Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for every
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And if it had no real world consequence then I would be on your side. However, hate crimes have been spiking and it turns out some edgelords aren't really being edgy at all. Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
that Hate Crime is increasing while the rest of violent crime decreases. Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
We fought hard to delegitimize organized violence against minorities in this country. There was widespread anti-black terrorism committed with impunity right up until the 70s (and the occasional incident in the 80s and 90s).
It's not that Americans evolved some higher form of intelligence or empathy. We're the same folk we were 40 years ago minus a chunk of bigotry. What I'm saying is that it would be effortless for us to regress back to the KKK days. I'm a white dude and I do not want that.
"Hate Crimes" are like autism - a new measure of something that already existed, but people didn't call it that.
Hate crimes aren't spiking in the US. In fact, they are down from the 1960s and 1970s. Or 1980s. Or even the 1990s. Or the 2000s.
Media focus on "hate crimes" is way up, though, because it serves a political purpose right now. Notice the attention paid to Jussie for his victimization - when the opposition was to blame. As soon as it turned out to be fake, it got dropped.
Because hate crime is fucking made up. And they didn't classify anything as "hate crime" until the last decade or so, because it's a made up thing. So you can't use "hate crime" or "hate speech" or any of your other loaded terms for anything, because they're literal figments of your imagination. You mean there was less hate crime back in the "let's hang us a n1ggger KKK days" than there is now?
Give me a fucking break. You need to go take a shit, because you're full of it.
Now here's a real important question that you don't answer. If hate crime is increasing, is it because hate crime is actually increasing or is it because the definition of hate crime is broadening? Remember, in the UK we are now at a point where calling a boy a boy if he wants to be called a girl is now considered a hate crime. That wasn't true like, a year ago.
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release [fbi.gov] you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution agai
A probably reasonable way to assess that data would be to take all reported hate crimes and divide it by the number of agencies reporting. Then, multiply that by the total number of agencies.
That gives you an estimate of the total number of hate crimes in the country.
Then, when 1000 new agencies report data than the previous year, your estimate for total hate crimes simply becomes more accurate, rather than jumping wildly.
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
Hate Crimes spiked with a frequency parallel to the trust ratings dropping for left-leaning media publications and "journalism" to a historical all-time low beneath Congress of all things, while the ragebait articles of the SJWs increase in frequency only to be followed by hate crimes rather than following in their toes. 4chan ain't doing shit to plant seeds of hate, you idiots who were once trolled by it and now divert narratives from actual sources and roots that create terrorism to a bunch of meme spouti
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling? Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum. That you're also setting that up as a strawman shows also signs of mental retardation and sociopathy. You think that you are smarter than the average bear, but you're actually so pathetic that you don't even realize how epic your dumbness and ignorance truly are.
See... the actual issue is with the severity of the crime due to
Would you like some cock down your throat too? Aw hell, why not... It's not like I'll run out of copy/paste any time soon while you try to block me for calling you out as sniveling racist cunts that you are. Anyway... as I was saying to that racist scumbag Penguinisto up there...
Would you like some cock with that strawman? And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling? Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum. That
You've got it backwards. It's not that the victim is less valued, but that the motive was less heinous.
Consider a driver who, while texting, runs a red light and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk through negligence / recklessness / whatever you want to call it.
Now consider a different driver who sees the pedestrian in the crosswalk, says to themself, "I hate balding people," and runs over poor baldy on purpose.
Both victims are equally dead, but the second driver deserves a harsher punishment.
Motive and state of mind have always been part of legal determinations. If I shoot you dead, the severity of the punishment will vary wildly depending on my motive, from 'I'm a dumbass who doesn't know how to handle a gun'
through 'I shot you because you punched me'
to 'I've hated you a long time and I've been planning to shoot you all week'.
As for hate crimes, the theory behind that is nothing to do with the 'value' of the victim. It's addressing the secondary effects; punching people hurts those I punch and is assault, but punching people because they're Jewish causes harm in the Jewish community, causing them to live in fear, increasing marginalization and generally causing wider social harm beyond the immediate act. This is analogous to terrorism. If I kill 10 people purely to watch them die, then I'm a plain vanilla mass murderer. But if I kill 10 people because they're infidels and I want to bring on the global caliphate then that elevates me to a terrorist, and brings with it a commensurate increase in the resources wielded against me and in the severity of the response. That's why we call it 'terrorism', the harm caused is much wider than the immediate effects of the act.
