patrick.net

anonymous says

I have always noticed that people will never laugh at anything that is not based on truth.

The very definition of humor is to point out things that don't make sense.

bob2356 says

What are the "laws" of the leftists/cultural-marxists that offend you so much? Why don't you give us a rundown including who introduced them and who voted for them starting with the 1969 federal hate crimes act that is the basis for everything that followed.

All legal favoritism based on race or sex is in effect overt discrimination against others based on race or sex.

So government contracts which deliberately favor, say, companies owned by women are clearly and overtly discriminating against men purely because they are men, and not because they have done anything wrong except being born male.

Similarly for government-based scholarships which discriminate on the basis of race or gender. "Grants.gov is a database of federally funded grants for African-American women, as well as women of other cultural and ethnic groups." etc

"Hate crimes" also give special status to minorities which make crimes against them different, giving them a higher status by law.

Title IX has also led to pervasive discrimination against men via "he didn't call me back after" kangaroo courts which can be used by women to get back at men after consensual sex, by merely claiming it was not consensual later, even much later.

If we're all going to get along, we should all have equal rights as human beings, not special legally elevated rights as a member of some favored group.

rando says

"Hate crimes" also give special status to minorities which make crimes against them different, giving them a higher status by law.

You keep saying that, even though I have disproved it on your own site. (I tried to find the link but the thread might have been deleted.) The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on this issue decades ago. At least since the unanimous SCOTUS decision, the question has "never really been controversial," but you persist in claiming the opposite of reality. Anyone can be wrong, but it takes a liar to continue repeating the same disproved assertion.

You "disproved" nothing.

Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court held that the statute violates the First Amendment directly by punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court was correct. Punishing "offensive thoughts" is a violation of the first amendment.

The US Supreme Court is incorrect and its reasoning is muddled and politically motivated.

rando says

US Supreme Court

is the last word and their unanimous decision remains the law of the land.

When one person commits violence against another, proving the "offensive thoughts" (aka mental state, in Latin mens rea) has been part of American law since the founding of the Republic, in fact it's been part of western law for thousands of years. Hate crimes laws go back more than a century. All policy is, by definition, politically motivated. You pretend the divided Wisconsin decision wasn't, while alleging that a unanimous SCOTUS decision was, even though the SCOTUS decision was the one consistent with precedent and all subsequent American law.

Patrick, I suspect your decision to remain a tenant instead of becoming a homeowner may have given you some sort of complex about "status", and especially a resentment of people whom you suspect of having or seeking higher status than you. Your one sentence about hate crimes used the word "status" twice:

rando says

"Hate crimes" also give special status to minorities which make crimes against them different, giving them a higher status by law.

You seem to have a bizarre fixation that, for example, a black guy who got dragged to death by KKKlansmen in a truck was claiming or accorded, somehow, higher status than you. It's neither rational nor accurate. If some BLM people did the same to punish white people for electing DJT, the legal case would be the same. Hate crimes statutes name classifications that violent criminals have exploited to divide Americans.

Trump speaks freely by twitter.He may get us all killed. So much for free speech in the hands of a maniac.

Appended because your comment length limit malfunction has not been addressed: In contrast, ordinary crimes committed against "minorities" (every human is a member of at least one minority) are prosecuted without regard to their membership in "minorities," for example if you steal a car or cash simply because you wanted a car or cash, it doesn't matter who owned it.

Also, the now infamous BLM four have been charged with hate crimes perpetrated against a white guy.

curious2 says

Also, the now infamous BLM four have been charged with hate crimes perpetrated against a white guy.

Regardless the fact remains that hate-crime is subject to "severe" interpretation and it is more often than not used against those who are "perceived" as guilty-by-birth oppressors du jour. It is one of the worst laws ever to be introduced by any country and a yuge step into the wrong direction. It lines up exactly with what Nazis, Stalinists, Communists, cultural-marxists and any other radical, illegitimate gang of ruling killers did, basically criminalizing "perceived" thought and guilt. There is already a slight moral component like premeditation for murder but that one can easily be proven objectively. Nothing more should have ever been introduced, and all crimes should carry the exact sentence depending on premeditation or not, no matter what the motive was.

Gary Anderson says

Trump speaks freely by twitter.He may get us all killed. So much for free speech in the hands of a maniac.

Run along to Syria, It's safer there.

mell says

Regardless the fact remains that hate-crime is subject to "severe" interpretation and it is more often than not used against those who are "perceived" as guilty-by-birth oppressors du jour. It is one of the worst laws ever to be introduced by any country and a yuge step into the wrong direction.

There are dozens if not hundreds of hate crime laws at the federal and state level. Which "it" is the one you are referring to? Ever look into who introduced and passed the various "leftists/cultural-marxists" hate crime laws? I didn't think so.

rando says

All legal favoritism based on race or sex is in effect overt discrimination against others based on race or sex.

