[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[TheMeInTeam]

Because you dance around what you want to do, you want to eliminate hate crimes in legal terms but you seem aghast that minorities might take issue with that or that they read into your motivated reasoning behind it.

I don't believe you want to get rid of protected classes or hate crime legislation because you care about equality, quite frankly it's the opposite.

See my response to El_Machinae for an example of why quoted is a dishonest and bizarre misrepresentation of my position.

And if you believe that categorization of murder based on intent is valid, what’s the justification under which we should consider hate criminals differently? Why do they deserve special rights to avoid moral judgment and scrutiny by the legal system?

??? Did you phrase this incorrectly? Why should hate criminals get special rights? That seems a strange thing to ask.

I advocate for law that would capture current "protected classes" as well as any other arbitrarily chosen groups to target in the future, and you somehow take this as special rights for the criminal? That doesn't make sense. I'm suggesting the basis for punishment to be more broad and consistent, not less.

So is this about definitions? You would be ok with the concept of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree Mass Executions but not with the crime of Genocide?

You can call it whatever you want as disambiguation. It's the legal consequences that need to be consistent.

What I posted seems completely in context to me. Now, you argue that the rates of persecution described in the report above need statistics to be convinced that they are above the national average, but man that would be really bad for the united states.

I wasn't arguing against that quote at any point earlier in the thread though. He jumped into the back-and-forth on homicide late, and in my response I was careful to point out that my argument along those lines only extended to homicide. I barely touched on non-homicide persecution, and acknowledged it exists both recently and many pages ago.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hate crime legislation is a completely different topic from creating privileges for disadvantaged or persecuted peoples.

With regards to any crime, the damage to the victim is going to be the same regardless of motivation. And that's not why we have hate crime legislation.

Hate crime legislation is brought forward because the perpetrator has an intent towards transmissibility of the crime. They are not only trying to punish the cow farmer, but also trying to concomitantly terrorize other farmers while also normalizing violence against them.

Because it's a vastly worst crime compared to the underlying criminality, it deserves increased resources with regards to investigation and enforcement. In some post-scarcity world, you could theoretically write hate crime legislation that punishes anyone who engages in crime in order to persecute a cohort. But in a scarcity driven world, this is senseless. Senseless because the odds of any specific hate crime actually performing as the criminal intended can only happen if there is already some latent persecution in the society that needs to boil over.

A person targeting cow farmers with vandalism might be engaging in the technical version of a hate crime. But once there is statistical and significant uptick in persecutions that are not simply deterred by increased prosecutions, it becomes worthy of considering it a legal hate crime

 

[Senethro]

I just don't think this is a very important issue you're advocating for TMIT, or one that creates much advantage. For anyone.

And I also think its an issue that would get hijacked by chuds who think minorities have too many protections.

 

[Seon]

Considering intent of criminals is considered important in a legal system. Protected class exist because legal system have judged that hate against these groups both exist and should be censured through harsher punishments. This is just because analysis of intent is an accepted legal practice, and people who commit wrongful behavior with sinister intent (hate, desire for money, etc) is considered to be deserving of harsher punishments.

You are saying that these shouldn’t be considered, which goes against legal practice of analyzing intent. This gives purveyors of hate more rights than their fellows, who have their intent analyzed in a legal system.

How would this be just?

 

[NinjaCow64]

I don't need to explain that because it's disingenuous straw. Classification of degrees in murder is contingent on the motivation of the perpetrator, and in the examples I gave I have explicitly and repeatedly emphasized that the motivations in the hypothetical cases are the same.

But they’re not! Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semetism and related bigotry has history that stretches back thousands of years! To pretend like the (purely hypothetical) terror inflicted upon soccer fans upon somebody slaughtering a group of soccer fans is in any way comparable to the holocaust is ignoring hundreds, if not thousands, of years of human history! Your hypotheticals are incredibly insulting to the countless people who have died and suffered from real and non-imagined hate crimes and to the people who are suffering from them right now! I hope it is within in CFC rules to issue a condemnation of your arguments and rhetoric in the strongest terms possible. Because I condemn your arguments and rhetoric in the strongest terms possible.

 

[Seon]

@el machinae

you can probably argue that modern terrorism charges are considered like hate crime charges except against generally unprotected classifications.

