[ SECRET POST #2296 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2296 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #328.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Hate Crimes Legislation

[(Anonymous)]

I'm watching The West Wing with Mark Watches, and we're to the episode where Lowell Lydell is beaten up by some homophobic kids and dies and CJ is on opposite sides with Sam and Leo about hate crimes legislation. Leo says there are laws against people killing people and they're not sure about legislating people's thoughts.

To which Mark says this, which just doesn't sit well with me, but I only see two other people having a problem with it -- one is being ignored, the other is being talked down to -- so maybe it's just me:

Look, if you’re thinking that Leo or Sam might have a reasonable point, let me explain something. Those two men make a critical mistake here: They are imagining a level playing field upon which a zero-sum game exists, and it’s absolutely not how our word operates. This is not about valuing murder, but creating legislation that begins to repair the centuries of violent oppression that marginalized folks have suffered.

Thoughts, anyone?

Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

[dreemyweird]

Totally not my point of view. I always find it slightly amusing when people start to talk about "centuries of oppression", as if there is an actual female/gay/queer human being who has suffered ever since H. sapiens was born as a species.

In regard to culture and psychology, however, he has a point: namely, the society usually operates in a universe which does not have any zero-sum games.

Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

[dancing_clown]

The fuck is that noise? I mean, I'm for HCL, but that's because I would like for their to be fewer murders and harsher penalties for murderers, not because I think it *lifts up the oppressed*.

You want to lift up the oppressed, make laws that do that, don't hijack crime bills with SJWing.

Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

[(Anonymous)]

I have no idea who or what Mark Watches is, but here's my thing: No laws made today will make up for the past, I don't think. No laws will bring people back to life. I think the focus needs to be on building a better future, and I hate when people get so fixated on the past that they lose sight of what matters.

Plus, I hate the statement-of-fact tone in that whole piece.

Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

[dreemyweird]

+1

Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

[feathercircle]

I'm anything but on Leo's side in this debate but I really have no idea where that argument is coming from- it sounds like something that took a wrong turn somewhere en route to an affirmative action discussion.

Hate crime legislation has less to do with criminalizing people's thoughts (which is an accepted and ordinary part of our legal system in any case; it's why we draw distinctions between manslaughter and premeditated murder) than it does with legislating greater punishment for crimes with greater impact. Targeting someone for violence because of some aspect of their identity has the additional effect of (and is often done with the specific intent of) threatening everyone else in the vicinity who shares that identity. It's essentially a form of small-scale terrorism.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Now that's an argument I can get behind, so thank you for making it.(And yes, he did make the affirmative action comparison in his post.)

Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

[(Anonymous)]

As I understand it, the reason that hate crime legislation is an important thing is that, unlike a random mugging-gone-wrong or something, when someone is targeted and attacked just for being gay (or black, or Muslim, or whatever else), it's not only an attack against that one victim; it intimidates and terrorizes the entire minority group to which the victim belongs, creating an environment in which everyone who shares that trait will have reason to fear for their lives just by going outside. There's a reason we have a separate charge for "terrorism" that's distinct from murder or arson -- because of the ripple effect it has beyond the boundaries of the original crime. It's the same with hate crimes -- the target isn't just that one person, but everyone like them, and the sentence reflects that.