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

where did our innocence go?

http://basketballdiaries.immortal-memories.net/link/tbbdlay.jpg

if he were that's fucked up and due to a few vociferous regulars not being comfortable with pluralism.

Or due to him being a disingenuous cunt obviously trolling.

"I don't understand why this horrible crime perpetrated by some black people on some white people wasn't reported more widely. Could there be some sort of reason for this? I honestly can't see why."

jim otm

Does anyone seriously think this woman hadn't already crossed "the line" before she dropped the homophobic bomb?

-- Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 02:47 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I agree that her behaviour had crossed the line, yeah.

I don't see the problem w.hoosteen posting his account of his experience here - shit like this can get you really wound up & it's good/useful to vent off.

Anyone who works a "customer-facing" job gets to deal w/obnoxious shitheads from time to time, I doubt I'd have been so polite/professional in his place, TBH.

I don't see the problem w.hoosteen posting his account of his experience here - shit like this can get you really wound up & it's good/useful to vent off.

Right but its the way he framed it. Its pretty easy to be righteous when the person you're chiding is already looked down on by pretty much everyone present.

Mat 6:5-6 (Jer) "And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. I tell you solemnly, they have had their reward. But when you pray, go to your private room and, when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you."

^ :-/

Its pretty easy to be righteous when the person you're chiding is already looked down on by pretty much everyone present.

what, you mean hoos? because if anyone else had posted this (bar louis perhaps) i can't imagine it getting the same reaction from you and ethan.

and this is meant as no slight on hoos

Oh don't you turn around my words! ;-)

I meant the woman. Don't be obtuse!!!

Seriously, where exactly does the name"BIG HOOS aka the steendriver" come from? This is bothering me.

Also Louis actually has shown a fair bit of class and grace dealing with the ILX pileon in the past.

one of us!
one of us!
one of us!
one of us!
one of us!

http://www.world-guides.com/images/houston/houston_map.jpg

Or due to him being a disingenuous cunt obviously trolling.

but is it really trolling if the person expresses his true beliefs and argues for them, however mordantly, in a calm and collected way? i guess it can be. but if so the decision over who's a troll and who isn't is an ideological one, and that's the problem i have with the banning of Manalishi. i get the sense that it wasn't so much his opinions that bothered people but the intellectually vigorous way in which he argued for them. as Mark G tellingly writes on the now locked moderator request thread, "One thing worse than racism is 'reasonable' racism." if some topics are too ideologically sensitive for the frail ilxor hivemind to debate fairly why not say so outright?

I agree in theory but ILX mirrors our society in general by being far more intolerant of racism than sexism, homophobia and cultural prejudices (the ones that don't get interpreted as racism, that is).

o rly i'd not noticed

xposts. I can't believe you just used "mordantly" and "intellectually vigorous" to describe the posting style of Roger Adultery.

And really you're missing the point. He was being disingenuous in order to bait people, to put the cat amongst the pigeons to try and see what kind of reaction he would get from "liberals". If he had came out and said "I believe this story was underreported in the media because of liberal media bias which wishes to hide reporting of crimes which may reflect badly on black people" people would have disagreed with him, but he wouldn't have been banned.

It was the posting style rather than the ideological content of the posts that got him banned.

I think.

pay more attention g-kit...unless...you're being sarcastic...

well duh

worthwhile

don't dwell on it, you daft bastard. the world continues to spin.

i get the sense that it wasn't so much his opinions that bothered people but the intellectually vigorous way in which he argued for them. as Mark G tellingly writes on the now locked moderator request thread, "One thing worse than racism is 'reasonable' racism." if some topics are too ideologically sensitive for the frail ilxor hivemind to debate fairly why not say so outright?

-- Jeb, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 12:58 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Um, thanks (I think...)

