'Are You Muslim?' Hate Crime

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree.

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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

Caution: You're agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I agree.

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.

[Elephant Walk]

So are you really going to pick random parts out of what I've written but fail to disprove the underlying assumption?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

Exceptions happen and they're important when lives/freedom are at stake.

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?

I agree that human behavior is generally knowable.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

So are you really going to pick random parts out of what I've written....

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

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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

It was definitely not entertaining. However, your conceptualization of "vast generalizations" and "assumptions" is entertaining so you have overcompensated for the boredom.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

This.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

You're generalizing in every sense of the word.

No, that would be you, EW.

[KSig RC]

EW . . . since I have to be at happy hour in 30 seconds, I'll give the shortest possible refutation to your circular logic, OK? It goes a little something like this:

If power constructs are not "real" (or are "not provable", whatever language you prefer) and should not be the basis for law, then certainly you disagree with domestic violence provisions, right? After all, those exist because of power imbalances that lead to the victim having much less control or power than usual given the nature of the crime (and, it's important to note, the laws apply to both men AND women, although they are overwhelmingly applied against men - kind of like, oh, hate crime laws).

So . . . certainly you're not a wifebeater, right? But how does that jive with what you're arguing in re: race and "minority" definitions (which are all terrible strawman arguments that purposely misconstrue terminology in the broadest way possible, btw)?

[DrPhil]

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!!!!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Obviously.

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.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

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.