Hate crime discussion [Split from News thread]

[Icelandic]

You're not really answering my very simple yes or no question, I see



My point about genocide though (and I'm not going all 'muh white genocide') is that if laws exist to protect only a few, then it helps to encourage crime against the others. There are plenty of things that are illegal and the punishments for breaking them are harsh, but it still happens. It does not mean that we should cut down those laws. And the government does not have to commit genocide in order for it to be genocide. (Although I know that the genocide bit is quite a bit off topic, I was just trying to give an example.)

[Icelandic]

Although we don't gotta keep talking about it if you feel like we are running in circles. I kinda sorta feel like it's taking that course.

[Tolvo]

The answer then would be no if you want a very simple answer.

Also I never said anything about laws only protecting a few people. I'd rather they protect everyone.

On top of that, what you are stating then is something that the government could have seen coming and changed their laws to help discourage then. Which is what I mentioned.

We do seem to be going into circles though yeah so it might be best to just not keep going in circles about it. I don't think we're really going to convince the other to our side and we've pretty clearly laid out our views.

[Tolvo]

No offense, but I think that idea is extremely naive. When whites lost their power in Zimbabwe, they were rapidly expelled. And in Haiti, they were literally massacred. And currently, Genocide Watch lists South Africa on the 'polarization' stage for genocide, and the targets are literally just Boers. People who never had power in South Africa and were even natives verses the migrating Zulu's who came after.

That's not even to mention economic 'retribution' against the rich whenever communist governments rolled into power.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't expect legal protections to be stripped from specific classes of people and then have it all be fine.

So I thought I should full on address this, I was kind of avoiding it due to it not actually being the topic at hand and just mentioned how if these things were true they wouldn't actually factor in to the discussion of hate crimes. But I feel it is dangerous if anyone reads this without understanding context.

The above is actually a far right wing conspiracy theory about white genocide, while also citing a revolution against a ruling class of colonials and slave owners. Neo Nazi propaganda does not really belong on E and can be misleading and I'd just like to mention that in case anyone reading this thread did take things as face value or for granted. White genocide is not a real threat or thing actually going on as described above. It is just a conspiracy theory for white nationalists.

[Icelandic]

Well there it is. I thought we had a good conversation and we could end it at that, but I guess not.

No, I am not spreading nazi propaganda.

The 1804 Haiti Massacre did exist.
The Expulsion of white farmers after the creation of Zimbabwe did exist.
And the reputable 'Genocide Watch' organization does list South Africa as a concern.

I explicitly said that I'm not going all 'muh white genocide' before as well. My purpose was to point out that hate crimes can happen to those in power, even on a larger scale.


And best you are poisoning the well with this last post, and at worst you are actually denying crimes against humanity.

[Lustful Bride]

It doesn't matter who is the victim of a hate crime. If they are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc. etc. They deserve protection. To deny it to even a single one of those people, on either side of the political spectrum or of any religion or sexuality is setting a dangerous precedent. Because if it can happen to one group it can be done to many others until all are being crushed under an authoritarian boot.

That being said, if a Nazi or other similar bigot steps up to you and tries to lay hands on you, you put them six feet under. 

[Lustful Bride]

It doesn't matter who is the victim of a hate crime. If they are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc. etc. They deserve protection. To deny it to even a single one of those people, on either side of the political spectrum or of any religion or sexuality is setting a dangerous precedent. Because if it can happen to one group it can be done to many others until all are being crushed under an authoritarian boot.

That being said, if a Nazi or other similar bigot steps up to you and tries to lay hands on you, you put them six feet under. 

That last part sounded better in my head. I'm not calling for violence, just that hate crimes happen to every group at some point, whether large or small, and need to be stopped to all degrees. If they happen to anyone it creates a cycle that perpetuates itself and feeds into pain and future problems that continue on for generations.

The last part was just me trying to say that while protection for others and their rights is important, and even those we disagree with and don't like should have some level of protection and speech, if they step out of line the law should come down on them, and if they threaten you, you do what you have to to protect yourself and your loved ones.

[Tolvo]

Lustful Bride I'd say the authoritarian thing doesn't really make sense in this context. While I am very anti-authoritarian, asking for further power for the government to prosecute people is actually giving the government more power, so claiming doing so prevents authoritarianism doesn't really make sense. Especially when that idea would include then considering people who are authoritarian like Tucker Carlson to then be a protected class. In the instance they are calling it a hate crime based on his political beliefs which include never questioning the state when his people are in power.

So I could see the argument that what you are asking for is authoritarian. I don't think that is actually your intent but your concept would be supporting it more even if you disagree with it.

[Icelandic]

It doesn't matter who is the victim of a hate crime. If they are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc. etc. They deserve protection. To deny it to even a single one of those people, on either side of the political spectrum or of any religion or sexuality is setting a dangerous precedent. Because if it can happen to one group it can be done to many others until all are being crushed under an authoritarian boot.