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

Patrick says

He's a far better American than the yahoos who simply refuse to allow any discussion they don't agree with ahead of time.

So you are saying the MILO has a right to speak but protesters don't have a right to speak out against him?

Newspeak is alive and well at patnet. Orwell would be proud.

bob2356 says

So you are saying the MILO has a right to speak but protesters don't have a right to speak out against him?

I'm saying protesters don't have the right to stop Milo from speaking.

bob2356 says

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

@bob2356 that's not true.

Does the law against murder deliberately benefit one race or another?

mell says

It is one of the worst laws ever to be introduced by any country and a yuge step into the wrong direction. It lines up exactly with what Nazis, Stalinists, Communists, cultural-marxists and any other radical, illegitimate gang of ruling killers did, basically criminalizing "perceived" thought and guilt.

That sounds like hyperbole, and you seem perhaps to have lost perspective. I wonder if you might have conflated two discrete concepts: (1) hate crimes vs (2) "hate speech," including campus speech codes, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc. In America, hate crimes are crimes against persons or property that are motivated by a discriminatory animus as part of a larger pattern of dividing people against each other and America against itself. In America, the original examples were the KKK trying to reignite (literally) the Civil War by burning people's houses down, and burning crosses on their lawns.

The Nazis used violence to disrupt and destroy political parties they disagreed with, including notably communists. You might want to draw a comparison to the DNC and/or BLM orchestrating violence at one or more DJT rallies, if you want to say that the "left" copied Nazi tactics.

Laws against hate crimes go back to reconstruction, and specific intent crimes go back further, much more detailed than the mere existence of premeditation. Census workers and the Pony Express were attacked by anti-federalists, and the federal government responded with federal laws crimininalizing those attacks, based on the existence of (a) premedition including (b) the specific intent to shut down the Census or the Post Office. Realistically, I don't know if America could even have had a federal government without those protections, because convictions might have been impossible in state courts. That became really clear in the Civil Rights cases, for example.

(Comment above continued.)

The Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, i.e. trying the same defendant twice for the same alleged facts. In the Civil Rights cases, the need for the separate sovereignty exception became apparent. State courts refused to convict, or refused to sentence seriously, KKK crimes against black persons or their property. Local sympathy for the KKK enabled that organization to intimidate and suppress voter registration, and thus perpetuated statewide systems of discrimination. Without federal prosecution of hate crimes, the pattern was unbreakable at the state level. To this day, "states' rights" sloganeers try to end those federal prosecutions, often using deceptive slogans about "free speech." Burning down somebody's house isn't speech, contrary to what a 2015 German decision might imply.

You don't have a right to commit violent crimes against other people or their property. If you choose to commit such an offensive act (actus reus), then your specific intent (aka mens rea, aka offensive thoughts) becomes an element of the crime. At least in American federalism, it has been that way since at least Reconstruction, probably must be, and probably always will be. In criminal cases, the specific intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as can often be done easily, e.g. Dylann Roof. Please try not to let sloganeers fool you as to what they are talking about. There is nothing "conservative" about throwing out a longstanding cornerstone of law and order.

curious2 says

That sounds like hyperbole, and you seem perhaps to have lost perspective. I wonder if you might have conflated two discrete concepts: (1) hate crimes vs (2) "hate speech,"

They are very related, technically it requires some sort of hate speech (written or verbal) to commit somebody of a hate crime. But I'd simply like to know one good reason why you would want to punish somebody differently for killing someone else because

a) they didn't like someone else's face/character
b) they didn't like someone else's race/gender/identity/faith
c) they didn't like someone else's status (money, fame, power etc.)

All that's necessary for capital punishment (whatever that may be) is to prove premeditation, and that's exactly where it should stop. Same sentencing for all cases.
curious2 says

Census workers and the Pony Express were attacked by anti-federalists, and the federal government responded with federal laws crimininalizing those attacks, based on the existence of (a) premedition including (b) the specific intent to shut down the Census or the Post Office.

How is premeditation here not enough to prosecute and shut down the perpetrators? Again, you don't need special laws and extra sentencing. In fact. currently many violent acts and murders go unpunished because there is a lack of enforcement agents aka police, e.g. in Chicago and many other problem cities.
Conservative or not, this is more of a libertarian position, IMO the specific intent is more often difficult to proof than not, and then again, what justifies a harsher sentence than the death penalty/life in prison and what good does it do?

rando says

bob2356 says

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

@bob2356 that's not true.

Does the law against murder deliberately benefit one race or another?

In Bob's defense, anti-murder laws do favor the non-violent over psychopaths.

rando says

I'm saying protesters don't have the right to stop Milo from speaking.

