or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 65

post #961 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

it's only terrorism if the killer was a muslim but not the victims, get your labels right.

I see what you did there, but piob threads have higher standards! tounge.gif
post #962 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Def an act of inhumanity to have a beach volleyball team dressed thusly:

lol8[1].gif

Egypt's streak of making total asses of themselves continues




http://www.businessinsider.com/egyptian-olympian-refuses-shake-hands-israeli-opponent-judo-2016-8?IR=T
post #963 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Do you feel there is an intelligent dissent to hate crimes? Just wondering.

I'm guessing the discussion would go something like this:

From a centrist-Western-liberal (liberal as in classical liberalism, not librul) position: "Hey, crimes are already crimes. We should treat all victims equally. Yes, sure, there are histories of targeted aggression against certain groups--racial, religious, etc.--but the best way to work against that history is to insist that everyone is (now) the same. Hate crimes reify the very categories they're meant to protect."

But this very thread suggests the relevant backdrop for this discussion: political violence labeled as terrorism. This is supposedly a unique, particular kind of crime ("inhuman" according to your thread title, which is bizarre since humans have a long history of terrorism) that needs not just to be prosecuted but rooted out with extrajudicial force. We could start with the predictable hurr hurr table-turning rhetoric (this is a Piob thread after all): if you get to rally politically against the label "terrorism" as a special kind of crime, then we should also rally around "hate crime" in similar fashion.

But in this case, the stupid table-turning game is actually interesting and useful. What's at the middle of the rhetorical table: the relationship between the state, actual groups of people, and violence. "Terrorism" might loosely be defined as acts of political violence that have no state to legitimize it; often, terrorism is an attack on the legitimacy of the states that do exist and/or a call for a new state. (Which is why ISIS's demand for a caliphate is a grand bit of violent trolling with some bite behind it--even if their plan itself is stupid. If you have a state, you can claim to legitimacy for all manner of crazy shit.) But terrorism isn't just prosecuted in extraordinary fashion because it eludes the sovereignty of a single state. Domestic terrorism is a thing. And we have plenty of cases where citizens (foreign-born OR even native citizens of a certain religious/ethnic identity) commit violence against fellow citizens but it's labeled terrorism in a way that feels partly "homegrown" and partly not.

So the terrorism/hate crime table-turning dance would be something like:

- if you get to label some crimes "acts of terror"--and that label supposedly names something so unique that we undertake political, extrajudicial, military action that suspends our own laws

- but you cavil at labeling some crimes "hate crimes"--in an attempt to prosecute certain crimes *within the existing judicial system* because they target minority groups who have needed protection

- then what's really at stake is how you see the role of the state in relation to its actual population: any exception to the legitimacy of state power is seen as coming from the outside (even if this isn't really true, because native-born terrorism is a thing); everyone inside should be exactly the same (even if this isn't really true, as even a cursory glance at history or present-day conditions suggest).

So in the context of this terrorism thread, the questioning of the "hate crime" category reduces to a denial of complexity/diversity that actually exists within the population in order to reaffirm the supposedly singular legitimacy of the state (us) against uniquely violent weirdos (them). Prosecuting hate crimes may or may not be particularly effective (how effective is the war on terror?)--and that's something we should look into. But the very idea of targeting hate crimes seems to me like an attempt to respond to the actual forms of diversity/antagonisms/us-vs.-them/internal terrorism that have existed and still exist within this country.

tl;dr: in the context of terrorism, a gripe against hate crimes is the updated way to insist that "all men [sic] are created equal" is an American reality! We'll really get there--stop complaining!

I'm just spitballing, so YMMV.
Edited by erictheobscure - 8/14/16 at 3:52pm
post #964 of 1314

Cavil? Now thats a woody word.

post #965 of 1314
could also have gone for the fishy "carp"
post #966 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Hate crimes, per my of course highly limited understanding, were enacted under the concept that the violence done to one person actually was committed against the entire community that person belongs to and done to "send a message" to said community and disrupt it, quell/subjugate it, etc. Think the KKK at one point in our history. It has mutated from there. Why not roll the original hate crime mission up into "terrorism" as it would seem this is the basic mission of terrorism too, i.e. disruption of a community/society, etc. through an act or acts against isolated individuals. Simple and would remove at least one level of hurr durr.