That being said, if a Nazi or other similar bigot steps up to you and tries to lay hands on you, you put them six feet under. 

Thank you. I have no idea if I worded it as well as you, but that was pretty much my entire point.

[Lustful Bride]

Lustful Bride I'd say the authoritarian thing doesn't really make sense in this context. While I am very anti-authoritarian, asking for further power for the government to prosecute people is actually giving the government more power, so claiming doing so prevents authoritarianism doesn't really make sense. Especially when that idea would include then considering people who are authoritarian like Tucker Carlson to then be a protected class. In the instance they are calling it a hate crime based on his political beliefs which include never questioning the state when his people are in power.

So I could see the argument that what you are asking for is authoritarian. I don't think that is actually your intent but your concept would be supporting it more even if you disagree with it.

I think my problem is I know what I sort of want to say, but I don't know how to say it :/ and make it clear for others to get it. Sometimes I look back at posts and I have trouble making myself clearer, and I tend to ruin my own arguments because I am internally arguing both sides with myself alot.

But yeah, Tucker Carlson deserves some of the anger and criticism tossed at him, but not destruction of property or physical harm. That leads down a road of becoming just like those we hate.  What happened to him isn't that much a Hate Crime more an angry populace upset with him. But that's just how I see it.

Now if he was full on marching in lockstep or making a Nazi salute i'd have a harder time arguing against the people's reaction, just as I would for the Westboro Baptist Church, or radical extremists of whatever flavor of the day (Never a shortage of those from anywhere these days). Because then any ambiguity and is thrown out the door and they are actively bad people and not just leeching off of other bad people for fame and other stuff.....*ran out of smart words*

Thank you. I have no idea if I worded it as well as you, but that was pretty much my entire point.

*Still out of smart words*

I get where the both of you are coming from though. And I agree with you both, just to different degrees and it depends on just what we are talking about.

[Tolvo]

It happens especially with how much people can muddy terms with how they loosely throw them around.

[la dame en noir]

Well there it is. I thought we had a good conversation and we could end it at that, but I guess not.

No, I am not spreading nazi propaganda.

The 1804 Haiti Massacre did exist.
The Expulsion of white farmers after the creation of Zimbabwe did exist.
And the reputable 'Genocide Watch' organization does list South Africa as a concern.

I explicitly said that I'm not going all 'muh white genocide' before as well. My purpose was to point out that hate crimes can happen to those in power, even on a larger scale.


And best you are poisoning the well with this last post, and at worst you are actually denying crimes against humanity.

Not saying it's for good reason - but when the oppressed rise up against the oppressor >.>

Not to mention, all of the white nationalist groups in South Africa too. I've always found it confusing that they could be so entitled and it's not even their ancestral grounds.

[Tolvo]

I don't think we should dwell on that too much here. Really this thread is about hate crimes. I did feel a moral obligation to challenge an idea put forth and refute it in relation to hate crimes, but it'd be better really discussed in its own thread rather than one about hate crimes.

[la dame en noir]

It's definitely hate crimes. But I can stop. I was just putting in my two cents. This is a very interesting thread.

[Lustful Bride]

Not saying it's for good reason - but when the oppressed rise up against the oppressor >.>

Not to mention, all of the white nationalist groups in South Africa too. I've always found it confusing that they could be so entitled and it's not even their ancestral grounds.

That is a very touchy issue and can go into "Whataboutism" very quickly, as people use anything to justify their moves. :/ They may be justified in harming their Oppressors, but only them, harming anyone not involved or too young/removed to understand whats going on is a separate crime.

But again, this is very  After WW2 there were Jewish people who tried to commit terrorist acts by poisoning prisoners of war, and once tried to poison Berlin's water supply. I can understand their feelings but that would kill off countless civilians who had already lost everything and some just went along with the party to not end up in the camps themselves. Again, I can 100% understand their motives and why they wanted blood for blood. I would have been for it honestly if it was targeting only members of the SS and other such people but when Civilians and those already defeated and surrendering might be killed, I lose sympathy for them :/

Then you have groups like the IRA where I can understand them wanting independence and having issue with the English government and the long mess that was The Troubles. But the IRA did so by targeting civilians in terror attacks, such as hiding a bomb near a school playground, or killing a bunch of old men who were preaching for peace between both sides.

Soldiers deserve soldiers. If you are going to attack someone, let it only be against combatants. When you actively go out of your way to kill or harm civilians you lose legitimacy and become a terrorist and a murderer.

[la dame en noir]

That is a very touchy issue and can go into "Whataboutism" very quickly, as people use anything to justify their moves. :/ They may be justified in harming their Oppressors, but only them, harming anyone not involved or too young/removed to understand whats going on is a separate crime.