What I meant by that statement is one heck of a long story I was sort of involved in:

Short version:

I was on holiday in Jersey after a long illness and the surgery to make me well (fully successful). In the hotel was a group of lads, a bit rowdy but seemed to be alright, good music tastes and so on. Anyway, it turns out they're all card carrying members of the N F. Which did not square with the music or anything else, save that 2 of them had skinhead haircuts. We discussed things in a rational manner, about how GB did hve a repatriation allowance but that it was so small as to not be worth taking up, and they were campaigning for it to be raised. OK, what else? Oh, that it wa a disgrace that sikhs were allowed to be police and not have to wear the helmets in favour of a turban with a badge on it. And various other disagreeable (as in you could agree to disagree sort of thing) matters of opinion. Oh, and how in South Africa, it was the dutch who were the original population and it was the black people who moved in...

Anyway, all this was happening (the discussion I mean) in a Jersey nightclub, which was all fine and good fun in it's way. So, on leaving, the 'leader' says to me "Well, we don't reckon you'll want to join us, but we're off to do some paki bashing now!". One of the other lads says "no, he's alright if he wants to tag along, he doesn't have to get involved", a third one says "Oy, if I'm getting my head kicked in by a pakki and he don't come in to rescue me, I'm kicking his head in later"... anyway, I just sort of say "um, I think you;ll have a job locating a pakistani community in St Helier, actually", and left them to it (i.e. nowt).

So anyway, the rest of the holiday (1 day), we sort of were on pure nodding terms, and that was it.

g-kit don't bother responding to my posts unless you have something useful to say you clueless moron.

:)

xposts "the way he (HOOS) framed it" = just another xcuse to jump down someone's throat, for like no reason

if i were in HOOS' shoes, i woulda been taken aback by this incident, and it's far better to not take the time to worry about how to frame a recount for the sake of ILX's snarky alpha-males.

you can't fucking open ur mouth without an inquisition? or you have to be so bland you're barely saying anything? personality should be welcomed, not intimidated.

wow. . .how did I know this thread would've turned into a shitfest by a dozen posts in.

hello? Can anybody hear me?

"i think to start i'll have the attention-seeking bore, for the main course the tactless creep and for dessert the obnoxious jerk."

"tres bien, monsieur!"

the defense of Manalishi here is ridiculous, shows no sign of having read any of the things he said. "intellectually rigorous" give me a fucking break

"Jeb"

i never read that thread really. he was banned for 'persistent trolling' (not filling his free pass form out properly), not for being racist right?

both

hooray!

can we get an ip check on 'jeb'

We discussed things in a rational manner, about how GB did hve a repatriation allowance but that it was so small as to not be worth taking up, and they were campaigning for it to be raised.

Really? A repatriation allowance? Is that a real thing?

can we get an ip check on 'jeb'

i'd rather retain my privacy, thank you very much, but if you suspect that i'm the second coming of Manalishi you're wrong.

if i were in HOOS' shoes, i woulda been taken aback by this incident, and it's far better to not take the time to worry about how to frame a recount for the sake of ILX's snarky alpha-males.

you can't fucking open ur mouth without an inquisition? or you have to be so bland you're barely saying anything? personality should be welcomed, not intimidated.

yes yes yes!

i still haven't found the articles in which she explores the disparate impact on minorities of hate crime law.. i honestly will try to find them and i understand wanting to know more about it although i do detect an edge of "i don't believe you so back it up" - if there's any of the latter in your question i really can put your mind at rest that i am telling you the truth.

i'll also admit to confusing, in my own mind, the issue of hate crime and hate speech; it's probably because hate crimes are so often "shown" to be in that category by virtue of speech that is used in commission of it.

if somebody beats the crap out of you should they get a longer sentence because they call you "n*gger" while they're doing it? i'd argue it depends on how they said it. so often people will use these words just to pile on, just because they know it's something else they can try to hurt you with.. "your sister's ugly" etc. like this woman in the hotel - is that hate speech? a hate crime? if she was just trying to pile on, is that the same as the message sent by a burning cross in someone's yard? i just don't see why a burning cross needs to be designated with this "hate" status, as if judges or juries are really so completely idiotic that they have no idea what symbols mean

accentmonkey: I have no idea. The whole argument seemed to be based on a whole load of skewed history and fantasy, any or all of it could be total bollox.