True dat. If Milo is wrong about something, and he certainly is wrong about some things, then the proper course of action is to make an intelligent and compelling counter-argument. Hell, that's what college is supposed to be about, developing critical thinking skills and the ability to defend or attack a thesis as an educated adult.

mell says

curious2 says

That sounds like hyperbole, and you seem perhaps to have lost perspective. I wonder if you might have conflated two discrete concepts: (1) hate crimes vs (2) "hate speech,"

They are very related, technically it requires some sort of hate speech (written or verbal) to commit [sic] somebody of a hate crime. But I'd simply like to know one good reason why you would want to punish somebody differently for killing someone else because

a) they didn't like someone else's face/character

b) they didn't like someone else's race/gender/identity/faith

c) they didn't like someone else's status (money, fame, power etc.)

All that's necessary for capital punishment (whatever that may be) is to prove premeditation, and that's exactly where it should stop.

You seem to be veering all over the map, and reducing your scope to murder / capital punishment but then conflating that with speech, and even your grammar has begun to suffer. Still, I will try to bring some facts to bear. You use the example of killing, but you don't seem to realize that there is generally no federal law against killing someone. It's a state charge. You seem to be arguing for a federal homicide law, which might be a good idea, but would transform radically American criminal law as it has been applied for centuries. The hate crimes laws track classifications that have proven vulnerable to underenforcement, e.g. lynching in the southeast.

mell says

How is premeditation here not enough to prosecute and shut down the perpetrators?
***
Conservative or not, this is more of a libertarian position, IMO the specific intent is more often difficult to proof [sic, again] than not, and then again, what justifies a harsher sentence than the death penalty/life in prison and what good does it do?

Historically, premeditation alone proved insufficient, requiring additional legislation from the 19th century through the present. I have yet to meet a libertarian who supported legalizing hate crimes, so please don't drag them into your fog on this issue. Your radically transformational proposal to have a nationwide law against homicide (and presumably assault, vandalism, etc.) would definitely not be conservative, though whether good or bad would be a matter of debate. The death penalty and life in prison are quite rare, so your focus on them seems rhetorical and unproductive, but the hate crimes enhancements make a significant difference in cases of assault and vandalism. Most people in almost every state consider these laws necessary, though they face opposition mainly in the states that were notorious for lynching. You can read further on the topic if you want information rather than rhetorical questions and backfire effects.

Dan8267 says

rando says

bob2356 says

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

@bob2356 that's not true.

Does the law against murder deliberately benefit one race or another?

In Bob's defense, anti-murder laws do favor the non-violent over psychopaths.

Are psychopaths now considered some kind of minority or race with protected status?

Ditto for non-violent: are they some kind of minority or race?

rando says

bob2356 says

So you are saying the MILO has a right to speak but protesters don't have a right to speak out against him?

I'm saying protesters don't have the right to stop Milo from speaking.

They didn't stop MILO from speaking. They stopped him from being heard. They absolutely have the right to do that. You are confusing rights with privileges. Milo has a right to speak, he doesn't have a privilege to be heard.

rando says

bob2356 says

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

@bob2356 that's not true.

Does the law against murder deliberately benefit one race or another?

Did you read my comment? Where did I say race? I said group. Races are a group. Murderer's are certainly a group. I'm sure some of murderers feel overtly discriminated against.

MMR says

Are psychopaths now considered some kind of minority or race with protected status?

Ditto for non-violent: are they some kind of minority or race?

Ditto my comment to patrick. Read more carefully.

Ironman says

..to keep people off of cranky Bullshit Bobby's lawn.

Isn't it time for your family after dinner ass tonguing? Most people prefer breath mints, but I defend your right to choose non traditional options.

bob2356 says

They didn't stop MILO from speaking. They stopped him from being heard. They absolutely have the right to do that.

You're not making sense anymore. To stop him from being heard has the same effect as stopping him from speaking.

UC Davis is a public place, paid for by tax dollars. No one has the right to stop any invited speaker from being heard there.

And the lame bullshit excuses like "security" are the same ones that were used in the civil rights era to prevent black speakers from "being heard" as you put it.

bob2356 says

Ditto my comment to patrick. Read more carefully.

Yes, I should take quality instruction from you; I was responding to Dan's comment on what you said.

bob2356 says

They didn't stop MILO from speaking. They stopped him from being heard. They absolutely have the right to do that.

What a silly argument. They had no right to stop others from listening to him.

curious2 says

I have yet to meet a libertarian who supported legalizing hate crimes, so please don't drag them into your fog on this issue.

I think now you're veering off the map. Nobody said anything about legalizing hate crimes, just punishing as one murder per person as any order murder for killings. Also I have a hard time believing that there is anything to the argument that charging them with murder is insufficient, doesn't seem logical. It would make the justice system much more objective as you can see in so many discussion people are often if not always split as to what is a hate crime and what isn't.

