terms. You're generalizing in every sense of the word. Yes, SOME violent actions are like that. But, SOME are not.

Thus anger does not necessarily accompany hate, but SOMETIMES it does.

Generalizing, yet again.

I hope you don't do this for all your examples. Yes, SOMETIMES those things occur. SOMETIMES they don't.

I would sure hate to sentence someone to life in prison for generalizations.

I agree.

Obviously.

The point is that, you simply don't know. The intent of the person could be using it as a social control mechanism, whether or not you see it as one is irrelevent. The intent is there.

Some fraternity men wear tutus but you'd have a difficult time writing a speech about that exception to the rule. You'd be spinning in circles and twirling your thumbs up your ass waiting for someone to grasp the larger point while not being baffled by the rarity of fraternity men in tutus.

Caution: You're agreeing with me.

Wait, you agree when you said earlier that we don't know whether something is really a hate crime because we don't know the motivation and intent in most of these crimes?

Please make your mind up because I really hate (pun intended) "devil's advocates" and wishy washy discourse.

So are you really going to pick random parts out of what I've written but fail to disprove the underlying assumption?
Exceptions happen and they're important when lives/freedom are at stake.

I agree that human behavior is generally knowable.

However, generalizations should not cut it when, as I said earlier...lives/freedom are at stake.

No, not obviously. I wouldn't have said it if it was clear that it was obvious to you. Don't waste my time after you practically begged me to type to you.

Perpetrators may not realize or ever say they were attempting a social control mechanism. That's why the assessment of their intent on the part of profilers, law enforcement, and researchers does matter.

"Intent" is the word but the crux of the issue is in the content and context. "The intent is there" means absolutely nothing. This is interesting because you're actually the one who is speaking very abstractly and loosely about this all. I speak in terms of generalizations and patterns, along with examples of the specifics, from which one can grasp the larger point and apply it to the specifics.

Yes and you're smart enough to read my posts and see that I'm addressing your assumptions---in the most entertaining manner possible.

And I have addressed your vast generalizations and assumptions in the least entertaining way possible.

Uh...why is Elephant Walk stuck on the exceptions when he began attempting to refute nonexceptions? If the nonexceptions do exist then that refutes all of his posts.

If the only point was that nothing is 100% then...DUH...okay...great...that's why we have a legal and criminal justice system in addition to our research...moving back to the thread.

As for everyone being a minority, we already know that is ridiculous based on the idea that "minority" is a matter of power dynamics and/or representation in the total population. The lucky thing is that the upper class of America is the minority in terms of population size but the majority in terms of power. Pip pip!!!!