i just kicked a drunk woman out of my hotel for calling my gay coworker a fag

(With a reminder that it's not that way in Canada, though. We have hate laws here.)

Instead of laws, however, couldn't bigotry (during the commision of another crime) be an aggravating factor for individual courts to decide on a case-by-case basis, though?

That's what "hate crime" MEANS in the U.S.!

I mean, geez, I'm just going to paraphrase a bunch of crap from Wikipedia so we at least all know what we're talking about here, at least in US FEDERAL terms:

-- a 1969 law that makes it a federal case if anyone "by force of threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin," specifically with regard to federally protected activities including voting and going to school -- the Civil Rights context of that one should be absolutely obvious

-- a 1994 SENTENCING act that increases penalties for crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, etc.

-- various state laws, both criminal and civil

All approved by the Supreme Court in 1993 on mostly the same basis I'm outlining above -- Rehnquist's opinion sez: "This conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

so what we really need is federal precedent classifying the word 'faggot' and 'retard' as hatespeech?

(P.S.: The fact that lots and lots of Americans ALREADY imagine these laws are one step away from throwing people in prison for being racist or insulting one another is one very good reason we will never actually have laws that involve throwing people in prison for being racist or insulting one another.)

but are you really asking me if an historian (however controversial) should have been jailed for holding conferences (even ones in biker bars) and writing his beliefs that the holocaust was exaggerated?

that is a crazy, and dangerous law. people should be allowed to deny the holocaust if they like. would you like GWB to introduce a law making it illegal to deny God?

-- darraghmac, Monday, May 28, 2007 7:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

yes i fucking am because he was a fucking nazi who addressed nazi rallies. he did not say the holocaust had been 'exaggerated', he denied it ever happened.

speaking as somebody who falls into no less than 3 constitutionally protected minority groups (4, if you consider a college stint as endangered waterfowl) it's difficult to reconcile the forbiddenness of "intimidating or interfering with...' [because of race, religion, class] with the experience of having been intimidated and interfered with because of non-race, non-religious, non-class issues for many, many, years.

as i see it, in any incident where the motive or aggravating factor in a crime is raw bigotry – acted prejudice with malevolent intent - it should not matter what the particular bias is for/against. it shouldn't matter if one agrees or disagrees with the premise: torching a pedophile ex-con holocaust denier's car is (and should be) as criminal as torching a charitable convent's nun-wagon-comissary truck.

our moral and ethical sympathies notwithstanding, any behavior that seeks to harm based on intolerant judgement of a group or bloc's politics, beliefs, or lifestyle is dead wrong. case-by-case action against individual members, if necessary, is exponentially more preferable, just, and in line with the underlying principles of the constitution & bill of rights.

AT WORK, I like to say, "That's not [name of business] language." And then if they continue it, "That's not [name of business] language. Leave now."

It sounds so kindergarten techer but somehow most people take it seriously.

its the battle of this thread and big hoos for which is more self-indulgent

-- and what, Monday, May 28, 2007 9:13 AM

http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/696226_catbag.jpg.html

fuck you internet

its the battle of this thread and big hoos for which is more self-indulgent

-- and what, Monday, May 28, 2007 9:13 AM

http://www.filenanny.com/files/44f7b9c9f14e0/cat-bag.jpg

it's all so crazy

u know u have a ways to go as a gay man when dude gets ripped apart for posting an anti-homophobia agenda, and the woman yelling faggot in the hotel is defended.

i think the self-indulgent thing is being mistaken as such when it seems to be a matter of plain surprise. if i ran into a woman like that, i would honestly be rather fucking shocked, and i'd sure as hell vent/post a thread about it.

hmm, weird, my internet browser has taken away all of the posts defending the drunk woman.

big hoos didn't post an 'anti-homophobia agenda'. he chucked someone out of his hotel for getting drunk and calling someone 'faggot' and then posted about it.

xpost

ur really "surprised"?

Some people need to brush up on "speech act theory" around here. It seems that the idea that "speech is not an act" is getting people tied into all kinds of weird conceptual knots. Surely heterosexuals, of all people, ought to be familiar with performatives, since the absolutely classic example of a performative speech act (a use of speech which also creates consequences in the real world and thus constitutes an act upon and within that world) in the texts of Austin and Searle is the chaplain saying "I now pronounce you man and wife". Speech is action. "Hatespeech" is a use of language which doesn't just "exemplify" or "reinforce" external contexts of harm: it is itself an act that harms, given certain "conditions of satisfaction" (i.e. external circumstances in which it can function effectively). When straight people call each other faggot as a joke do they harm each other? No, because the conditions of satisfaction haven't been met. They know that they aren't faggots and so the wrongness of fit between word and world ensures that no harm is done to each other. But when it becomes de rigeur to call people faggots in the public sphere, queers don't just "feel" threatened, they *are* threatened. If such statements are treated as acceptable, this maintains straight privilege. Note that I am not discussing the legality or illegality of these acts: within certain bounds, it's perfectly legal to say things that inflict harm on other people. Couples and families do this all the time. Apparently message boards do too.

