[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[Crezth]

As it turns out, it actually is already illegal to kill, inflict serious bodily harm, etc on freemasons or baseball fans. It is somewhat ethically bankrupt to assert that making a deliberate attempt to systematically wipe out all followers of the protestant faith is meaningfully worse than attempting to do the same with baseball fans. So why should protestants get "special attention" again?

Why indeed? Because they are historically targets of violence. Indeed we might argue in general this indicates group libel is a good thing to restrict, because there's no good reason to spread hateful lies about a group of people. However, as you outline - and this is why I'm not going to bother playing ping-pong with you - you miss the point of the genocide convention entirely if you insist "it is already illegal to kill." There is a difference, one with international recognition, between killing and terror-killing. Lynching, for example, is different than mere murder. Because the intent of lynching is to terrorize, and that's why the bodies are left out in the open, in public spaces. Likewise the intent of genocide is to annihilate cultures.

This is why the "hate crime" of a shooter targeting an LGBTQ bar, or a synagogue, merits special attention. It may not be significant to you, because you do not perceive the need to regulate hate, but it's putting up some serious blinders to insist that nobody in the world thinks this is an issue. There is far from consensus on this matter, but there is a sturdy basis for identifying hate and protecting classes. It must be said that if one doesn't think the murder of an ethnic group for the purpose of murdering that ethnic group isn't a special crime, they do not understand the underlying conditions and consequences of the Holocaust.

If a given type of speech is actually dangerous enough to be harmful, why not enforce it generally?

That... is the idea.

If you are going to break down my post into little snippets to bite and yap at the heels of my arguments I'm not going to bother furnishing you with those arguments. Compose a coherent statement or don't.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: I will just take a moment to remind everyone that this is an RD thread. Please conduct yourselves accordingly. Discussing each other is off topic, though you can discuss each other's point of view. Try to refrain from insults and mud slinging, lest Arakhor and I get out our infraction wands and wave them around.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

So you are, in essence, making an argument that since correcting injustices would be a discriminatory act against people who commit injustices, we should tolerate people who commit injustices in our system? Is that about right?

What does your heart tell you?

 

[Seon]

I mean, that we shouldn’t discriminate against transphobes and racists have always been the argument of racists and transphobes to claim they have the right to be racists and transphobic as they have been for centuries so it wouldn’t be something new or even interesting.

If of course, themeinteam is simply axiomatically opposed to all discrimination and acknowledges that societal flaws exist, well, I think it would be a better use of time to make arguments against transphobes and racists rather than against people who think existing societal discrimination against transgender and blacks is wrong

This is simply an advice and not a moral judgment as the honorable themeinteam is surely not either racist nor transphobic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So you are, in essence, making an argument that since correcting injustices would be a discriminatory act against people who commit injustices, we should tolerate people who commit injustices in our system? Is that about right?

No, I am not making that argument.

I am arguing that deliberately introducing arbitrary discriminatory policy is not a self-consistent method to "correct injustices" because deliberately introducing arbitrary discriminatory policy is inherently unjust.

There is a difference, one with international recognition, between killing and terror-killing.

Still not seeing the distinction between "protestants" and "baseball fans". You made such a distinction for lynching, in that the nature of the crime is materially different (open intent, display of murder, etc).

This is why the "hate crime" of a shooter targeting an LGBTQ bar, or a synagogue, merits special attention. It may not be significant to you, because you do not perceive the need to regulate hate

It doesn't follow. "School shooter"/"movie theater shooter"/"Madden tournament shooter"/etc do not seem to be inherently or justifiably less bad than "LGBTQ bar shooter". In each case it's mass murder, and in none of these cases does there appear to be any normalization of heinous acts. I would expect the perpetrators of each event to be treated similarly, and don't see a basis that justifies otherwise.

There is far from consensus on this matter, but there is a sturdy basis for identifying hate and protecting classes. It must be said that if one doesn't think the murder of an ethnic group for the purpose of murdering that ethnic group isn't a special crime, they do not understand the underlying conditions and consequences of the Holocaust.