But again, this is very  After WW2 there were Jewish people who tried to commit terrorist acts by poisoning prisoners of war, and once tried to poison Berlin's water supply. I can understand their feelings but that would kill off countless civilians who had already lost everything and some just went along with the party to not end up in the camps themselves. Again, I can 100% understand their motives and why they wanted blood for blood. I would have been for it honestly if it was targeting only members of the SS and other such people but when Civilians and those already defeated and surrendering might be killed, I lose sympathy for them :/

Then you have groups like the IRA where I can understand them wanting independence and having issue with the English government and the long mess that was The Troubles. But the IRA did so by targeting civilians in terror attacks, such as hiding a bomb near a school playground, or killing a bunch of old men who were preaching for peace between both sides.

Soldiers deserve soldiers. If you are going to attack someone, let it only be against combatants. When you actively go out of your way to kill or harm civilians you lose legitimacy and become a terrorist and a murderer.

oh goodness. I never said it was okay. Just like bombing civilian cities in Japan wasn't necessary.

IM SAYING that when the oppressed rise up, they're going to take drastic measures. Like, holy moly - it never came out that I said it was okay.

White genocide isn't happening. It's the same as them saying having mixed children is white genocide.

What is happening is that there are white nationalist groups in SA committing crimes and groups that run drills in case black folks come knocking down their doors.

But as I said, I'm not going to talk about t anymore because Tolvo asked.

[Lustful Bride]

oh goodness. I never said it was okay. Just like bombing civilian cities in Japan wasn't necessary.

IM SAYING that when the oppressed rise up, they're going to take drastic measures. Like, holy moly - it never came out that I said it was okay.

White genocide isn't happening. It's the same as them saying having mixed children is white genocide.

What is happening is that there are white nationalist groups in SA committing crimes and groups that run drills in case black folks come knocking down their doors.

But as I said, I'm not going to talk about t anymore because Tolvo asked.

I was half in agreement with you. When people rise up against oppressors its going to happen and in many cases should happen. But is only justified so long as its done to those that hurt them.

But I will leave it there since i'm just making myself look dumb and I don't want to derail the thread.

[Tolvo]

Yeah, like I'm not saying ya'll can't talk about this I might even but it really would require it's own thread.

[Lustful Bride]

Yeah, like I'm not saying ya'll can't talk about this I might even but it really would require it's own thread.

No its fine, its mostly failure in communication from my part.

[Scribbles]

I know this is off topic and apologise, but I couldn't hold this in...

While I agree that the perception of white genocide in South Africa is utter nonsense and I really wish that Trump had done his research before tweeting about it, it has to be said that talk of the supposed threat of white nationalists is just as bad. The AWB is probably the largest white nationalist group in South Africa, holding around five thousand members, out of four million and five hundred whites. That's 0.1% of the population of whites and whites in general only make up about 8% of the entire population. The last documented crime by the AWB that I could find was in 2016, for owning illegal weapons.

Painting whites in South Africa as criminals and nationalists is just as silly as painting blacks in South Africa as savages on a genocidal streak. The current president, Cyril Ramaphosa, is black and not looking to take revenge for the past. He's actually extremely forward thinking and doing everything he can to eliminate corruption so that South Africa can focus on rebuilding. Honestly, with that in mind, it's easy to see how tweets from the likes of Trump aren't helping. No disrespect to Americans but it actually is a blow to developing country when the leader of a developed nation decides to spout off on matters he knows little about, hurting their currency, investor confidence, ratings, etc.

I won't deny Africa overall had a rough past but if you visit many of the countries within, you'll find very little antagonism towards whites. Visit South Africa, Ghana, Botswana, and so on and you'll generally be greeted quite well, no matter your colour. Granted, you’ll find your idiots if you search hard enough but those calling for blood are generally the minority, on both sides.

Just to stay on topic, I agree with Icelandic and Lustful Bride, mostly because I prefer the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law. If someone is the target of a hate crime and you start adding caveats such as whether they're part of the majority and so on, then you have to ask to what extent you're going to push it and how much more difficult it's going to be to enforce such laws. I can see such a route spiralling into more bureaucracy and less help for those who the law was meant to benefit. Anyway, I know little of this situation so I won't add anything beyond that admittedly simplistic opinion...

[la dame en noir]

Yikes

[Icelandic]

Yikes

Good addition to the conversation. High quality stuff right there.

[Lustful Bride]

Good addition to the conversation. High quality stuff right there.

That's not fair, there's no need for the attitude. Sometimes people just don't have a lot to say per post.

[Scribbles]

Yikes

“Yikes” is pretty much my reaction when you implied white nationalism has any relevance in South Africa today and, like the supposed “white genocide,” it’s a dangerous narrative to spread. Countries like South Africa end up hurting overall when such exaggerations start trending internationally.

[Icelandic]

That's not fair, there's no need for the attitude. Sometimes people just don't have a lot to say per post.

If someone doesn't have a lot to say, why decide to give a 'yikes' instead of just nothing?