HOOS, would you have been so professional and courteous if you weren't being paid to be as such?

really surprised, though i know what u mean in that i shouldn't be.

i thought we were just talking about how it might not be wrong to blast the word faggot in public? pretty sure there was an argument about something like that just now? to me the fact that that argument happened defends that woman.

and not tolerating the use of the word faggot constitutes an anti-homophobia agenda, duh

thnks drew for saying what i was trying, and failing, to articulate above thread

i just think this thread is kindof ridiculous? some guy gets upset about some stupid fucking bitch, posts a threads about it, and what's the reaction? he gets a bunch of shit and the stupid woman spurs Vassar-worthy ideological debates regarding the validity of her behavior. i guess i like debates like that but it seems slanted, hard.

what's wrong with a, damn hoos, that woman's an idiot and it sounds like u played it cool, rock on

If I hadn't been on the clock at my workplace it's quite possible it's quite possible I wouldn't have said anything at all. I asked her to leave because I knew (as an employee and acting manager) that I reserved the right to do so. I'm generally not a confrontational guy.

xxpost

xpost to alisa, that was.

totally woulda bitched her out even if i didn't work there, r u kidding. that's just not acceptable

I'm just being honest, man. My mother's gay and I know she'd be ashamed of me if I didn't stand up to that shit, but I can't make a promise that I would.

lol no i wasn't like blaming u at all, i'm just channeling the anger i would've felt were i there

i also think there are 2 ways to react to an issue like this, 1 way is if you are familiar with homosexuality, ie ur gay or close to someone who is, and the other way is if you're not. it does make a difference, it just hits u harder, it becomes personal. and that lends itself to a no-tolerance attitude.

Obviously I'd like to think I would, but I can't say for sure until I'm there on the spot. None of us can, I think. xpost to self

omg xpost to self, classic

hoosteen has two mommies

ps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

I think the thread took an interesting tangent into the whole topic of hate crime and hate speech, over and above what people thought about HOOS' actions. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me I was just interested in that bigger picture issue and didn't really comment/dwell on what HOOS did. For what it's worth, I think he did the right thing given the information we have. Also, thanks to nabisco and Drew I'm leaning that way in the argument.

In other words, I wasn't thinking we shouldn't confront bigotry when we encounter it.

Hi Ethan I've got a poster of Debs on my wall, I know what the Alien & Sedition Acts were. What's your point?

ps I've got a step-mom too so its 3.

Are you really suggesting that punishment for hate speech against racial or sexual minorities is tantamount to punishment for political reasons?

It is political reasons.

Well I mean if you can decipher the terrible english there you get what I'm meaning.

It is political reasons

you mean as in "everything is political"?

Political in the broad sense, perhaps, but punishing someone for using a pejorative term referring to an entire biologically-determined group is markedly different from punishing someone because of their stance on a particular government action.

xpost

can_o_worms.jpeg

It may be markedly different but in essence it's the same thing.

No that isn't a koan it's just too late for me to express myself in a way that makes any sense.

Political in the broad sense, perhaps, but punishing someone for using a pejorative term referring to an entire biologically-determined group is markedly different from punishing someone because of their stance on a particular government action.

"biologically-determined" goes against the gist of your argument. unless you're actually claiming that it's worse to be denied employment because of skin color, say, than because of religion, class, or what-have you. i don't see you can make an argument either way without sounding a total fucking fruit-loop.

also, arguments that use biological determinism for support always end up venturing dangerously close to eugenics territory.

I HEREBY SUMMON THE POWERZ OF THE SCOTT SEWARD IMAGE BOMB.

xpost

Point taken, definitely should have chosen a better phrase there. Race is socially constructed anyhow. When I said 'biologically determined' I was going for 'out of one's control.'

My essential point being: I'm not suggesting this drunk idiot be thrown in the tank for using the word fag. I wouldn't support throwing her in the tank if she'd called the bartender a nigger, darky, etc either. Social controls balance this sort of thing out.

I wouldn't support any 'hate speech' laws any more than I'd support the Alien & Sedition Acts, if that's what you were after BIG E.

spray-painting Q-bert on a synagogue

:O

You should've showed 'em to THE GRABEYARD hoos.

yo Ethan

Memorial Day is a time to chillax, bbq, grab a brew and enjoy the company of friends and loved ones.
you chose to spend this weekend trolling HOOS and making wack JPGs with fake airquotes.
that's how you chose to spend your weekend.

just marinate on that for a minute