Now, hate crimes have evolved to something beyond their original formulation. Beating up a person because they are black, gay, etc. is now a hate crime in a stand alone fashion. So if a person is beaten because they're a skinny nerd, no hate crime. This is illogical in my estimation (and as usual I stipulate to the limited powers of my faculties of judgement.) This borders on thought crime, is clearly governmental suppression of free speech (even if that speech is objectionable), and stirs up resentment in many parts of the population. IMO, this form of hate crime legislation is bad for society (again, stipulation.)

So in summary, roll up crimes designed to impact communities (whatever that community might be) into terrorism and remove the type of hate crimes from my second paragraph.

I anxiously await being told why I'm an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

I'm guessing the discussion would go something like this:

From a centrist-Western-liberal (liberal as in classical liberalism, not librul) position: "Hey, crimes are already crimes. We should treat all victims equally. Yes, sure, there are histories of targeted aggression against certain groups--racial, religious, etc.--but the best way to work against that history is to insist that everyone is (now) the same. Hate crimes reify the very categories they're meant to protect."

But this very thread suggests the relevant backdrop for this discussion: political violence labeled as terrorism. This is supposedly a unique, particular kind of crime ("inhuman" according to your thread title, which is bizarre since humans have a long history of terrorism) that needs not just to be prosecuted but rooted out with extrajudicial force. We could start with the predictable hurr hurr table-turning rhetoric (this is a Piob thread after all): if you get to rally politically against the label "terrorism" as a special kind of crime, then we should also rally around "hate crime" in similar fashion.

But in this case, the stupid table-turning game is actually interesting and useful. What's at the middle of the rhetorical table: the relationship between the state, actual groups of people, and violence. "Terrorism" might loosely be defined as acts of political violence that have no state to legitimize it; often, terrorism is an attack on the legitimacy of the states that do exist and/or a call for a new state. (Which is why ISIS's demand for a caliphate is a grand bit of violent trolling with some bite behind it--even if their plan itself is stupid. If you have a state, you can claim to legitimacy for all manner of crazy shit.) But terrorism isn't just prosecuted in extraordinary fashion because it eludes the sovereignty of a single state. Domestic terrorism is a thing. And we have plenty of cases where citizens (foreign-born OR even native citizens of a certain religious/ethnic identity) commit violence against fellow citizens but it's labeled terrorism in a way that's partly domestic and partly not.

So the terrorism/hate crime table-turning dance would be something like:

- if you get to have a label some crimes "acts of terror"--and that label supposedly names something so unique that we undertake political, extrajudicial, military action that suspends our own laws

- but you cavil at labeling some crimes "hate crimes"--in an attempt to prosecute certain crimes *within the existing judicial system* because they target minority groups who have needed protection

- then what's really at stake is how you see the role of the state in relation to its actual population: any exception to the legitimacy of state power is seen as coming from the outside (even if this isn't really true, because native-born terrorism is a thing); everyone inside should be exactly the same (even if this isn't really true, as even a cursory glance at history or present-day conditions suggest).

So in the context of this terrorism thread, the questioning of the "hate crime" category reduces to a denial of complexity/diversity that actually exists within the population in order to reaffirm the supposedly singular legitimacy of the state (us) against uniquely violent weirdos (them). Prosecuting hate crimes may or may not be particularly effective (how effective is the war on terror?)--and that's something we should look into. But the very idea of targeting hate crimes seems to me like an attempt to respond to the actual forms of diversity/antagonisms/us-vs.-them/internal terrorism that have existed and still exist within this country.

I'm just spitballing, so YMMV.
post #967 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

all i had read so far was that he was swiss, didn't see confirmation of anything more but i hadn't checked recently.

also, "lately" is relative







Terrorism and Historical Relativism 101. T & Rs at 4pm. Sydney Smith Hall, Room 214.

What a tired cavil.

("right?" tongue.gif)
post #968 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Now, hate crimes have evolved to something beyond their original formulation. Beating up a person because they are black, gay, etc. is now a hate crime in a stand alone fashion. So if a person is beaten because they're a skinny nerd, no hate crime. This is illogical in my estimation (and as usual I stipulate to the limited powers of my faculties of judgement.) This borders on thought crime, is clearly governmental suppression of free speech (even if that speech is objectionable), and stirs up resentment in many parts of the population. IMO, this form of hate crime legislation is bad for society (again, stipulation.)

So in summary, roll up crimes designed to impact communities (whatever that community might be) into terrorism and remove the type of hate crimes from my second paragraph.

I anxiously await being told why I'm an idiot.