I’m sure if someone specifically targeted dairy farmers or soccer fans with bombs and mass shootings it would be considered a terroristic act.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

How many times does someone have to argue against protections and laws for minorities before we realize they're fundamentally hostile to minorities, even if they claim otherwise?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hate crime legislation is brought forward because the perpetrator has an intent towards transmissibility of the crime. They are not only trying to punish the cow farmer, but also trying to concomitantly terrorize other farmers while also normalizing violence against them.

Hence my repeated assertions of the motivations being the same for the hypothetical to work. Or do you disagree that an organization that systematically targets and kills baseball fans or dairy farmers on a large scale would concomitantly terrorize them? I would expect intent and actual transmissibility to hold up in this hypothetical, and don't see convincing rationale for why it wouldn't. I would be very likely to lie about fandom and avoid going to a game if 5 million people were killed for doing the same in the past year, and I expect that you would too.

I just don't think this is a very important issue you're advocating for TMIT, or one that creates much advantage. For anyone.

There is a frustrating insistence on misrepresenting the hypothetical here, to the detriment of the discussion.

Considering intent of criminals is considered important in a legal system.

For the (5th? 6th? 7th? 8th?) time, this is not in dispute.

Protected class exist because legal system have judged that hate against these groups both exist and should be censured through harsher punishments.

And in doing so, the legal system is inherently and necessarily implying that it values these groups more than other groups that might face identical injustice (including the motivation).

This is just because analysis of intent is an accepted legal practice, and people who commit wrongful behavior with sinister intent (hate, desire for money, etc) is considered to be deserving of harsher punishments.

You still haven't demonstrated why this sinister intent should matter more or less depending on the recipient of said identical sinister intent. And for your argument to hold, you must demonstrate this.

You are saying that these shouldn’t be considered, which goes against legal practice of analyzing intent.

Derp.

I have already called out that quoted is nonsense and cited evidence for why that is a dishonest representation of my position. If you disagree, there is an argumentative burden on you to demonstrate why my previous refutation of this false assertion is insufficient.

It's somewhat more likely you can do this than that I will be in Japan sometime in the next 30 minutes, but not by much.

But they’re not!

Is the notion of a hypothetical too difficult? Is that the issue here?

To pretend like the (purely hypothetical) terror inflicted upon soccer fans upon somebody slaughtering a group of soccer fans is in any way comparable to the holocaust is ignoring hundreds, if not thousands, of years of human history!

Yep, seems like that's the issue.

That said, I disagree that if we *actually observed* the hypothetical systematic targeting and slaughter of soccer fans (or any other group of people) actually happen on a scale of the holocaust that it would be somehow be less bad at an ethical level. Quoted doesn't expressly take the position that some lives are more valuable than others, but it implies it strongly. Having 6 million people killed that way would be tragedy on the order of some of the worst in history and remembered as such. Fortunately, it's extremely unlikely to actually happen.

Your hypotheticals are incredibly insulting to the countless people who have died and suffered from real and non-imagined hate crimes and to the people who are suffering from them right now!

Quoted statement only works if you equate a hypothetical example to something not hypothetical. But that self-contradicts your acceptance of the fact that hypotheticals were used.

Because I condemn your arguments and rhetoric in the strongest terms possible.

Are you sure it's my arguments you're condemning? A large portion of what you're arguing against are not things I actually said.

So sure, I too condemn random heinous things people didn't say here. Heinous things are bad after all.

I’m sure if someone specifically targeted dairy farmers or soccer fans with bombs and mass shootings it would be considered a terroristic act.

It's fair to also refer to similar crimes against protected groups as "terror" though. There is even precedent for doing exactly that (KKK's actions have been classified as domestic terror, as was the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting to give examples).

How many times does someone have to argue against protections and laws for minorities before we realize they're fundamentally hostile to minorities, even if they claim otherwise?

How many times has this actually happened in the thread?

 

[Crezth]

How many times does someone have to argue against protections and laws for minorities before we realize they're fundamentally hostile to minorities, even if they claim otherwise?

Yeah, maybe after one says the Shoah had nothing particularly to do with anti-semitism, you just step away.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, maybe after one says the Shoah had nothing particularly to do with anti-semitism, you just step away.

Nobody said that.

 

[Seon]

Well I did say that if there was a group perpetrating systemic attacks against soccer fans I would be open to considering that they are hate criminals. However, such circumstance does not exist, so your hypothetical is not worth considering.

It is simple why we would consider hate crimes against Jews to be more significant sinister intent than a person having sinister intent towards, say, all pizza guys. One is a real life concern and sentiment shared by non-insignificant margin of the population and the other is a pure hypothetical that does not exist in the real world. If there were indeed a campaign of systemic terror against people who make pizza we might have a very different conversation.


