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

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!"

minorities behind bars .... servin' drinks!

How is any of this really about hate speech? The irony is that this is really about the hotel's right to police it's ambiance and its guests' behavior - someting more akin to a libertarian attitude than some do-gooder policing of people's morals. A hotel probably cares about minority x's money and patronage more than the politics of the thing and if it feels that expelling people who are hating on minority x is a good way to insure that it continues to enjoy the patronage of said minority, it'll probably do it, unless it's a boutique hotel for bigots or racists or crackpots or something. Frankly, I would have kicked the lady out regardless of what she said; her behavior prior to the homophobia was disrespectful, dyspeptic and disturbing enough and Hoos merely made use of her egregious speech to help make an obviously soddenly drunk woman understand that her behavior was unacceptable.

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.

Ah right. I thought it might be some amazing post-war legislation loophole or something. But of course it is probably makey-up.

xpost But the death penalty is invalid because it's the death penalty.

(I would also like to see yr article(s), Tracer, as it's something I've been curious about ever since the hate crimes laws were introduced.)

accentmonkey: Who knows? I believe that they believed it, for what it's worth!

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99sep/images/9909lincoln.jpg
"Fuck manalishi"

captain save a hoos >>> captain save a manalishi

I just wanted to point out that Jeb can go fuck himself.

I have to admit that my version of Hoos' speech might've ended "Please leave, cunt."

if i were the minority behind the bar, i would've pretended to sneeze in her face.

I just wanted to point out that Jeb can go fuck himself.

how charming. ;-)

no far more charming was your assumption without reading any of the relevant threads that somehow I am part of this delicate hivemind that can't handle 60 posts a day of nothing more than bigoted flamebait, as if that's something we should all aspire to.

mine would've gone something like, "do you have a male traveling companion? so I can punch him in the throat before kicking you both out?"

I worked in an upscale hotel for a while. It was most definitely not a good idea for me job-wise.

xxxpost

no far more charming was your assumption without reading any of the relevant threads that somehow I am part of this delicate hivemind that can't handle 60 posts a day of nothing more than bigoted flamebait, as if that's something we should all aspire to.

my impression was that most of his posts were more substantial than that, but point taken.

So ridiculous that this thread turned into such a shitstorm. If you work in an establishment that serves booze, it's your goddamned job to remove ANY patrons that are disturbing others.

i kindof love it when i get a fresh opportunity to tell some stupid person off. u just get to be all calm - oftentimes i find if you're calm enough, you can reflect their stupidity back to them and they end up digging their own grave

OKAY, removing the initial post entirely from the context of what's happened since, my own personal reaction to it is that it errs a tiny bit towards the side of self-promotion, BUT that there's no real problem with this, because if as I believe it's a true story, then he has every right to post about his life experiences on here. HOWEVER, I believe that given the nature of this board, he might have thought twice before posting it, and then refrained, because it isn't a particularly rich tale, more an open-and-shut case, and so the devotion of an entire thread to it comes across as a little more self-aggrandising than it actually is. The potential for flaming so far outweighed the potential for decent discussion that I believe Hoosteen was rash in starting this thread. I myself have been guilty of this countless times in the past, so I reckon I have a fair stance from which to make such a judgement.

1) nobody is clowning hoos for kicking some drunk bitch out the hotel, its for manufacturing a heroic captain planet slamdunk about it - id do the same if any other smug goober had posted this thread

2) the thread is about hate speech laws now because ppl kept using the term 'hate speech' as some kinda valid description & i said its something i associate with ppl who are interested in restricting speech - homophobic bigotry has a name already and theres no need to get on some orwellian newspeak 'hate speech' shit about it unless youre defining it legally

i would do the same if somebody started a thread complaining about 'homicide bombers' or 'the democrat party', and i would not actually be defending any of those things either

Leaving it up to judge and jury opens up why we have degrees of murder and such.

Darraghmac has just fallen into the great lie/fear that's at the center of people fearing this stuff -- this bizarre leap to assume that things are being dealt with based on the identity of the victim, as if someone's being offered "special protection," or it's suddenly "more of a crime" to harm a minority than it is to harm a white person. And this very, very obviously isn't the logic: it's that some crimes carry an element of terrorism and threat.

Way late, but this seems off from the typical justification of hate-crime laws afaik, which actually says that 'yes, special protection and yes, they need it.' Maybe that is a harder sell though.

here's the article i was thinking of, by debbie nathan. and - my bad - it just talks about new york, not all of the US. it's long but it is really really good.

http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3069

"After 9/11, many New Yorkers feared hate crimes were a new epidemic. But what's happening on the streets may be more familiar stories: fights over girlfriends, mugging easy marks and rumbles between revved-up teenagers."

um yeah but it's pretty ridiculous to have to stop and wonder what you all are gonna think of a story. if posters did that all the time, no one would ever say anything.

and again, i don't think HOOS was "manufacturing a heroic captain planet slamdunk." he was telling a story, something that affected him. that we have to berate him for his maybe intentions instead of thinking about the story seems so silly to me. picking apart other people should not be a hobby, and it also just seems like a blatant missing of the point.

if you don't have any reaction to the story of interest, why even post at all?

because on ILX you are JUDGED by what you say :-D

honestly when did being so cunty become a way of life?

"hi guys, i just had a weird run-in with a drunk homophobe and i told her off"

"you fucking idiot!"

it's like, what?