That's your objection? That the category of hate crime impinges upon the free thought / free speech of a person committing a crime? That might make sense if in other cases, the law & the state had no claim upon motives, thoughts, or intentions. But that's entirely untrue since mens rea is a pretty central principle in lots of criminal matters. (I didn't strangle her because she was my wife, your honor! I just felt like strangling someone and she happened to be nearby! Stop telling me what I was thinking!) Or, your argument might make more sense if you had talked about the impingement of the free thought (or personal identification) of the victim--i.e., a victim doesn't want to be identified as a representative of a targeted group. As it stands, your claim doesn't strike me as idiotic--it strikes me as downright perverse, a flailing against the protection of any particular group in the name of individual freedom (here, the individual freedom of someone beating different people up).

In any case, here's my attempt to make your perverse thinking useful in a hot take #2:

We won't roll one category (hate crime, terrorism) into the other even though they're conceptually similar.

Hate crimes are prosecuted within the existing judicial system. If the category of hate crimes is a concession to certain persecuted groups, it's also an admission that the persecution of those groups isn't deemed necessary to the supposed wellbeing of the nation. (Terrorizing black people--pre- and post-slavery--was seen as good for American wellbeing for a long time.) The state can now disavow those forms of violence, so it can supposedly be taken care of through proper channels.

Terrorist acts are surely hate crimes but they're also supposedly deemed "existential threats" against the state and thus warrant suspensions of law. In these matters, the state still wants to respond to illegal violence with its own illegal violence.

Why not just go the other way and prosecute all terrorist acts as hate crimes? The question is absurd for two reasons that seem entirely different:

1) the state doesn't want to prosecute terrorists as citizen-criminals (even if/when they are citizens); they want to be able to drone them, torture them, and detain them for years or decades
2) even though the rhetoric of "why do they hate Americans" or "why do they hate our freedumz" is pervasive (even as a partially disavowed joke), the idea of terrorists as committing hate crimes against us seems incongruous. Because "America" is a group or a collective, but not in that minoritizing, downtrodden way that "hate crime victim groups" connotes.

I think your own response (going to weird extremes to privilege the individual subject and his right to free thought or free speech--even in the midst of a criminal act!) suggests the affective patterns that make 1) and 2) work together. "Terrorism" is an attack on a group that we can belong to (America, the West, capitalists, whatever) without sacrificing a sense of individuality--in fact, those groups are predicated on the idea of individuality being the basis of a supposedly ecumenical group. And terrorists acts can be attacks on that very notion of individualism-as-collectivity. "Hate crime" is an attack on particularity--of the sort your imagined persecuted whitey with deep feelz doesn't want to deal with. 1) + 2) = the state gets to keep its extraordinary (illegal) powers in the name of the entire collective while throwing a bone to the particularities that were shit on to forge that collective.

Obviously, all of this is lukewarm toward the prosecution of hate crimes. I think that acknowledgment of targeted persecution is a concession--maybe an important concession, maybe an ineffective one (I don't know for sure). But I started off mocking the impulse to cavil at the notion of hate crimes. Instead of doubling down on the individual-rights-because-we're-all-Americans (or Westerners, or whatever), we should continue to grapple with how that (very important!) narrative has also been disingenuous or outright bullshit. Yeah, there are lots of things we could say about the effects of the category of the hate crime, but I think the weirdness of your response (and your sense of who is really persecuted) kind of suggests the problem at hand rather than the solution.
post #969 of 1314
Thread Starter 
While motive is part of the criminal justice system it is not the totality of it nor applied in all situations. You also conveniently did not deal with how I dealt with motive. Skinny nerds have been historically bullied, beat up...had sand kicked in their faces. Why should motive not amplify punishment in this class of historically persecuted people? This is just an example. Protected classes get created and I'm not sure in this case appealing to them for a separate set of laws is a good thing; either expand beyond the protected classes to deal with prejudicial motive in all cases or remove it.

It's clear hate crime laws create division in society (well, at least to me.) Why not deal with protecting people in a less fractious way? I know you don't like people that would be disaffected by these laws but the thing is they're part of our society. Now, one might say hate crime laws help create a better society, and who likes mullet-heads anyway? Well, I'm watching the evening news right now. Not sure society is headed where I want to I believe at least thinking of change is worth the effort.

I'm pretty neutral on hate crime laws in theory but I'm not neutral on what I feel their impact has been so US society. Again, I know you feel apart and superior to folks these laws disgruntle but I think that's just another form of "ism."

Have fun with that smile.gif
Quote:
Yeah, there are lots of things we could say about the effects of the category of the hate crime, but I think the weirdness of your response (and your sense of who is really persecuted) kind of suggests the problem at hand rather than the solution.

