Radical Deconstruction of Society (Portland Stabbing Spin Off)

[1slow]

Currently, it's quite difficult to convict somebody of incitement -- especially when the waters are muddied by political rhetoric. Whether it should (or shouldn't) be is another issue.

As to leftists, I think more and more of them have started to see violence as an answer -- but only for the "right" people. The OK-to-punch-a-Nazi phenomenon verbalized (picturized) a sentiment that, in my opinion, has been breeding for quite some time, particularly on college campuses. This young woman was pepper sprayed because she wore the wrong hat and played for the wrong team; all she was doing was giving an interview. The thing is, these people view their actions as a form of self-defense. They stopped buying into the whole marketplace of ideas thing we've historically adhered to. Bad speech isn't something to be countered; it's something to be made to stop, as it represents "violence" against them.

Personally, I don't think these sorts of people have any business being near the legislative pen should we start re-defining what incitement is. We go down that road, there's a fair chance they will be.

Agreed.

[critter]

"hate" is meaningless here. It's an emotion and not an action. 'Illegalizing' emotional content, in reality, is an effort in futility, idiocy and narrative control. "Hate speech", "Hate crime" -- these are so ambiguous as to be rendered meaningless because the terms may be defined, redefined, and applied at will. Same with idiotic terminology such as "Islamophobia" -- because it is applied, by design, to label and shut down anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam. "Homophobia" is another as well as other labels of silencing. These are all part and parcel of leftist shitbaggery designed to push leftist agenda, comrades. It's textbook leftist intolerance under the guise of promoting tolerance.

What did this utter dickwad on the train actually do? He infringed upon the liberty and rights of another(s). Period. Off to Fuckery Island with his sorry ass. In fact, had he been Fuckery Islanded when he should have been, he would not have been present at the scenes for any of his ensuing illustrious criminal career.

Personally, I value neither humans nor human life categorically. Some individuals are simply defective for whatever reasons. Nothing to do with race, gender, sexual preference, etc -- asshat fills the spectrum as do those who respect the rights of others.

[1slow]

Agreed, we are responsible for our actions. An emotion is not an action.

[octagon]

"hate" is meaningless here. It's an emotion and not an action. 'Illegalizing' emotional content, in reality, is an effort in futility, idiocy and narrative control. "Hate speech", "Hate crime" -- these are so ambiguous as to be rendered meaningless because the terms may be defined, redefined, and applied at will. Same with idiotic terminology such as "Islamophobia" -- because it is applied, by design, to label and shut down anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam. "Homophobia" is another as well as other labels of silencing. These are all part and parcel of leftist shitbaggery designed to push leftist agenda, comrades. It's textbook leftist intolerance under the guise of promoting tolerance.

What did this utter dickwad on the train actually do? He infringed upon the liberty and rights of another(s). Period. Off to Fuckery Island with his sorry ass. In fact, had he been Fuckery Islanded when he should have been, he would not have been present at the scenes for any of his ensuing illustrious criminal career.

Personally, I value neither humans nor human life categorically. Some individuals are simply defective for whatever reasons. Nothing to do with race, gender, sexual preference, etc -- asshat fills the spectrum as do those who respect the rights of others.

I disagree with the first paragraph you wrote and so does society. Our laws are written with hate as an element. Manslaughter or negligent homicide have different elements and different penalties than 2nd degree murder which requires malice and 1st degree murder which requires malice of forethought or pre planning of some sort. Terrorism and hate crimes can and do have different effects on society than regular crime of the same action because of intent and outcome. Murders in Walmart or the mall parking lot don't stop or effect people shopping but a terrorist attack at the same place can and if serious enough does even if it is short term or less than a large effect. Killing a police officer is often adjusted to have harsher penalty than killing of a person who is not a LEO. That doesn't mean the LEO life is more valuable or important it means society looks at as an attack on society not just an attack on an individual.

The actual labeling by media and public opinion can and often are biased. The labeling for criminal purposes shouldn't be as defined by our written laws but unfortunately have been.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been reading the book 'Shattered' about the failed Clinton campaign. One thing becomes clear is that the use of data analytics aimed her campaign at maximizing the turnout of specific groups in such numbers as to win the primaries and get delegates. General appeal outside of minority voters was ignored. It won the primary season along with the superdelegates. However, the ignored subsection of the population lost the election in the states that turned on her.

Point is that politicians are trying to maximize subsection of the voter issues by pushing fringe issues to become candidates. This increases group polarization and moves these fringes towards violence. It is feature of both parties.

Fighting for bathroom rights vs. shutting down Planned Parenthood will get no one a good job or keep the country safer. But it will lead to folks punching each other. That's overly simplistic but that's the best our candidates can offer.

Trump and Bernie emphasized economic issues for the average schmuck. However, that has fallen by the wayside.

[critter]

I disagree with the first paragraph you wrote and so does society. Our laws are written with hate as an element. Manslaughter or negligent homicide have different elements and different penalties than 2nd degree murder which requires malice and 1st degree murder which requires malice of forethought or pre planning of some sort. Terrorism and hate crimes can and do have different effects on society than regular crime of the same action because of intent and outcome. Murders in Walmart or the mall parking lot don't stop or effect people shopping but a terrorist attack at the same place can and if serious enough does even if it is short term or less than a large effect. Killing a police officer is often adjusted to have harsher penalty than killing of a person who is not a LEO. That doesn't mean the LEO life is more valuable or important it means society looks at as an attack on society not just an attack on an individual.