Btw. thx for the article, here's an excerpt that mentions libertarianism:

"BUTLER: You know, as a civil libertarian, as a big fan of the First Amendment, I have to say it concerns me. So, if we think about the Rutgers bullying case, if Mr. Ravi had been convicted of intimidating the victim there because he was a nerd or because he was skinny, then he'd get five years in prison. Because he was convicted of intimidating him because he's gay or is perceived to be gay, he gets 10 years.

So it does seem like we're getting awfully close to punishing thought crimes. I think bigotry, including homophobia, is wrong, but I think, in a free society, you have the right to think what you want, no matter how wrong it is."

MMR says

Are psychopaths now considered some kind of minority or race with protected status?

Ditto for non-violent: are they some kind of minority or race?

First,
www.youtube.com/embed/v0W3QbeMisw?start=50

Second, you'll notice that Bob said "Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others." rather than "some minority". Everything can be placed inside groups.

rando says

bob2356 says

They didn't stop MILO from speaking. They stopped him from being heard. They absolutely have the right to do that.

You're not making sense anymore. To stop him from being heard has the same effect as stopping him from speaking.

UC Davis is a public place, paid for by tax dollars. No one has the right to stop any invited speaker from being heard there.

Why is that? Protesters don't have the right to protest against opinions they don't agree with or find offensive? Where is this right to be heard come from? Can you define it? Does someone advocating killing of the jews have a right to be heard at a public place paid for by tax dollars? How about a KKK rally advocating murder of blacks, do they have a right to be heard? I guess it's different when you agree with what is being said. There obviously weren't enough people who did want to hear him speak to stand up for him. That's milo's problem, not the protesters problem.

MMR says

bob2356 says

Ditto my comment to patrick. Read more carefully.

Yes, I should take quality instruction from you; I was responding to Dan's comment on what you said.

Ditto Bob's comment to Patrick for MMR. Read more carefully.

Dan8267 says

Second, you'll notice that Bob said "Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others." rather than "some minority". Everything can be placed inside groups.

If that is an accepted premise that everything can be placed inside groups then every crime is effectively a hate crime as everybody belongs to a group, the wealthy certainly are a group. Keep in mind that the Jews were not always persecuted because of their culture, race or looks, but because they were often (perceived or in reality, doesn't matter) wealthier than others which raised jealousy and caused weird suspicions. The difference is that most laws passed have clear, objective criteria to discriminate against, but these criteria are lacking in hate speech and hate crime laws.

Dan8267 says

Everything can be placed inside groups.

Very good, someone who read rather than implied.

The United States was based on laws that singled out sex and race. It's right in the constitution. The white male landowners thing. We had 100 years of jim crow laws. Segregation. Women's suffrage. Chinese barred from immigration. Japanese interned. The civil rightt's act. All the carefully thought out and worded voter suppression laws all across the south today. All based on sex and/or race.

All of a sudden it's a big deal to have laws based on sex and/or race? Why is that?

mell says

The difference is that most laws passed have clear, objective criteria

You don't spend much time reading laws do you?

mell says

but these criteria are lacking in hate speech and hate crime laws.

So you find that using race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation to be lacking criteria? How is that? Are these kinds of things subjective somehow?

Dan8267 says

Ditto Bob's comment to Patrick for MMR. Read more carefully.

I don't need to read more carefully; I was parodying bob who has a tendency to not read carefully himself then argue some point not made and disappear when called out.

MMR says

Dan8267 says

Ditto Bob's comment to Patrick for MMR. Read more carefully.

I don't need to read more carefully; I was parodying bob who has a tendency to not read carefully himself then argue some point not made and disappear when called out.

What point did you not make? I have a very busy schedule and don't always return to subjects unlike the crowd of 23 hours a day patnet denizens. You are certianly free to @bob2356 any time you think I disappeared and feel you have a valid point to make.

bob2356 says

@bob2356 any time you think I disappeared and feel you have a valid point to make.

will keep it in mind; thanks

I like hate speech being legal; it makes it easier to identify the assholes.

bob2356 says

So you find that using race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation to be lacking criteria? How is that? Are these kinds of things subjective somehow?

80% subjective, the 80/20 rule works well as always. You have few cases where there is a Manifesto, other than that it's mostly subjective, and worse, it goes back into the past. It is entirely possible that somebody made an offensive remark and is later involved in an incident and therefore will be tried per hate crime laws although there is no connection - or even worse or that they will be accused of having made such statements while they didn't, and it is very plausible that somebody who actually hates a groups race/gender/ethnicity and what not will conceal the fact in their crimes, so they would not be tried according to those laws. They are a precursor to thought-crimes and extremely dangerous.