This recent notion that all violence is motivated by hate seems strange to me. Let's start by saying that hate certainly can be, and is, the motivation for violence in some cases. But absent any indication does it really make sense to attribute hatred of a particular ethnic group and the primary or only motive for violence without actual evidence?
I understand that it's a catchy hashtag for those who's idea of changing the world stops at Tweeting. I understand that it's a catchy slogan that is easy to chant or fit on signs, but is it the Truth? Or, do we even care if it's True?
In the past month I've seen Asians being put in the "white" category when data about academic success was being discussed, and then see Asians being put in the POC category after a "white" guy murders 6. strangely enough, we didn't hear this narrative when it was African Americans killing Asians, or African Americans attacking Asians (complete with racial slurs) on video.
Which leads me to think that it's all about opportunities to promote a narrative, regardless of whether of not it's the Truth.
18 comments:
Upping the penalty for a crime on some subjectively determined level of hatred (shouldn't it matter how intensely a perp hated the victim if we're going to pile on this mind-reading crap?) is already unAmerican, as it's not a crime to dislike anyone for any reason. Dislike already indicates bias, so for that bias to manifest in criminal behavior doesn't make the criminal behavior any more or less illegal in and of itself. It's simply the demand by some to impose their morality on others. If someone steals from me, I don't care why. I just wish what was stolen be returned or that I be compensated as an alternative. The crime was theft, and I'm not put out any more or less because the thief chose to rob me because of my race, religion or incredibly good looks.
The same is true of physical violence. If I get my ass beaten by some thug, I don't care what his motivation is. I don't require that everyone...or anyone for that matter...like me, respect me or provide for me special considerations because of my race, religion or incredibly good looks. Just don't beat my ass. Don't murder me. That's all I ask. Hate me all you like, just leave me the hell alone.
All criminal acts have some degree of hatred, dislike or at least disregard. Those who think well of one's fellow man do not perpetrate crimes against them. So if I'm not fond of, say, Eskimos, just how "not fond" would I have to be in order for my lack of fondness be considered hate were I to mug one of them? Is indifference for the condition of Eskimos enough? "I don't hate them, I just don't care about them one way or the other." Morons might point to a history of Eskimos being oppressed, but that history may have no bearing on my position with regard to Eskimos.
"Hate crimes" legislation is as unAmerican as the racism and bigotry is seeks to address. It is bigotry against an opposing opinion and while I don't agree that all opinions are of equal merit or value (Dan's, for example, are really pretty worthless), I fully defend the right to hold a worthless opinion.
I agree that adding punishment for a "hate crime" is disturbing as it criminalizes thought. I also agree that in many cases it's extremely subjective and difficult to prove. It's ironic that those in favor of hate crime penalties are mostly not in favor of the death penalty. So, I guess TWO life sentences will teach those guys.
I also agree that most violent crime springs from indifference, greed, competition, jealousy, or similar. I don't think that actual hate is particularly common. I tend to think that after decades of telling people that life is less and less valuable, that some people have bought that worldview and just don't care if they hurt of kill someone.
Mostly, I'm pointing out the hashtag warriors who think that a yellow square (racist?) or a hashtag will solve everything.
I'm curious though. I know we want to stop "white" people hating Asians, but is it still OK to be quiet about black people hating Asians? What about when "brown" people hate "white" people? It's sometimes hard to tell.
Of course, the reality is that penalizing hate crimes do NOT penalize thought. They penalize terrorism. When black or Asian or Latino people - all groups who've been oppressed and victimized by white supremacy for centuries - are attacked for their racial heritage, it doesn't impact JUST the individual and their loved ones. It sends a message of terror to ALL racial minorities. That message that white supremacist types send and have been sending for centuries is, "You're not wanted here. You're not human. You're not worth your life and we may just take your life from you."
Perhaps you'd recognize this if you listened to racial minorities or other oppressed groups.
And this is why the GOP is NOT the party of racial minorities.
No, Craig. Only white people can be racist. Didn't you know that?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/hate_crimes_are_white_boogeyman_chum.html
You all know, don't you, that these grade school attempts to belittle the fight against very real racism... that these sorts of petty little complaints are just how actual racists talk about the topic?
Dan just moved from the fact that "hate crimes" are about adding to the severity of the punishment because of the intent behind the underlying crime, to something entirely different.
Now he thinks that we should increase penalties because of the motivation (thoughts) of the criminal, but also for what other people MIGHT POSSIBLY think.
I guess the notion that our justice system is designed to punish acts, not thoughts, is headed out the window.
No one is belittling real racism. We're pointing out the idiocy of calling literally every crime where someone is perceived as "white", acts against any POC as automatically motivated by racial hate. While the same people categorize certain POC groups as "white" when it supports their narrative, and as POC when it helps their narrative. We're criticizing the Twitter/keyboard warriors who thing posting a yellow square (not racist at all) is taking a bold principled stand. Finally we're pointing out that when every single crime is "hate" or "racism" or whatever other buzzword gets hashtagged, that it simply devalues those actual incidents that fit and desensitizes people to real problems.
Of course the fact that crime against Asians (27.5%), isn't classified as hate, black crimes against "whites" (15.3%), isn't classified as hate, black crime against Hispanic (15.3%) is also not hate.
So, yeah, I think some healthy skepticism and cynicism is in order.
"No one is belittling real racism."
Indeed. Those who are would be those like Dan who see racism in everything. We focus on real racism and acknowledge that racism isn't only perpetrated by white people and rarely by conservatives, if at all.
I can say that I would think that identifying and focusing on actual racism, across the board, and working to deal with it would be more effective than simply declaring things to be racism and obscuring actual racism in the ground clutter.
Art,
Part of the problem is that when certain things are excluded from investigation regardless of where the evidence might point, and when you have people that are committed to the narrative regardless of where the evidence leads, it's hard to accept that they are really interested in the evidence.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
This is the worldview that Dan is so zealously and blindly defending>
"Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness."
This active hostility to religion is perfectly fine and appropriate to Dan in scientists, but heaven forbid a Christian dares to engage in science.
"As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise."
Those scientists who were at the foundation of the scientific enterprise would be shocked to hear this news.
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
Again, this is the worldview Dan so zealously champions, In a world that is "pitiless" and "callously indifferent to suffering", why would anyone worry about harm to others.
Dan may say he loves the Bible and talk about God stuff, but his vociferous defense of a worldview that is actively hostile to what he claims to believe is beyond belief.
Craig... "Dan may say he loves the Bible and talk about God stuff, but his vociferous defense of a worldview that is actively hostile to what he claims to believe is beyond belief."
Craig may say he loves the Bible and talk about God stuff, but his vociferous and desperately sick repetition of stupidly false claims show that he is actively hostile to teachings about truth, grace and human decency.
Craig... "Dan may say he loves the Bible and talk about God stuff, but his vociferous defense of a worldview that is actively hostile to what he claims to believe is beyond belief."
As is true for EACH and EVERY one of your comments above, this is stupidly false. But I'd love to see you try and make your case. And please understand, pointing to AN INDIVIDUAL scientist that may be hostile to Christianity in some of their views does not mean that Evolution is "hostile to Christianity" or that evolution even HAS a worldview (which, of course, would be a stupidly false claim).
Dan's just too afraid to be seen as some backward rube, so he puts God and the faith subordinate to science.
I’m sorry are you suggesting that you’re not championing the Naturalist/Materialist/Evolutionary worldview?
Craig, I'll answer this question, but THEN are you going to answer mine? Will you admit your stupidly false claims?
We'll see.
Craig... "I’m sorry are you suggesting that you’re not championing the Naturalist/Materialist/Evolutionary worldview?"
Am I "championing evolution..."? No.
Am I affirming the reality that evolution is affirmed by the vast majority of experts? YES.
IS that the reality? YES.
Do I have any reason to doubt the expert consensus? No.
Does CRAIG have any reason to doubt the expert consensus? It appears he thinks so, but he hasn't established that he does or that he has reasonable cause to, if he does.
Do you understand the difference?
Materialism is a different matter, more complex and I believe with more variations in what it means, so you'd have to ask something more specific.
Naturalism, I'm inclined to say No, I don't affirm that. With the caveat that perhaps we have no way of objectively proving spiritual matters.
Do you disagree?
Now, having dealt with that, answering your question as directly as possible, do you recognize that just because some evolution advocates also advocate other philosophies/ideas, that does not mean I affirm those other philosophies/ideas?
For instance, YOU FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins' quote... "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
But not all evolution advocates would agree that there is no evil, no good, but this is not required thought when it comes to evolution. Correct?
Now, they may say that we have no way of objectively proving what specifically is evil or good or any "intent" by "the universe..." and this is factually correct. (As you always regularly demonstrate by your remaining silent on the question when it has been raised.) But why WOULD they insist that the can objectively prove what they (and you) can't prove?
Now, we'll see if you'll answer the questions put to you, raised by your own words and false claims about me.
Post a Comment