xpost

Tracer, I'm having a REALLY hard time believing your wide net there about application of hate crime sentencing -- but even if I were to believe it, I would still class that as flagrant misuse of the law by prosecutors and judges (and sometimes juries), not any philosophical flaw in the laws themselves. (Whether a misapplied law is worth having is another discussion to have, obviously.) It should be fairly clear that the intent of the laws -- really clearly, in the case of the 1969 one calling out voting and education -- is to prevent systematic intimidation, not to keep people from using racial slurs when fighting with one another; using a racial slur in an argument doesn't even fill the legal requirement of race being a primary motivation for the action; and any prosecutor tacking that on as an aggravating factor just to pump up the sentences -- any any judge who cooperates with that -- are making really poor use of not just their own discretion, but of the whole legal system.

if somebody beats the crap out of you should they get a longer sentence because they call you "n*gger" while they're doing it?

See and misapplication and misinterpretation are perfectly good accusations against this crime category, but note that the above is not strictly the intent of the law -- the intent is to sort out motivation, because if someone's beating the crap out of you for that particular reason, they're creating a social threat outside of your individual ass-beating interaction.

basically, it's more cut and dried that the victim had not contributed to the 'aggravated situation' (?)

Tracer, you said:

are judges not supposed to weigh evidence and argument when determining the significance of the central acts in a case? can they not distinguish between q-bert and a symbol designed as a threat?

and

as if judges or juries are really so completely idiotic that they have no idea what symbols mean

the reason these laws are on the books is that judges and juries (or "the law" if you want a quasi-abstract personification) can't be trusted on these things. they don't (or refuse to) make distincitons between qbert and a swastika, they are so idiotic they don't get the symbols or don't want to convict anyone based on them ("oh, just a symbol") laws like this are a political intervention in the "natural" decision making process of the law-in-practice, but... that's ok, right?

^^^ potentially, i mean

And just re: this bit --

as if judges or juries are really so completely idiotic that they have no idea what symbols mean

I mean, judges, juries, and prosecutors are all deemed intelligent enough to know the difference between different kinds of murder and assault -- but that's precisely why they're given categories of murder convictions, aggravating factors in assault, etc. The basic shape of the 1994 sentencing law is that of an aggravating factor, really, and I think the Supreme Court logic upholding it is perfectly valid, and this shouldn't seem any stranger than considering premeditation in a murder trial -- so I'd be careful to separate prosecutorial misuse shenanigans from there being anything so ethically flawed about the law itself.

P.S. gff is totally and utterly wrong here -- giving people discretion on these topics is the opposite of deeming them idiotic. The reason we provide aggravating factors is precisely so that people can weigh them as appropriate, because IF NOT for having that option, the legal system would have to say "we all know it was worse than this, but technically the only law you've violated is XXX, so the max sentence is XXX."

It changes what the sentencing guidelines are, dumbass.

Oops, xpost to gff.

I mean, Tracer is the one reporting here that prosecutors and judges have been idiotic / opportunistic enough to game the law to get bigger sentences out of ordinary assaults and such.

Yeah, some people here seem to be confusing the American justice system with, like, things they saw in comic books.

nabisco beyond whether you agree or not with the concept of making "hateful" (yet not specifically threatening or harassing) speech illegal (i don't) i think it's worthwhile to consider what effects the extra sentencing due to hate speech has had so far in the US, and in one way of looking at it, the upshot of these laws are that more minorities are behind bars for longer than before they were introduced. you can say this is because of "prosecutorial misuse" and that such misuse may be intellectually separable from the law itself but that's what some people say about the death penalty too. "just because some public defenders do a bad job doesn't mean the principle of the death penalty is invalid!"