This similarly doesn't follow. Also, the Nuremburg laws were pretty blatant. US law has fortunately been trending away from that, not towards it.

The Holocaust doesn't become less bad if Germany had replaced "Jewish people" with "dairy farmers" and still slaughtered the same number of people. Or do you disagree with that assertion?

That... is the idea.

If you are going to break down my post into little snippets to bite and yap at the heels of my arguments I'm not going to bother furnishing you with those arguments. Compose a coherent statement or don't.

If that is really the idea you can't coherently argue for protected classes of people. Instead you'd argue for laws against demonstrably harmful things regardless of whom they harm.

If of course, themeinteam is simply axiomatically opposed to all discrimination and acknowledges that societal flaws exist, well, I think it would be a better use of time to make arguments against transphobes and racists rather than against people who think existing societal discrimination against transgender and blacks is wrong

This is simply an advice and not a moral judgment as the honorable themeinteam is surely not either racist nor transphobic.

Actually addressing my arguments at some point would be useful rather than more ad hominem drivel.

 

[Seon]

What exactly is your argument? That we shouldn’t discriminate against transphobes, or something else? You don’t seem to have a clear position.

 

[Crezth]

This similarly doesn't follow. Also, the Nuremburg laws were pretty blatant. US law has fortunately been trending away from that, not towards it.

The Holocaust doesn't become less bad if Germany had replaced "Jewish people" with "dairy farmers" and still slaughtered the same number of people. Or do you disagree with that assertion?

Jesus, this is literally holocaust denial. I'm out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Jesus, this is literally holocaust denial. I'm out.

That's not what literally means, and quoted statement is factually inaccurate :/.

What exactly is your argument? That we shouldn’t discriminate against transphobes, or something else? You don’t seem to have a clear position.

1. Same standards should apply for everyone in a legal sense. Ideally in a social sense too, if we can ever actually get there.
2. Being a jerk is bad, but less bad than committing a crime.
3. General opinions about the state of reality are a dangerous thing to regulate legally, as opposed to regulating them with social norms. Even if the opinions are wrong.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Same standards should apply for everyone in a legal sense. Ideally in a social sense too, if we can ever actually get there.

Cool, but we don't live in a utopia where everyone is treated equally, so this is asinine.

Being a jerk is bad, but less bad than committing a crime.

I think bullying and hate speech is worse than someone stealing.

General opinions about the state of reality are a dangerous thing to regulate legally, as opposed to regulating them with social norms. Even if the opinions are wrong.

So you're against age of consent laws then?

 

[JohannaK]

His argument is that murder is bad and hate is bad, so caring about specific people who murder or hate is pointless. I don't think I understand it myself but I think that is roughly it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Cool, but we don't live in a utopia where everyone is treated equally, so this is asinine.

I don't see how making it worse on purpose can improve it.

I think bullying and hate speech is worse than someone stealing.

Depends on the severity of each considered.

So you're against age of consent laws then?

How does that follow at all? That's nonsense lol.

There are good reasons for age of consent law. There is not a good reason to throw someone who argues against age of consent laws in jail on a non-substantiated basis that they "normalize statutory rape", however. That doesn't mean we get rid of the law, but it does likely mean the person making those arguments is considered weird.

His argument is that murder is bad and hate is bad

Good start.

so caring about specific people who murder or hate is pointless

Bad finish.

See post 468 or prior discussion which details the reasoning.

 

[Senethro]

The Holocaust doesn't become less bad if Germany had replaced "Jewish people" with "dairy farmers" and still slaughtered the same number of people. Or do you disagree with that assertion?

I'll take this one on. The Holocaust stops being The Holocaust if it was 6 million people executed by drawing lots. It becomes an indiscriminate mass execution and is no longer a deliberate attempt to remove particular cultures and human phenotypes (I'm using phenotype very loosely here, for coverage of ethnic, developmental, sexual behaviour etc among others) from existence.

I'd say that makes it less bad, if still gigantically horrific.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'll take this one on. The Holocaust stops being The Holocaust if it was 6 million people executed by drawing lots.