I see no reason why 'hate crimes' don't fall squarely on the standard scale. Why do they need separate laws? If we want to consider them more heinous than a similar crime / motive combination (which I'm totally fine with), why does that not simply happen during the normal process?
For example, a crime of passion might be second degree, but the same crime for bigoted reasons might be first degree.
Why do we need additional 'hate crime' laws at all?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, legislation does just that. 'Hate crimes' don't exist as separate crimes but as aggravating circumstances in the sentencing of already existing offences.
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
There are four assertions in those two sentences, and every single one of them is a lie. Four out of four.
Or, you could just cite some supporting data for your original assertion. It's not my job to prove what you said is bullshit. It's your job to back up your claims with more than fantasy.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar.
Do you realize your supporting data actually verifies that you're not being truthful? You provide data for 2015 and 2016, but your assertion was about "after the election". Do you know that most of your increase in "anti-white motivations" were hate crimes against gays? Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing. You have failed to do so an
I did not assert "after the election". Maybe you need to reread the comment. I said "in 2016" because that was when we started to see the "spike in hate crime" narrative start "because Trump".
were hate crimes against gays?
Maybe you need to read the links I sent a bit more because saying that makes you look like an idiot. I cited single bias incidents. There were 32 multiple bias incidents in 2016. If you want to contest that the single bias incidents that were classified as racially motivated but were really about sexual orientation, by
Uh oh. you got me. I read that somewhere and I can't remember where. So I can't support it. Everything else I said was true and that last sentence doesn't change the point I was making.
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for every
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
Re:Good (Score:2)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And if it had no real world consequence then I would be on your side. However, hate crimes have been spiking and it turns out some edgelords aren't really being edgy at all. Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Fewer than 8K hate crimes per year in a country of 330M people, and you see a problem? Out of ~1.1M violent crimes, mind you....
It should also be noted that violent crime rates have fallen by ~1/3 over the last three decades.
I think the problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
We fought hard to delegitimize organized violence against minorities in this country. There was widespread anti-black terrorism committed with impunity right up until the 70s (and the occasional incident in the 80s and 90s).
It's not that Americans evolved some higher form of intelligence or empathy. We're the same folk we were 40 years ago minus a chunk of bigotry. What I'm saying is that it would be effortless for us to regress back to the KKK days. I'm a white dude and I do not want that.
Re: (Score:0)
"Hate Crimes" are like autism - a new measure of something that already existed, but people didn't call it that.
Hate crimes aren't spiking in the US. In fact, they are down from the 1960s and 1970s. Or 1980s. Or even the 1990s. Or the 2000s.
Media focus on "hate crimes" is way up, though, because it serves a political purpose right now. Notice the attention paid to Jussie for his victimization - when the opposition was to blame. As soon as it turned out to be fake, it got dropped.
The biggest "Hate Crim
Re: (Score:0)
Because hate crime is fucking made up. And they didn't classify anything as "hate crime" until the last decade or so, because it's a made up thing. So you can't use "hate crime" or "hate speech" or any of your other loaded terms for anything, because they're literal figments of your imagination. You mean there was less hate crime back in the "let's hang us a n1ggger KKK days" than there is now?
Give me a fucking break. You need to go take a shit, because you're full of it.
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Re: (Score:0)
Now here's a real important question that you don't answer. If hate crime is increasing, is it because hate crime is actually increasing or is it because the definition of hate crime is broadening? Remember, in the UK we are now at a point where calling a boy a boy if he wants to be called a girl is now considered a hate crime. That wasn't true like, a year ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release [fbi.gov] you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution agai
Re: (Score:2)
A probably reasonable way to assess that data would be to take all reported hate crimes and divide it by the number of agencies reporting. Then, multiply that by the total number of agencies.
That gives you an estimate of the total number of hate crimes in the country.
Then, when 1000 new agencies report data than the previous year, your estimate for total hate crimes simply becomes more accurate, rather than jumping wildly.
Re: (Score:0)
Hate Crime is increasing
Check your definitions. Effect has started to bleed in with the cause.
Dude backs into your car, you go argue with him and end up stabbing him in the leg. Afterwards, call him [name offensive to group x].
