'Are You Muslim?' Hate Crime

[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)?