Is there anything from your own political party or side that you disagree with?

[catbellysqueezer]

It's not a straw man when someone actually says it, but OK.

[Dalak]

It's not a straw man when someone actually says it, but OK.

Quote someone saying it here then, quote someone actually saying you should vote for "someone who thinks we should legalize hate crimes" or anyone specific at all. Otherwise admit you are just making things up at this point to post inflammatory BS. You know - Trolling.

[catbellysqueezer]

Quote someone saying it here then, quote someone actually saying you should vote for "someone who thinks we should legalize hate crimes" or anyone specific at all. Otherwise admit you are just making things up at this point to post inflammatory BS. You know - Trolling.

Carabas said I should vote for Collin Peterson.

[Dalak]

Carabas said I should vote for Collin Peterson.

I just did a search that says you are lying (Assuming you mean in the Politics thread), so actually quote it or admit you can't. It's not like you'd have to go back far to find it and prove me wrong, and I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong and you can prove it.

E: Just went back a page here and saw what you're trying to spin as "Said I should vote for" in THIS thread, as he said he would vote for him in a specific scenario. Lying and Misrepresentation is all you seem to do.

[catbellysqueezer]

I just did a search that says you are lying (Assuming you mean in the Politics thread), so actually quote it or admit you can't. It's not like you'd have to go back far to find it and prove me wrong, and I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong and you can prove it.

Right here

Well, I'm not legally allowed, and he's not runnning. And he has a really lazy campaign website.

But if it were 2016 and I were a Minnesotan, sure, yes. I mean, have you looked at Dave Hughes?

[Dalak]

Right here

As shown in my edit, he didn't say you should vote for anyone. He even explicitly says he'd vote for him. You asked him if he'd vote for someone and he said yes, nothing asking or trying to force you to vote for anyone specific.

[catbellysqueezer]

As shown in my edit, he didn't say you should vote for anyone. He even explicitly says he'd vote for him. You asked him if he'd vote for someone and he said yes, nothing asking or trying to force you to vote for anyone specific.

Ok, we'll ask him if I should have voted for Collin Peterson when he comes back online and see what he thinks.

[Dalak]

Ok, we'll ask him if I should have voted for Collin Peterson when he comes back online and see what he thinks.

[catbellysqueezer]

That really makes no sense as a response to what I just said.

There is a 99% chance Carabas will say that I should have voted for Collin Peterson.

[Dalak]

That really makes no sense as a response to what I just said.

There is a 99% chance Carabas will say that I should have voted for Collin Peterson.

If I wasn't sure this was BS I'd be sad that I had to explain "This Happened" changing to "This'll Probably Happen" is moving goalposts.

[catbellysqueezer]

If I wasn't sure this was BS I'd be sad that I had to explain "This Happened" changing to "This'll Probably Happen" is moving goalposts.

Why would someone say "I would vote for x" but then tell other people they shouldn't vote for x.

It makes no sense.

[4saken1]

So you would vote for this guy

Definitely not if his polling numbers were more than 7-8% higher than the Republican candidate and there was little chance of him losing his seat without my support. If they were significantly closer, then I would seriously consider the consequences of not voting or voting for a 3rd Party candidate who has zero chance of winning. Fivethirtyeight currently gives Peterson a 6 in 7 chance of winning. If his numbers across different polls were similar on Election day, then no, I wouldn't bother.

In our current Electoral process, which unfortunately mathematically only supports 2 candidates in most cases (the Green Party could choose to focus their energy on changing this, assuming they actually want to win any national Elections), not voting for the Democrat in close races is tantamount to saying I'd rather live with the consequences of having a Republican in office than vote for the Democratic candidate.

[dancj]

I'm sure the people who died would be thrilled to know you voted for someone who thinks we should legalize hate crimes which is slightly better than the other side who wants to commit them.

Well clearly legalising hate crimes is not as bad as committing them - so yeah. Sometimes (especially in a country with a two party voting system like Britain and, I believe, America) you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

As an aside, I'm not totally comfortable with the concept of "hate crimes" being a thing. That ventures into Thought Police territory. Most crimes listed as "hate crimes" are already illegal anyway.

[Tendrin]

As an aside, I'm not totally comfortable with the concept of "hate crimes" being a thing. That ventures into Thought Police territory. Most crimes listed as "hate crimes" are already illegal anyway.

I hear this a lot and I think a lot of people, in turn, seriously misunderstand hate crimes legislation and how they're used.

Sure, they're already illegal. However, there's a difference in intent and malice between vandalizing a building and vandalizing a synagogue with a swastika.

One is just a nuisance. The other is designed to intimidate and harm and frighten an entire community. That's why we have hate crimes legislation, because the malice behind both crimes are significantly different. It's not 'thought crime' because you have to display the actual hateful intent. When someone has taken their bigotry into /actual action/ against a minority community, the response must be to protect that community.

Get into a fight with a black guy? Sure, that's assault.

get into a fight with a black guy you targeted because he's black to send a message of 'not welcome' to the larger African American community while screaming racist invective? You're not just targeting *one person*, your actual target is the entire community.

the scope is different and it requires a more serious judicial response.

I'd like to see people be less concerned about the rights of the 'thoughts' of racists and bigots to paint swastikas on synagogues and more concerned about the effects of their actual action on broader, marginalized communities.

[Powerboy]

Well clearly legalising hate crimes is not as bad as committing them - so yeah. Sometimes (especially in a country with a two party voting system like Britain and, I believe, America) you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

As an aside, I'm not totally comfortable with the concept of "hate crimes" being a thing. That ventures into Thought Police territory. Most crimes listed as "hate crimes" are already illegal anyway.

"Legalizing" hate crimes is kind of spinning it in the respect that not having hate crimes be a specific crime in itself is not the same as legalizing it. To use someone else's example, assaulting a person is already a crime with a legal punishment. The argument is that the motive shouldn't be an additional crime although I think it is unavoidable that the motive is going to be considered by a judge or jury regardless.

Most of the arguments against Hate crimes legislation that I've seen hinges on abuse of Hate crimes legislation which is going to happen with any legislation. Or false accusations, absurd situations, that such legislation divides us along racial/ cultural/ religious lines or the reverse argument that there is nothing protecting a white person when the hate crime is directed at that person simply for being white. In fact, that's a standard argument that white people are not protected. But that ignores that the system is already slanted in favor of white people and the legislation balances that.

The arguments present themselves as if this was a majority of the situations when they are probably a fraction of what really happens. Most hate crimes are probably genuinely hate crimes and directed against people of non-white races or ethnic or religious backgrounds.

Based on what you said above, I think when most people picture hate crimes, they are picturing using certain words or expressing certain opinions. While I think those words are detestable and those opinions repugnant and stupid, they generally are not illegal. As someone else said, it has to go to the point of actions or at least the intent to imply a threat or intimidate.

I think "Hate crimes" isn't really so much about making something extra illegal for purposes of prosecution but about delivering a message similar to the one delivered after the Holocaust: No more! Never again! We are done with this!