That used to be "just" violent crime. Nowadays its hate crime.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
Re: (Score:0)
Hate Crimes spiked with a frequency parallel to the trust ratings dropping for left-leaning media publications and "journalism" to a historical all-time low beneath Congress of all things, while the ragebait articles of the SJWs increase in frequency only to be followed by hate crimes rather than following in their toes. 4chan ain't doing shit to plant seeds of hate, you idiots who were once trolled by it and now divert narratives from actual sources and roots that create terrorism to a bunch of meme spouti
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
So what makes a victim of any other similar crime less valued and less harmed than the victim of a "hate crime"?
In a world where equal rule of law is supreme, motive should only determine guilt or innocence, and not severity.
Would you like some cock with that strawman? (Score:0, Troll)
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling?
Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum.
That you're also setting that up as a strawman shows also signs of mental retardation and sociopathy.
You think that you are smarter than the average bear, but you're actually so pathetic that you don't even realize how epic your dumbness and ignorance truly are.
See... the actual issue is with the severity of the crime due to
Well hello there racist cunts! (Score:2)
Would you like some cock down your throat too? Aw hell, why not...
It's not like I'll run out of copy/paste any time soon while you try to block me for calling you out as sniveling racist cunts that you are.
Anyway... as I was saying to that racist scumbag Penguinisto up there...
Would you like some cock with that strawman?
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling?
Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum.
That
Re: (Score:0)
You've got it backwards. It's not that the victim is less valued, but that the motive was less heinous.
Consider a driver who, while texting, runs a red light and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk through negligence / recklessness / whatever you want to call it.
Now consider a different driver who sees the pedestrian in the crosswalk, says to themself, "I hate balding people," and runs over poor baldy on purpose.
Both victims are equally dead, but the second driver deserves a harsher punishment.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Motive and state of mind have always been part of legal determinations. If I shoot you dead, the severity of the punishment will vary wildly depending on my motive, from
'I'm a dumbass who doesn't know how to handle a gun'
through
'I shot you because you punched me'
to
'I've hated you a long time and I've been planning to shoot you all week'.
As for hate crimes, the theory behind that is nothing to do with the 'value' of the victim. It's addressing the secondary effects; punching people hurts those I punch and is assault, but punching people because they're Jewish causes harm in the Jewish community, causing them to live in fear, increasing marginalization and generally causing wider social harm beyond the immediate act. This is analogous to terrorism. If I kill 10 people purely to watch them die, then I'm a plain vanilla mass murderer. But if I kill 10 people because they're infidels and I want to bring on the global caliphate then that elevates me to a terrorist, and brings with it a commensurate increase in the resources wielded against me and in the severity of the response. That's why we call it 'terrorism', the harm caused is much wider than the immediate effects of the act.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason why 'hate crimes' don't fall squarely on the standard scale. Why do they need separate laws? If we want to consider them more heinous than a similar crime / motive combination (which I'm totally fine with), why does that not simply happen during the normal process?
For example, a crime of passion might be second degree, but the same crime for bigoted reasons might be first degree.
Why do we need additional 'hate crime' laws at all?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, legislation does just that. 'Hate crimes' don't exist as separate crimes but as aggravating circumstances in the sentencing of already existing offences.
Re: (Score:3)
However, hate crimes have been spiking
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
Re: (Score:1)
There are four assertions in those two sentences, and every single one of them is a lie. Four out of four.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well you said it so it must be true.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, you could just cite some supporting data for your original assertion. It's not my job to prove what you said is bullshit. It's your job to back up your claims with more than fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime... [fbi.gov]
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime... [fbi.gov]
6121 in 2016.
5850 in 2015.
This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.
3489 in 2016 were racially motivated
3310 in 2015 were racially motivated
This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spik
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Do you realize your supporting data actually verifies that you're not being truthful? You provide data for 2015 and 2016, but your assertion was about "after the election". Do you know that most of your increase in "anti-white motivations" were hate crimes against gays? Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing. You have failed to do so an
Re: (Score:1)
I did not assert "after the election". Maybe you need to reread the comment. I said "in 2016" because that was when we started to see the "spike in hate crime" narrative start "because Trump".
were hate crimes against gays?
Maybe you need to read the links I sent a bit more because saying that makes you look like an idiot. I cited single bias incidents. There were 32 multiple bias incidents in 2016. If you want to contest that the single bias incidents that were classified as racially motivated but were really about sexual orientation, by
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a direct quote from your comment:
And, that assertion is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh. you got me. I read that somewhere and I can't remember where. So I can't support it. Everything else I said was true and that last sentence doesn't change the point I was making.