Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 131 (775917)
01-06-2016 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Blue Jay
01-06-2016 1:13 PM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Does this make you a legal baraminologist?
Dem's fightin' words, stranger...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 1:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 122 of 131 (775970)
01-07-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by NoNukes
01-06-2016 12:19 PM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, NoNukes.
Okay, maybe I'm not done sorting this out yet.
NoNukes writes:
Yeah, I see the problematic part of such legislation too. But do such laws as this get their start from laws that are actually designed to protect minorities from physical violence? That's what the slippery slope argument is insisting. The second question is whether we should sand paper the slope (prevent sliding into free speech territory) or eliminate the peak (not protect minorities from xenophobic abuse using targeted punishment).
Based on the above-quoted comment, I think you see what I'm trying to get at.
Conspiracy theories can be surprisingly tenacious because they are very difficult to completely disprove, they prey on more general fears, and their followers tend not to make a practice of following parsimony. I certainly don't believe that there is some gang of liberal conspirators meeting in dark rooms to discuss the best strategy for ridding the United States of its Bill of Rights so they can subjugate the entire human race.
But, I still think there is a modicum of merit to some of the more moderate 'slippery slope' arguments. Right now, the country's legal systems seem willing to experiment with laws that flirt with the limits of individual rights, like freedom of speech. I think it's fair to say that, if there is no resistance to these experiments, future policy makers will be willing to entertain thoughts of deeper intrusions into personal freedoms.
I guess what I'm saying is that it feels like a line I thought would never be crossed... has been crossed. Maybe it's only a minor line, but it does set the precedent that lines can be crossed, and that makes me call into question anybody's claim about the sanctity of lines.
So NoNukes says "it's still not a thought crime," but that's just another line in the sand, and my faith in lines-in-the-sand has recently been shaken. And, if I read between the lines, it isn't hard to interpret Tangle's comments as saying that smudging --- and even crossing --- lines-in-the-sand is perfectly acceptable, as long as the intention is honorable. So, how can I believe that any line-in-the-sand will remain un-smudgeable in the future?
It's probably mostly paranoia on my part, but I'm not quite ready yet to just dismiss it as completely irrational or outlandish.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2016 12:19 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 11:06 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 01-07-2016 11:15 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2016 11:34 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 123 of 131 (775973)
01-07-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 10:52 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Blue Jay writes:
So, how can I believe that any line-in-the-sand will remain un-smudgeable in the future?
Can you explain what this line-in-the-sand is delineating?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 10:52 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 11:24 AM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 124 of 131 (775975)
01-07-2016 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 10:52 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Blue jay writes:
... my faith in lines-in-the-sand has recently been shaken.
A line in the sand is inherently tenuous - as opposed, for example, to "carved in stone". Lines in the sand are not something to put your faith in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 10:52 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 11:26 AM ringo has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 125 of 131 (775977)
01-07-2016 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Tangle
01-07-2016 11:06 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
Can you explain what this line-in-the-sand is delineating?
The specific example I'm thinking of is the NYC transgender guidelines, and the implications for free speech.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 11:06 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 12:15 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 126 of 131 (775978)
01-07-2016 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
01-07-2016 11:15 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, Ringo.
ringo writes:
A line in the sand is inherently tenuous - as opposed, for example, to "carved in stone". Lines in the sand are not something to put your faith in.
Stop picking on my metaphor, you bully! What did he ever do to you?

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 01-07-2016 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 01-07-2016 11:34 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 127 of 131 (775979)
01-07-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 11:26 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Blue jay writes:
Stop picking on my metaphor, you bully! What did he ever do to you?
It slid down the slippery slope of a sand dune.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 11:26 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 131 (775980)
01-07-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 10:52 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
I guess what I'm saying is that it feels like a line I thought would never be crossed... has been crossed. Maybe it's only a minor line, but it does set the precedent that lines can be crossed, and that makes me call into question anybody's claim about the sanctity of lines.
I think the statute in question does cross a bad line. It is akin to laws against cursing in public and probably crosses the line at being unconstitutional in at least some of its application if not facially.