The actual labeling by media and public opinion can and often are biased. The labeling for criminal purposes shouldn't be as defined by our written laws but unfortunately have been.

Yeah, I do get that. Can you define 'criminal hate'? What is it exactly? What is 'hate speech'? What are the precise criteria for its application? How does it differ from 'intense lingering anger'? or even 'delusional anger'? I could hate a fellow white individual or groups of whites enough to kill him/them with malice or malice aforethought but that wouldn't be considered a hate crime though solely precipitated by my emotional hatred, and/or perhaps delusional, ideologically inspired hatred. Still, white on white is not hate crime even with all criteria being identical.

[octagon]

Yeah, I do get that. Can you define 'criminal hate'? What is it exactly? What is 'hate speech'? What are the precise criteria for its application? How does it differ from 'intense lingering anger'? or even 'delusional anger'? I could hate a fellow white individual or groups of whites enough to kill him/them with malice or malice aforethought but that wouldn't be considered a hate crime though solely precipitated by my emotional hatred, and/or perhaps delusional, ideologically inspired hatred. Still, white on white is not hate crime even with all criteria being identical.

Here is how the law defines it in MI where I used to work.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qh1...e=mcl-750-147b

Each state and the feds have their own definitions but all are fairly similar. The issue isn't so much how it is defined but how it is applied both by prosecutors,judges and juries if it ever gets that far.

My opinion only matters if I am part of the system involved in prosecuting a person directly otherwise it means almost nothing. One thing we all must be careful of is attaching hateful general thoughts or speech to actions when they are not always connected. Ugly and often hateful speech is what our 1st amendment rights protect. It is action directly related to the speech that becomes a problem. There almost always needs to be both or we will have the thought police conundrum.

The last line was difficult to determine exactly what you meant but if a white person kills another white person because they were a gay,Jewish or Muslim white person and the killer was not it certainly could be a hate crime. White Christian that kills a white Jewish person could be a hate crime if they are shown to have committed the act because of the difference but not if the different religions were not a factor.

An example that may be relevant but is ongoing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...king/23514293/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chapel_Hill_shooting

[critter]

Here is how the law defines it in MI where I used to work.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qh1...e=mcl-750-147b

Each state and the feds have their own definitions but all are fairly similar. The issue isn't so much how it is defined but how it is applied both by prosecutors,judges and juries if it ever gets that far.

Thanks for the link... and that's kinda my point. It can be applied at will. Perhaps my use of 'defined' is erroneous here, though I don't think definition can be separated because definitions are stretch or massaged for specific application.

My opinion only matters if I am part of the system involved in prosecuting a person directly otherwise it means almost nothing. One thing we all must be careful of is attaching hateful general thoughts or speech to actions when they are not always connected. Ugly and often hateful speech is what our 1st amendment rights protect. It is action directly related to the speech that becomes a problem. There almost always needs to be both or we will have the thought police conundrum.

Definitely agree here. IMO, we already have the thought police, or perhaps more aptly, 'Narrative Control Police' -- and that's directly related to the Radical Deconstruction of Society (Portland Stabbing Spin Off).

Of course, my opinions are worth exactly what I paid you all to read them.

[OlongJohnson]

Worth a listen in context:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...on-and-control

[BaiHu]

Awesome posts by the whole lot of you. I think this thread is the exact 'spirit of humanity' that is being lost in society today. The 'radical deconstruction' of our society began with the deconstruction of language - ie political correctness, trigger warnings, hate speech, mansplaining, etc.

As @1slow said, "I believe progress toward less prejudice has been made. I do not want to see the USA go backwards. I believe the hatemongers are creating a real problem." This is the crux of the matter. Simultaneously we've seen prejudice greatly reduce while 'tribalism' greatly increasing. Couple that with the radical deconstructionism (RD) that allows for 'all things to be relevant' and you have a perfect stew of chaos.

Let's just reconstruct the psycho in Portland as an example of the larger issue since it is what spurred this thread.

1. The RD has turned criminality on its head. What once was 'mitigation' is now complete 'personal narrative' excuse making so that anyone's 'lifestyle' choice can be seen as acceptable. Whence I've coined the statement, "when you try to protect every blade of grass, you kill the lawn."

2. Once you make 'criminality' a victimhood 'lifestyle' that isn't by choice, but rather a foisted upon weight by a white, cis-gendered, male patriarchy of religious dogma, then the criminal is no longer responsible for their actions.

3. Now look at the types of people foisting the above 2 points upon society. They are typically in the political class, teacher's union class, legal/grievance class, political pundit class and the class that continues to come up with excuses to riot in order to keep the aforementioned 4 classes well paid. Remember that many of the 5 classes I mentioned above will and do have children and/or teach/influence children.

4. Now scraping the bottom of the roots and getting to the 'soil', let's look at the modern day child and how many of them are being 'raised' and how their habits are forming around the above. Entitlement in the ghetto or the 'burbs'? Check. Entitlement in the classroom and on the field? Check.

Take my 4 points and add in a dash of "Useful idiots" (Russian statement attributed to Lenin, but possibly incorrectly) and John Stuart Mill or Edmund Burke's statement that, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." and you have a perfect recipe for chaos.

Looking forward to further discussion.