nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hate crime? Really?

The Highwayman

There are a lot of things I'd call this behaviour but a hate crime? No, not everything you experience or dislike is a hate crime.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/sinead-burke-talks-about-the-hate-crime-that-led-to-her-new-campaign-in-dublin-schools-38007423.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

the_pen_turner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Right... except you'd be wrong because mocking a black person for being black is a hate crime. It incites hatred.

Yep, some people feel very comfortable reducing the near-constant suffering of others down to the level of their own mundane and very rare struggles.

The same people will also histrionically elevate any and all attempts to protect the vulnerable as some grand oppression of their own race or class.

i dont agree in all cases. years ago when i was in school there was a black kid in our class. i wouldnt call him a friend as such but his really close friends would regularly have 'banter' and use his colour or nationality etc as the ammunition against him. he would do similar back . no hatred between any of them. it was all joking among friends.

i wouldnt dream of saying any of what they would say. if you didnt know thm you would call them (and him) racist and scumbags

in lot of cases your right though

B0jangles

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yep, some people feel very comfortable reducing the near-constant suffering of others down to the level of their own mundane and very rare struggles.

The same people will also histrionically elevate any and all attempts to protect the vulnerable as some grand oppression of their own race or class.

It's like they compulsively check to see there is any personal benefit to themselves if an accomodation is made to help someone gain access to something would otherwise be closed off to them, and if there isn't they scream that it's NOT FAIR.

AtomicHorror

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would put this type of thing down as racism or scumbag behavior . if it was on the more serious end of the scale like murder etc then it could be a hate crime

Right... except you'd be wrong because mocking a black person for being black is a hate crime. It incites hatred.

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

"Sher I get mocked for [insert "having red hair" and/or "being a culchie"].

Yep, some people feel very comfortable reducing the near-constant suffering of others down to the level of their own mundane and very rare struggles.

The same people will also histrionically elevate any and all attempts to protect the vulnerable as some grand oppression of their own race or class.

the_pen_turner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If the feature of the person's appearance being mocked was their dark brown skin, would you make the same assessment?

i would put this type of thing down as racism or scumbag behavior . if it was on the more serious end of the scale like murder etc then it could be a hate crime

my point is that most bulling is done to people that fit into those bracets and labels

AtomicHorror

Sorry about that wrote: »

2 children acted on impulse and humiliated a total stranger, purely because of her height. I don’t think it was a hate crime though.

Nor are the nasty jokes made by a few and thanked by so many adults, the veil of anonymity really shows some true colours. Hopefully Sinead isn’t interested in boards.

She's extremely social media savvy and internet aware, though she likely has more sense than to visit the cesspit that AH is these days.

Sorry about that

2 children acted on impulse and humiliated a total stranger, purely because of her height. I don’t think it was a hate crime though.

Nor are the nasty jokes made by a few and thanked by so many adults, the veil of anonymity really shows some true colours. Hopefully Sinead isn’t interested in boards.

Gimme A Pound

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If the feature of the person's appearance being mocked was their dark brown skin, would you make the same assessment?

"Sher I get mocked for [insert "having red hair" and/or "being a culchie"].

AtomicHorror

the_pen_turner wrote: »

surely everyone that was bullied or made fun of for their aperance etc would fit into this bracket

scumbag behaviour yes
hate crime no

If the feature of the person's appearance being mocked was their dark brown skin, would you make the same assessment?

AtomicHorror

Philip Grammar wrote: »

There's no evidence that those boys felt any hatred towards Sinead. Generally speaking I would say laughter is not indicative of hatred.

I actually sense hatred on this thread towards the two boys, perhaps justified, but hatred nonetheless.

Hate crimes are defined based on targeting of an individual based on prejudice, based on their racial or other detectable characteristics, not on whether the perpetrators felt hate, disgust or whatever. If the outcome is an incitement to more prejudice, it's a hate crime.

Philip Grammar wrote: »

"Targeting" someone because of their size does not in itself indicate hatred. The motivation could solely be the opportunity to humiliate someone. Do we even know if the boys intended for Sinead to hear their laughter?

Irrelevant. If they intended to humiliate her or not, it was an obvious outcome. At best they were reckless.

Intentionally humiliating a person, either having targeted them based on their race/other status, or exploiting a feature unique to that status seems to fit the bill of a hate crime pretty well.

Philip Grammar wrote: »

Perhaps a humour crime would be a more apt description.

A nice way to make something horrible sound like something not worth taking seriously.

LessOutragePlz

Philip Grammar wrote: »

Do you understand what hatred is or are you just another lemming that takes on buzz words and applies them without hought?

Yes I do understand what hatred is but I think the best person or people to judge whether these people are guilty of a hate crime is a judge and/or jury in a courtroom.

LessOutragePlz

Philip Grammar wrote: »

"Targeting" someone because of their size does not in itself indicated hatred. The motivation could solely be the opportunity to humiliate someone. Do we even know if the boys intended for Sinead to hear their laughter?

Perhaps a humour crime would be a more apt description.

Humour crime:rolleyes:

Newly registered user and your first 2 posts are on this thread to join another troll have ye nothing better to do on a Sunday evening lads?

the_pen_turner

surely everyone that was bullied or made fun of for their aperance etc would fit into this bracket

scumbag behaviour yes
hate crime no

Gimme A Pound

She was obviously targeted because of her size.

Such contortions to downplay what she experienced (and to make people feel better about being arseholes).

AtomicHorror

Trump Is Right wrote: »

The fact she was a midget, doesn't prove they harbour any hatred of midgets. It could have been purely a dumb opportunistic moment. They quite possibly don't give a fuc what or who she is... they were just out for dumb laughs!

Many people with dwarfism consider "midget" an offensive label. You almost certainly know this, but let's play benefit of the doubt. Since the term makes no useful distinction in this discussion, how about you stop using it?

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Did they physically or verbally assault her based on her disability?

I seen something similar with an eircom worker... some young scroat (of the tracksuit wearing variety) decided to leapfrogg over this worker while he was on the ground fixing something in one of those electricity boxes...

I doubt those kids harbour any hatred for eircom workers... they just saw an opportunity for cheap laughs at someone else's expense! :P

They weren't able to jump over the Eircom worker because of a trait innate to all Eircom workers, they could do it because he was on the ground. The Eircom worker can stand up and defend himself. Short stature is the defining quality of dwarfism. The attackers exploited that trait.

Trump Is Right wrote: »

People are too quick to label everything these days, and invent some huge outrage... when it's quite possible that this was just some bored knuckleheads with nothing better to do than make stupid videos of stupid **** they get up to!

No. People are too eager to entertain and tolerate those who seek to take the grey areas of life and make them bigger as a means to block protections for the vulnerable. People who exploit tolerance itself.

Play the grey areas, "joke" about the vulnerable, falsely play devils advocate. Always write or speak in such a way that you can pivot back to it being honest "ignorance" ("oh I don't know the right PC term to describe Pakis these days") or a joke.

Trump Is Right

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In this case, an act of hate is referring to the act of having contempt for a person's rights and their dignity. Whether you show such contempt because of a dislike for them, or sheer apathy towards another human being's feelings, to be so contemptuous is a hateful act.

I'll omit the first part of your post, as it's not really relevant to me... and you were rambling a touch!

I'm not saying this was a particularly polite thing that these chaps did to this woman... but there is a very high probability that they were simply doing dumb **** for a laugh.

Not everything in life is some kind of giant outrage. Maybe if we were talking about a group or individual that continually seeks out minorities for ridicule based on their disability, race, etc... then you might have a point.

This seems more like a case of dumb kids doing dumb opportunistic **** for a laugh!

But I will of course stand to be corrected, if it turns out these chaps have some kind of longstanding record of targeting certain individuals in society. I highly doubt that is the case here though... very unlikely!

[Deleted User]

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Did they physically or verbally assault her based on her disability?

Yes.

Trump Is Right

Arjun Low Visa wrote: »

Omitting evidence doesn't make you right. One nudged the other, pointed at her and both laughed, then proceeded to assault her. It's quite clear that she was targeted due to her size. You can argue otherwise, but it will be difficult.

The fact she was a midget, doesn't prove they harbour any hatred of midgets. It could have been purely a dumb opportunistic moment. They quite possibly don't give a fuc what or who she is... they were just out for dumb laughs!

Did they physically or verbally assault her based on her disability?

I seen something similar with an eircom worker... some young scroat (of the tracksuit wearing variety) decided to leapfrogg over this worker while he was on the ground fixing something in one of those electricity boxes...

I doubt those kids harbour any hatred for eircom workers... they just saw an opportunity for cheap laughs at someone else's expense! :P

People are too quick to label everything these days, and invent some huge outrage... when it's quite possible that this was just some bored knuckleheads with nothing better to do than make stupid videos of stupid **** they get up to!

Not a hate crime... just idiot kids doing dumb ****... (probably) :pac:

AtomicHorror

Blueshoe wrote: »

Like all species the strongest survive. Anyone different from the herd will get picked on or treated different. It's primal man. All the virtue signalling in the world isn't going to change that

This must be one of the most moronic interpretations of evolution-as-life-philosophy I've seen in years.

Hey, I'm going to adopt gravity as a life philsophy. Stuff falls down. It's primal, man. If people are lying down, they can't get up. Airplanes are immoral. Birds are a government conspiracy.

ohnonotgmail

Trump Is Right wrote: »

I seem to know more than you... :rolleyes:

You're just quoting a website, without providing anything else to back it up.

Anyone can make an allegation of a crime that they perceive to be motivated by hatred... but they need to prove a motivation of hatred.

Leapfrogging over someone, does not prove you hate them or other people like them!

Your ignorance is that you think that there is an actual offence called "hate crime".

[Deleted User]

Trump Is Right wrote: »

I seem to know more than you... :rolleyes:

You're just quoting a website, without providing anything else to back it up.

Anyone can make an allegation of a crime that they perceive to be motivated by hatred... but they need to prove a motivation of hatred.

Leapfrogging over someone, does not prove you hate them or other people like them!

It's always interesting how many people on the right or perhaps the alt-right are only consumed by linguistics when it involves a socio-political debate.. "I can't be homophobic because I don't fear the gays"

In this case, an act of hate is referring to the act of having contempt for a person's rights and their dignity. Whether you show such contempt because of a dislike for them, or sheer apathy towards another human being's feelings, to be so contemptuous is a hateful act.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Trump Is Right wrote: »

I seem to know more than you... :rolleyes:

You're just quoting a website, without providing anything else to back it up.

Anyone can make an allegation of a crime that they perceive to be motivated by hatred... but they need to prove a motivation of hatred.

Leapfrogging over someone, does not prove you hate them or other people like them!

Omitting evidence doesn't make you right. One nudged the other, pointed at her and both laughed, then proceeded to assault her. It's quite clear that she was targeted due to her size. You can argue otherwise, but it will be difficult.

Gimme A Pound

I don't know if it was a hate crime either but wording is not as big a deal as what was done to the woman, and what she has to put up with constantly.

Teddy Daniels wrote: »

Well this one suggests she’s one of the 7 dwarfs but it was let off by the mods.

No it wasn't. He got banned.

[Deleted User]

Your Face wrote: »

I don't think we should overlook her story of being publicly belittled.
I know it might be low on the list of hate crimes but we shouldnt look down on anyone.

Is this a pun of the year joke contribution??

beLITTLED? OVERlook? LOW on the list?? look DOWN on? Alan carr stuff ...
it's a s funny as being called a hate crime.

Trump Is Right

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your ignorance is showing. You have not got a clue what you are talking about.

I seem to know more than you... :rolleyes:

You're just quoting a website, without providing anything else to back it up.

Anyone can make an allegation of a crime that they perceive to be motivated by hatred... but they need to prove a motivation of hatred.

Leapfrogging over someone, does not prove you hate them or other people like them!

Ash.J.Williams

I don't know what schools are like now but coming to our school for a talk would be comical

ohnonotgmail

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Well someone does, if they are seeking action to be taken against these guys.

If you can't prove a motivation of hatred behind their actions, how can you call it such?

That's only in order to make the accusation. If you wanted anyone to be punished for a hate crime, you need to prove that their motivation for the leapfrogging was indeed hatred... rather than just an opportunistic moment to do something dumb for a laugh! (yes at someone else's expense, but this still does not automatically mean hatred of that person!)

Your ignorance is showing. You have not got a clue what you are talking about.

Sardonicat

Blueshoe wrote: »

Like all species the strongest survive. Anyone different from the herd will get picked on or treated different. It's primal man. All the virtue signalling in the world isn't going to change that

Did you learn that in eugenics 101?
Blueshoe and brown shirt, eh?

Trump Is Right

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont have to prove anything. Anybody who isnt a **** knows what this was.

Well someone does, if they are seeking action to be taken against these guys.

If you can't prove a motivation of hatred behind their actions, how can you call it such?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You don't need to prove hatred. You show that it was perceived as hatred, to meet the definition above.

That's only in order to make the accusation. If you wanted anyone to be punished for a hate crime, you need to prove that their motivation for the leapfrogging was indeed hatred... rather than just an opportunistic moment to do something dumb for a laugh! (yes at someone else's expense, but this still does not automatically mean hatred of that person!)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Deleted User wrote: »

The criminality itself was not the point of the thread. If you want to open another thread about how awful the criminality itself was, go right ahead.

And it was rather unpleasant. Not as bad as being raped or murdered though.

Ah, well if she wasn't raped or murdered then wtf is she complaining for? She should just take it on the chin and stop being so sensitive, right? :rolleyes:

What exactly is the point of comparing a crime with another, especially on somebodies behalf.

Blueshoe wrote: »

Like all species the strongest survive. Anyone different from the herd will get picked on or treated different. It's primal man. All the virtue signalling in the world isn't going to change that

IF that's the case, then it's ok to murder somebody on the street and take their stuff. Survival of the fittest and all that... what utter nonsense. This statement shows how little you actually know about the animal kingdom. Not all species act how you describe. Some actually take care of their sick and injured.

While some animals may be treated differently (mainly down to resources), it's not the default behavior.

It's unfortunate that these degenerates will go about their lives as normal, while harassing the public. Nothing will change until the justice system is overhauled.

[Deleted User]

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Right, but how do you prove that these pair of clowns actually harbour hatred towards midgets?

Leapfrogging over someone doesn't prove you hate them? Unless they shouted something discriminatory before or after the incident, you cannot actually prove hatred.

You don't need to prove hatred. You show that it was perceived as hatred, to meet the definition above.