So NoNukes says "it's still not a thought crime,"
There is a difference between being a bigot and being a bully. Bigots are allowed their hate, but we can stop them from inflicting hurt, particularly in settings like the workplace. Couple the provocative speech with some actually crime such as creating a hostile work environment or threats and you've got a constitutional enhancer whose application would not bother me in the least.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 10:52 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 12:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 129 of 131 (775982)
01-07-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 11:24 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
BJ writes:
The specific example I'm thinking of is the NYC transgender guidelines, and the implications for free speech.
Yes, that one seems a bit bizzarre. It feels like there was a particular incident that the legislators were trying to address. But it seems to me that it would be covered by public order offences - at least it would in the UK. It would be called behaviour likely to cause alarm and distress - nomally a police caution would be enough.
But I think the UK is a bit harsher on that sort of 'free speech' stuff than you guys. I doubt whether we'd put up with that outrageous Christian church protesting about gays for instance - Westboro? We don't see why we have to put up with that sort of extreem nastiness.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 11:24 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 130 of 131 (775986)
01-07-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by NoNukes
01-07-2016 11:34 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
I think the statute in question does cross a bad line.
I think it's more of a "line smudge" than a "line cross." Like Tangle said, it'll probably be really difficult to prosecute somebody for anything but the most egregious pronoun misuses, so freedom of speech probably remains intact here.
But, is the overreaction --- "NYC is trampling all over our right to free speech" --- necessarily wrong? Couldn't it be argued that, if the conservative nuts weren't constantly yammering about 'slippery slopes,' we might just become complacent enough to slide all the way down that slope?
NoNukes writes:
There is a difference between being a bigot and being a bully.
Alright, I can trust you, because you don't like smudging lines. Not like that Tangle character: he's a line-smudger, so I can't trust him when he tries to reassure me that other lines won't be crossed in the future.
So, if you say there's a distinct legal line between 'bigot' and 'bully,' I'll believe you. But, I'll have no truck with line-smudgers.
NoNukes writes:
Couple the provocative speech with some actually crime such as creating a hostile work environment...
There was a recent workplace misconduct case that resulted in punitive actions against my supervisor, which most of the office personnel felt was entirely without merit. As a result, I also have a lot of reservations about 'hostile work environment' policies.
I guess it's just that there's a lot of difficulty finding where the lines are, which makes for some measure of legal 'mess,' and that's bound to cause frustrations and even, regrettably, some unnecessary harm. My overall impression is that it's just because our society is in a sort of exploratory phase in relation to social policies, and that we'll eventually find our center through empirical experience; but there's still that nagging feeling that there is a danger of setting bad precedents that will put us on the wrong path.
I think that nagging feeling is a good thing, and it will help us in our search for the right approach to these social issues, so we shouldn't just dismiss it as outlandish paranoia. At the same time, we can't let overreaction translate into paralysis, mistrust and bad policies; so line-drawers need to learn how to work together with line-smudgers.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2016 11:34 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2016 12:42 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 131 of 131 (775987)
01-07-2016 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 12:25 PM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
But, is the overreaction --- "NYC is trampling all over our right to free speech" --- necessarily wrong?
I've indicated that I agree. On their face, at least as explained in the article, the guidelines impact free speech.
Couldn't it be argued that, if the conservative nuts weren't constantly yammering about 'slippery slopes,' we might just become complacent enough to slide all the way down that slope?
Conservatives nuts are not the sole defenders of the First Amendment. I imagine that the ACLU might be interested in defending even an odious person who runs afoul of this law if it were applied too broadly.
I'm not convinced that the origin of this law is "slippery slope". It just seems like a bad idea. Maybe the kind of bad idea that only liberals might come up with, but still bad. Kinda like banning big bottles of soda to keep citizens from getting fat.
so we shouldn't just dismiss it as outlandish paranoia.
Well, no. I've seen plenty of outlandish paranoia here. Some people want to get rid of valid laws because they might slide into bad places. We can be vigilant without making unwarranted slippery slope arguments.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 12:25 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024