Now tell me, if intent is considered of important consideration, and we determine that hatred against these groups are considered persisting societal ill/particularly sinister intent, why should we not consider it when determining punishment in our legal system?

If you are saying hate crimes should be expanded to include discrimination against any particular groups, such as cops or clowns, if inspired by sinister intent against such group classification, say so, instead of going the roundabout way of denouncing hate crimes as a legislation in general. I would disagree, but I would find such a stand point more comprehensible than your current dribble.

If you are not, read previous arguments.



Considering that the majority of people here have understood that your position is that

1. Intent does not matter
2. Hate crime legislation should not exist
3. Theoretical equality should matter more than practical equality
4. Crimes against Jewish people are equivalent to crimes against soccer players

You are either one of the most incompetent person ever in actually conveying your position or alternatively actively malicious.

If you have a point to make re: hate crimes, transgender rights, make them quickly.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hence my repeated assertions of the motivations being the same for the hypothetical to work. Or do you disagree that an organization that systematically targets and kills baseball fans or dairy farmers on a large scale would concomitantly terrorize them? I would expect intent and actual transmissibility to hold up in this hypothetical, and don't see convincing rationale for why it wouldn't. I would be very likely to lie about fandom and avoid going to a game if 5 million people were killed for doing the same in the past year, and I expect that you would too.

I mean you've gone into the full hypothetical, where it would obviously deserve hate crime legislation. And there's a spectrum there. Areas where hate crime and terrorism become possible would include animal rights activists attacking researchers. People working for a specific institution being attacked. Etc

 

[El_Machinae]

@el machinae

you can probably argue that modern terrorism charges are considered like hate crime charges except against generally unprotected classifications.

I’m sure if someone specifically targeted dairy farmers or soccer fans with bombs and mass shootings it would be considered a terroristic act.

Yeah, they're essentially the same idea, where the intent to harm is more than the underlying criminality

My example regarding cattle farmers is real. There are parts of the world that should consider such legislation

 

[Gorbles]

Nor is that relevant to the point made, unless you are actually are asserting that national/ethnic groups have more value than other stratified groups. I don't think you intend to make such a case, but correct me if I'm wrong.

We were discussing the Holocaust. The Holocaust is an example of a genocide. My posted criteria were specifically relevant to the definition of genocide, hence your (still) hypothetic example of "dairy farmers" being completely irrelevant and indeed insulting, going by in-thread reactions.

It's also relevant to why, in a thread about explicit transphobia, you have managed to single-handedly turn it into a debate about something completely different (and also polarising), all because you have issue with people being mad at JKR for being transphobic. Because of some inherent fear where this so-labelled "wrongthink" will lead us.

Everything in life is checks and balances. Today's government could be tomorrow's tyranny. However, given your fondness for calling out fallacies, all this is is a slippery slope argument. You're ignoring, doubting, or even disbelieving the harm done by transphobic opinions, particularly ones expressed by an internationally-known figure. You specifically, with your knowledge of the English language, reduced her label to that of a "jerk".

While you express theoretical concerns of consequences JKR isn't even suffering from, people are hurt by the ongoing attempts by "gender critical" extremists in the UK (and US). It slows legal advancements that could help LGBTQ folks. It erodes popular support.

Which made it all the funnier during the derail about Damore and you repeatedly challenging if people had read the memo. Which didn't actually matter, because you lent peoples' readings no more merit when they said they had.

So, can I ask. What reading have you done on trans rights? Do you understand how difficult it is to even begin any cursory medical steps required for them to live regular and fulfilling lives? How much do you actually know about this demographic that you insist must come second to any piece of writing (or actual legislation) that could at some point in the future by misused by people to harm others?

Because that's the crux of it. All of these semantics, these appeals to theoreticals . . . all they are is a defence of the status quo, where people can spew polite and reasonably-looking lies and other such defamation against a minority. Why?

Does fair treatment only matter if you're affected (see: your repeated complaints of ad hominem)? People can abuse fallacies in an argument. But we still have fallacies! We still have use for them. We didn't refuse to invent them because one day on an Internet forum somebody might do something with them.

We have them, arguably, because of the benefit in identifying them and their use in language. The same goes for identifying hate speech. The stakes are commensurately higher, sure. But on one side we have people getting hurt, and on the other we have people saying things that cause said hurt. These are not equal scales. They shouldn't be presented as such. Theoretical misgivings which end up being predicated on a future mass killing of an arbitrary demographic should be recognised for - at best - the likelihood of such an occurrence. Weighted against the ongoing harm of the present.