I didn't say drawing lots though. I picked a particular other group of people on no fair basis (dairy farmers in this case, baseball fans in the other example).

You still haven't demonstrated why it is worse to kill 6 million people based on X criteria as opposed to killing 6 million people based on another Y targeted criteria. In fact nobody who has engaged the discussion so far has bothered to do so, instead simply repeating that disadvantaged groups exist. That isn't supportive reasoning.

The reason I suspect nobody is doing that is because it is difficult to give actual supportive reasoning for such a position. You must, by necessity, argue that somehow the lives of people who are "Jewish" or "Protestant" have a different value than lives of people who are "dairy farmers" or "baseball fans" in order to make the assertion that crimes targeting these groups solely on the bases of their belonging to said groups should be treated differently. If these lives have the same value, it would not make sense to punish crimes against them differently.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Ah yes, the "all lives matter" argument.

Also, because this continues to be increasingly relevant:

 

[Kyriakos]

All lives never mattered, nor will they ever matter. Nor all [x] lives, fwiw. But when you have one flag, reading (in this case) "BLM" (or is it "TLM"?, I seem to have lost count of threads...), you should expect some of the mountain tribes to not join the battle.

 

[Yeekim]

If these lives have the same value, it would not make sense to punish crimes against them differently.

That is not necessarily true. Severity of punishment is routinely tied to motivation of the crime.
If a country has problems with hate crime, it makes sense to adopt harsher punishment for hate crimes.
That said, I would not support treating hate crime against Protestants differently from hate crime against Jews, or baseball fans.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That is not necessarily true. Severity of punishment is routinely tied to motivation of the crime.
If a country has problems with hate crime, it makes sense to adopt harsher punishment for hate crimes.
That said, I would not support treating hate crime against Protestants differently from hate crime against Jews, or baseball fans.

Definitely, the issue is that he doesn't seem to believe that the motivation behind said hate crimes seems to matter.

 

[aelf]

His argument is that murder is bad and hate is bad, so caring about specific people who murder or hate is pointless. I don't think I understand it myself but I think that is roughly it.

It's beginning to seem like mansplaining for the sake of mansplaining, TBH.

That was inno's whole shtick, although in his case it might more accurately be called boomer-ranting.

 

[Gorbles]

I didn't say drawing lots though. I picked a particular other group of people on no fair basis (dairy farmers in this case, baseball fans in the other example).

Neither of these groupings classify as a national or ethnic group. The Holocaust (I can't believe we're actually discussing the Holocaust, but hey) is genocide as per the definition of genocide. It was an attempted extermination of every Jewish person the Third Reich could get their (or their allies') hands on.

This is a large part of why we have hate speech, but also the nuance of such groupings contrasted with the variance of freedom of speech throughout the world is what makes "hate speech" a varying definition per-country. But to compare any such group killing of a specific ethnic, national or queer minority (which, it should be noted, the Nazis also carried out, as well as purges of the Roma) to "dairy farmers" or "baseball fans" is to demonstrate that you either don't understand the definitions being argued, or you're being wilfully obtuse to prove some undetermined point.

 

[Senethro]

I didn't say drawing lots though. I picked a particular other group of people on no fair basis (dairy farmers in this case, baseball fans in the other example).

You still haven't demonstrated why it is worse to kill 6 million people based on X criteria as opposed to killing 6 million people based on another Y targeted criteria. In fact nobody who has engaged the discussion so far has bothered to do so, instead simply repeating that disadvantaged groups exist. That isn't supportive reasoning.

The reason I suspect nobody is doing that is because it is difficult to give actual supportive reasoning for such a position. You must, by necessity, argue that somehow the lives of people who are "Jewish" or "Protestant" have a different value than lives of people who are "dairy farmers" or "baseball fans" in order to make the assertion that crimes targeting these groups solely on the bases of their belonging to said groups should be treated differently. If these lives have the same value, it would not make sense to punish crimes against them differently.

I hinted at reasons in my previous post.

More fully: The same number of killings occur but additional "Crimes against Humanity" also happen.