At no time did I say any group was being persecuted. That is a misframing on your part, and given you're highly intelligent and glib, I'm sure was done on purpose.
post #970 of 1314
mocking the impulse to cavil at the notion""

You two be on some next level shit!

Pio how was your dinz w the winemenz? smile.gif
post #971 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Terrorism and Historical Relativism 101. T & Rs at 4pm. Sydney Smith Hall, Room 214.

What a tired cavil.

("right?" tongue.gif)

i have no idea what this means, but what i posted was in response to "white people in europe becoming more violent recently," not terrorism in europe.
post #972 of 1314
Thread Starter 
I also think this is an apropos moment to quote my OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Today, in Lahore, Pakistan, hundreds of victims celebrating Easter, mainly women and children. Current reports are at least 60 dead. This of course on the heels of the Belgium bombings earlier this week. It seems that, very tragically, an official thread on terrorist bombings is called for. As we seem to focus on Euro events more my hopes are that a dedicated bombing thread will encourage more reflection/talk on bombings like today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35908512

What could make someone focus such an attack on women and children? frown.gif
post #973 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Skinny nerds have been historically bullied, beat up...had sand kicked in their faces. Why should motive not amplify punishment in this class of historically persecuted people? This is just an example. Protected classes get created and I'm not sure in this case appealing to them for a separate set of laws is a good thing; either expand beyond the protected classes to deal with prejudicial motive in all cases or remove it.

Seriously, you trot out this middle-school-redditor example? Yes, nerds get beaten up. But "nerd" hasn't been deemed a protected category because we (collectively, through the channels of representative government) haven't deemed the history of picking on nerds as extensive and programmatic (e.g., in cahoots with official government policy) as the history of persecuting other groups. In this case, we've chosen to allow the existing channels (school discipline, legal) to police violence against nerds. In the cases of violence against racial minorities, or queer people, or religious minorities, we've collectively decided that additional protections are necessary. Obviously, what groups merit additional protection will change historically. (If we were to go back in time to create hate crime laws for different time periods, there might've been a really good reason to protect redheads; now, that would be completely ridiculous.) Maybe eventually we'll deem "nerd" a protected category. But there's good enough reason now that that seems ridiculous.

The basic no-shit-Sherlock-point is that protected classes don't just "get created"; they're defined as an attempt to correct existing patterns. Those definitions might not be perfect, but this "what about this other group!" rhetoric is tripe.

Again, I have no idea how effective hate crime laws are at doing what they're supposed to be doing. I still think your brand of critique is reveals the politics of what's at stake above and beyond practical effectiveness.
post #974 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Seriously, you trot out this middle-school-redditor example? Yes, nerds get beaten up. But "nerd" hasn't been deemed a protected category because we (collectively, through the channels of representative government) haven't deemed the history of picking on nerds as extensive and programmatic (e.g., in cahoots with official government policy) as the history of persecuting other groups. In this case, we've chosen to allow the existing channels (school discipline, legal) to police violence against nerds. In the cases of violence against racial minorities, or queer people, or religious minorities, we've collectively decided that additional protections are necessary. Obviously, what groups merit additional protection will change historically. (If we were to go back in time to create hate crime laws for different time periods, there might've been a really good reason to protect redheads; now, that would be completely ridiculous.) Maybe eventually we'll deem "nerd" a protected category. But there's good enough reason now that that seems ridiculous.

The basic no-shit-Sherlock-point is that protected classes don't just "get created"; they're defined as an attempt to correct existing patterns. Those definitions might not be perfect, but this "what about this other group!" rhetoric is tripe.

Again, I have no idea how effective hate crime laws are at doing what they're supposed to be doing. I still think your brand of critique is reveals the politics of what's at stake above and beyond practical effectiveness.

LOL, talk about "no shit Sherlock."

As I said, I'm questioning the efficacy of appealing to the protected classes in this situation.

I am deeply interested in having you expand on the second bolded section. My only "politics" in this is creating policy to help foster a better society, and as I have said, I have my doubts this particular policy is doing that.
post #975 of 1314
I had very out of style huge-rimmed 80s glasses (which meh mumz no doubt found 80% off in a bin somewherez) as a young'un in the 90s as well as acne and the plumptitude many gamers develop round the midriff not to mention paleness of the skin.

Frankly, wouldn't have minded dat "protected class". Mandatory eighth grade prom date, no vandalizing of dem Magic Cards..etc
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread