Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate crime nonsense

Options
1…1011131516

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    You have to love this logic. Completely delusional.

    Here's a sentence for you; "I was mugged by a SCUMBAG, I now have a fear of SCUMBAGS, whenever I see a SCUMBAG, I feel threatened. I wish we didn't have SCUMBAGS in this country or anywhere for that matter. I really hate SCUMBAGS."

    You can insert any of the words you like to replace the word SCUMBAG and it changes from a reasonable statement to a racist diatribe.

    When you ignore context the content becomes whatever you want it to be.

    Nope. Wrong.
    Scumbags are scumbags because of their behaviour.
    Being a scumbag is something someone becomes, it is not an innate characteristic of their being alive.

    There's nothing wrong with calling people out or disliking them because of their behaviour. There's a lot wrong in doing the same because of someone race, skin colour, religion etc.
    See the difference?


  • Options
    #363
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    No, no, no and NO.

    You're missing that this new legislation is based entirely on our current loose hate crime laws.


    The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the incident was an incitement to hatred.

    No. It isnt

    1 We have no current hate crime laws
    2 The proposed law has 2 very separate dimensions -

    A: creating new, specific hate aggravated offences for crimes motivated by prejudice against protected characteristics. The new offences will carry tougher sentences than ordinary forms of crime.
    B: updating the Incitement to Hatred Act to clearly outline where hate speech can be considered Incitement to hatred

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR21000084

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General_Scheme_Criminal_Justice_(Hate_Crime)_Bill_2021.pdf/Files/General_Scheme_Criminal_Justice_(Hate_Crime)_Bill_2021.pdf

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #364
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    eleventh wrote: »
    Where are you getting that from? This is what it says:

    if— (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, a person displays racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual, or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by racist, homophobic, xenophobic,anti-religious prejudice or disability hate crime towards a relevant individual

    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

    This Bill is irrelevant. It is no longer on the table because The Minister has new proposals.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #365
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    Annasopra wrote: »
    It was pure racism suggesting as a black man that he couldnt be Irish and constant harassment and even death threats.

    That was pretty shameful alright


  • Options
    #366
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Nope. Wrong.
    Scumbags are scumbags because of their behaviour.
    Being a scumbag is something someone becomes, it is not an innate characteristic of their being alive.

    There's nothing wrong with calling people out or disliking them because of their behaviour. There's a lot wrong in doing the same because of someone race, skin colour, religion etc.
    See the difference?

    Its amazing the amount of airtime, fuss, conversation etc etc race is getting in Ireland. Considering 1.6% of the population are black for example.

    Watching sky sports news they have a segment covering the latest sports stories and upcoming games. Both speakers are black, one is black and female. The thumbnail to the side is advertising a program about racism presented by micah Richards. Just went to ads and the first one was about kicking racism out of sport.

    The United states is bogged down in everything race too.

    Where are we going


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Nope. Wrong.
    Scumbags are scumbags because of their behaviour.
    Being a scumbag is something someone becomes, it is not an innate characteristic of their being alive.

    There's nothing wrong with calling people out or disliking them because of their behaviour. There's a lot wrong in doing the same because of someone race, skin colour, religion etc.
    See the difference?

    People dislike travellers because of their behaviour.

    "Nope, wrong" is a bold opening gambit for someone who goes on to both disprove their own point and strengthen the one they are attempting to disprove within two short paragraphs. Bravo.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #368
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Nope. Wrong.
    Scumbags are scumbags because of their behaviour.
    Being a scumbag is something someone becomes, it is not an innate characteristic of their being alive.

    There's nothing wrong with calling people out or disliking them because of their behaviour. There's a lot wrong in doing the same because of someone race, skin colour, religion etc.
    See the difference?

    You'll find numerous examples on this site alone of people criticizing individuals, and being called racist or sexist because of it. You frame these things as if they are clear cut, but they are not to certain people. While of course we'd hope that judges would have the clarity of mind to see the distinctions, that may not always be the case. Hence the worry.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #369
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    You'll find numerous examples on this site alone of people criticizing individuals, and being called racist or sexist because of it. You frame these things as if they are clear cut, but they are not to certain people. While of course we'd hope that judges would have the clarity of mind to see the distinctions, that may not always be the case. Hence the worry.

    Don't worry about judges. They are where they are because they know and understand the law.
    Things are clear cut. It's really very simple. Behaviour is criminal or not. People are people.


  • Options
    #370
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GarIT wrote: »
    So that becomes irrelevant if new legislation passed that will be used instead, you don't have to meet the standard expected in both, just in the newer one. That's the point of this new proposal, to address complaints that the old legislation was too difficult to actually use.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/1217/1185042-hate-speech/
    "The Bill will involve the repeal of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989."

    So you'll have to do better than just posting a link with no explanation of how you think it's relevant. Or are you just going to call me stupid again and tell me to read more without saying anything meaningful?


    Lets test this new legislation out.

    I, Hello 2D Person Below, think that GarIT is a filthy, f*ggot, racist.


  • Options
    #371
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,553 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    nullzero wrote: »
    People dislike travellers because of their behaviour.
    I think the point being made is that people justify a dislike of or negative disposition towards all travellers because of the behaviour of less than all of them, and that 'tar them all with the same brush' argument seems to be more acceptable when it comes to travellers than others.


    If somebody were to express the sentiment that they'd had bad experiences with black people in the past so they'd never consider (for example) giving a job to one in the future, that sentiment would be more roundly criticised than if they said the same thing about travellers.


    Don't get me wrong, if I'm honest it's a sentiment I'm probably guilty of myself (in the sense of general wariness at least), but I can see that it does involve an unfair assignment of collective guilt towards individual members of the community who have done nothing to merit it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    osarusan wrote: »
    I think the point being made is that people justify a dislike of or negative disposition towards all travellers because of the behaviour of less than all of them, and that 'tar them all with the same brush' argument seems to be more acceptable when it comes to travellers than others.


    If somebody were to express the sentiment that they'd had bad experiences with black people in the past so they'd never consider (for example) giving a job to one in the future, that sentiment would be more roundly criticised than if they said the same thing about travellers.


    Don't get me wrong, if I'm honest it's a sentiment I'm probably guilty of myself (in the sense of general wariness at least), but I can see that it does involve an unfair assignment of collective guilt towards individual members of the community who have done nothing to merit it.

    Again comparing travellers to groups of people with certain skin colours doesn't work.

    It isn't possible to make statements about the behaviour of all black people, white people or say Muslims. The problem facing travellers is that the negative behaviour people associate with them is more common than in any other group listed above. The comparisons don't work unfortunately.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #373
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    Again comparing travellers to groups of people with certain skin colours doesn't work.

    It isn't possible to make statements about the behaviour of all black people, white people or say Muslims. The problem facing travellers is that the negative behaviour people associate with them is more common than in any other group listed above. The comparisons don't work unfortunately.

    do you admit that this is completely discriminatory?


  • Options
    #374
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    bubblypop wrote: »
    do you admit that this is completely discriminatory?

    It is discrimination. It just isn't based in xenophobia, it's based in fear of a group of people who cause material damage to others. It isn't racism, it isn't in the same ball park as racism.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #375
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    osarusan wrote: »
    I think the point being made is that people justify a dislike of or negative disposition towards all travellers because of the behaviour of less than all of them, and that 'tar them all with the same brush' argument seems to be more acceptable when it comes to travellers than others.


    If somebody were to express the sentiment that they'd had bad experiences with black people in the past so they'd never consider (for example) giving a job to one in the future, that sentiment would be more roundly criticised than if they said the same thing about travellers.


    Don't get me wrong, if I'm honest it's a sentiment I'm probably guilty of myself (in the sense of general wariness at least), but I can see that it does involve an unfair assignment of collective guilt towards individual members of the community who have done nothing to merit it.

    This is purely a product of evolutionary psychology though. If you get bitten by every dog you see, you're natural skeptical of all dogs, even if they aren't a threat. Humans need these mechanism to protect themselves. This is the problem I've always had generally with politically correct behavior. If you embrace it in the extreme, you drop all your self-protection mechanisms, and you treat all groups equally, even if one group is a bigger risk to your well being than an other.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #376
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    It is discrimination. It just isn't based in xenophobia, it's based in fear of a group of people who cause material damage to others. It isn't racism, it isn't in the same ball park as racism.

    Racism is discrimination based on race.
    So, it is the same.

    I actually believe you can't see it. Where you said
    'fear of a group of people who cause material damage to others'
    You are not speaking about the actual people that cause that damage, you are speaking about everybody of the same ethnicity and saying that they all, cause that damage. Which is not true and is discrimination.
    Same as racism.


  • Options
    #377
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Racism is discrimination based on race.
    So, it is the same.

    I actually believe you can't see it. Where you said
    'fear of a group of people who cause material damage to others'
    You are not speaking about the actual people that cause that damage, you are speaking about everybody of the same ethnicity and saying that they all, cause that damage. Which is not true and is discrimination.
    Same as racism.

    It really isn't the same.

    Believe what you like, we'll never agree.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #378
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    It really isn't the same.

    Believe what you like, we'll never agree.

    We won't agree because you cannot admit that discrimination against any minority is the same.


  • Options
    #379
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    bubblypop wrote: »
    We won't agree because you cannot admit that discrimination against any minority is the same.

    You can't understand that people are afraid of travellers as a group because of their behaviour. That doesn't equate to everyone who has issues with travellers having those issues based solely on their ethnicity.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #380
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    You can't understand that people are afraid of travellers as a group because of their behaviour. That doesn't equate to everyone who has issues with travellers having those issues based solely on their ethnicity.

    And you don't seem to understand that the behaviour of some travellers does not allow one to discriminate against all travellers.
    This is why Irish people think they are not racist #rolleyes#


  • Options
    #381
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Here’s the proposal, it’s very easy to read and is only a few sentences.

    Read it and once you’ve read it say why you disagree with it.

    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2020/52/eng/initiated/b5220s.pdf

    I’ve read, I understand it. Can you say the same?
    Annasopra wrote: »
    This Bill is irrelevant. It is no longer on the table because The Minister has new proposals.

    What new proposals? What has changed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    It really isn't the same.

    Believe what you like, we'll never agree.

    Actively fearing or hating an individual by virtue of their birth is very much so a form of racism...


  • Options
    #383
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Nope. Wrong.
    Scumbags are scumbags because of their behaviour.
    Being a scumbag is something someone becomes, it is not an innate characteristic of their being alive.

    There's nothing wrong with calling people out or disliking them because of their behaviour. There's a lot wrong in doing the same because of someone race, skin colour, religion etc.
    See the difference?
    The problem with this though is it gives a scumbag who also happens to be black, religious etc carte blanche to throw their weight around and when they are injured then claim hate crime.


  • Options
    #384
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Actively fearing or hating an individual by virtue of their birth is very much so a form of racism...

    I already stated that isn't what's going on.

    You have your mind made up every time you read something, facts aren't important to you.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #385
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    bubblypop wrote: »
    And you don't seem to understand that the behaviour of some travellers does not allow one to discriminate against all travellers.
    This is why Irish people think they are not racist #rolleyes#

    You don't have to seem bother reading anything before being shocked by it.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #386
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eleventh wrote: »
    The problem with this though is it gives a scumbag who also happens to be black, religious etc carte blanche to throw their weight around and when they are injured then claim hate crime.

    No it doesnt.
    Why are people coming up with this type of nonsense?


  • Options
    #387
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bubblypop wrote: »
    No it doesnt.
    Why are people coming up with this type of nonsense?

    At a guess I'd say it's because that's what groups like BLM have done in America.

    Any bad thing that happens to a black person can be boiled down to racism.


  • Options
    #388
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    eleventh wrote: »
    What new proposals? What has changed?

    The Seanad Bill from 2020 is not relevant to this discussion because Minister McEntee has new proposals.

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR21000084

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General_Scheme_Criminal_Justice_(Hate_Crime)_Bill_2021.pdf/Files/General_Scheme_Criminal_Justice_(Hate_Crime)_Bill_2021.pdf

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #389
    JaCrispy
    Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭JaCrispy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    At a guess I'd say it's because that's what groups like BLM have done in America.

    Any bad thing that happens to a black person can be boiled down to racism.


    Spot on


  • Options
    #390
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    At a guess I'd say it's because that's what groups like BLM have done in America.

    Any bad thing that happens to a black person can be boiled down to racism.

    But Minister McEntee has clearly outlined how this legislation wouldn't be like that. There would have to be proof of the hate part of it.

    "The new offences also carry a provision for an alternative verdict, where the ‘hate’ element of the offence has not been proven. In such cases, the person can be found guilty of the ordinary version of the offence, rather than the aggravated version."

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,792 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you cross the road if you see someone walking a Greyhound/Rottweiler/Akita/Boxer/Bulldog (on a leash) , does it make you doggist if you don't cross the road when encountering similarly leashed dogs ie Labrador/Pug/Pomeranian?

    It's evolution - fear is learned, and is grounded in reason and experience...

    Not a response to any post in particular; just trying to get the 'logic count' up on the thread.. :cool: (obligatory smiley - that one felt most apt)


Advertisement