That's how we weight all things. That's how decisions are made.

 

[innonimatu]

Treating these people the same way is not just. Nor is treating a murderer who murdered someone for being a Jew and someone who murdered their abusive husband the same fair nor just.

Can't resist trolling a little: what if the someone who murdered the abusive husband did it because the husband is a jew who believes all those ancient holy texts on the "proper" treatment of women? Perhaps even tried to stone his wife for adultery? Was the husband murdered because of his jewishness, or because of his abuse? Is is a crime against humanity or self-defense deserving of leniency?

What about letting the courts judge each case on its own specifics? Murder is murder, and the general laws on murder everywhere already allowed for aggravation or leniency depending on the intent.

There is a bigger issue here, one that you're missing: the world has been sinking under the wight of judicial diarrhea... "hate crime legislation" is part of that: they are only passed where they are not necessary, and where they serve only to allow further arbitrary exercise of judicial power. Make laws sufficiently complex and only the wealthy will be able to navigate the maze. While the state can selectively prosecute or not, depending whether you're friends or adversary of those in power.

Think! Those bend of mass murder or selective murder never pass "hate crime legislation" to protect their target victims, instead they will take a page from the same book and pass laws that make it easy to accuse their intended victims of practicing "hate crimes". The nazis would never pass a "hate crime law" protecting jews, instead they passed laws accusing jews of conspiring against ("hating") the "german race" so as to validate their persecution of jews. Diocletian didn't pass laws against "hating christians", instead he passed laws specifying that christians hated the official religion and therefore should be persecuted. And so on...
Whereas those willing to pass hate crime legislation already consider teh attacks that will be covered by that legislation as serious crimes, and already weight the intent on judging and sentencing.

Hate crime legislation are at best useless and at worst a ready tool for the kit of oppressors in power. I told you already: you're arming your future enemies.

Because that's the crux of it. All of these semantics, these appeals to theoreticals . . . all they are is a defence of the status quo, where people can spew polite and reasonably-looking lies and other such defamation against a minority. Why?

Because anyone being able to spew polite and reasonably-looking lies and other such defamation against a minority is preferable to a majority being able to pass laws granting special privileged or setting special punishments on minorities. A majority is always able to pass such laws, mind you, but if custom is that no such special laws are made, that serves as a barrier. Whereas if you make it normal for such laws to be passed... someday you will be in the minority targeted with special punishment.

I'm not very big on a number of premises of 18/19th century political liberalism. But there were two I think they really got right: freedom of speech and equality before the law. Those are never perfectly respected, anywhere, but they're powerful principles to enshrine in fundamental law and make it harder to collapse into political violence or worse. Chipping away at either is very dangerous.

Moderator Action: Trolling a little in an RD thread is like trolling a lot in a non RD thread. Neither are permitted. Make your point without trolling, please. --LM

 

[Seon]

Ah, yes, all states are bad, laws only favor the wealthy, the people have absolutely no power and only are slaves to some higher will. Never mind the Civil Rights Movement and other political activists.

I suppose you will then say that Martin Luther King was trying to enslave people with his bad bad activism and that Malcolm X was a terrorist or some such nonsense and that the KKK was trying to liberate us by preventing the passage of anti-Jim Crow laws such as the Civil Rights act of 1968. I suppose this makes sense in a world in which selective enforcement of the law isn’t already a reality.

 

[Crezth]

What about letting the courts judge each case on its own specifics? Murder is murder, and the general laws on murder everywhere already allowed for aggravation or leniency depending on the intent.

Yeah, that's why you make it a law... so the courts have something to interpret. Hate speech laws, let courts decide if it was just "ignorance" or deliberate group libel. Boom, done. Nothing secret police-y take-you-away-in-the-night about it.

 

[aelf]

And maybe everyone should pay the exact same numeric value of tax too! We're all equal, right?

This is looking a lot like TMIT's thing about equality in principle as being better than equality in actuality. And that principle ignores material, societal and historical circumstances. Greater concern that a system should be "elegant and beautiful", rather than functional.

He's giving me strong engineer vibes.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: This derail has gone on long enough. Stop squabbling with each other about the Holocaust and return to the topic, please.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'd prefer if we could go back to talking about transphobia and NOT about whether hate crime legislation or charges should exist, if you want to talk about that create your own RD thread where you can salivate over rescinding them