Should calling someone a "rasist" qualify as hate speach?

I believe 95% of the time the word is misused. The rifts between people of other regions, is almost always based on differences in culture and not actual skin color.
Different cultures often clash, and cause offense to each other. That is the basis of the friction between people of different regions. Once the friction is established, then the name calling includes all differences including skin color, but the skin color is seldom what causes the friction to begin with.


Racism has become a political tool, and maintaining the lie of racism, is central to some political agendas. The fact is what is portrayed as racism, is usually actually culturalism.

The reason it is mislabeled is to perpetuate the problem. You see friction based on culture and behavior can be improved and diminished. Friction based on race cannot be changed and therefore is unsolvable. All problems contain a lie, and when you identify the lie, the problem unravels.

The lie of racism is perpetuated to serve a political agenda to divide and conquer.

 

I can agree. It's also true that a group that has a particularly outstanding aspect will be identified by the common marker, and that is often color- even though the characteristic is conduct.
I white dogs were responsible for the large majority of dog bites- people would be wary of white dogs. Or brown dogs, or black dogs, or whichever group constituted the frequent or probable biters.
While that is identification of individuals by race linking to probability,but it's not due to the race itself. That's a hard one for people to sort out....

 

Why should you not be able to call a racist what he is?

Why should we not be able to call a racist what he is? If you don't want to be called a racist then don't do or say racist things - simple.

Same with a fascist. If you don't want to be called on don't go to fascist rallies or say that they people doing so are very good people.

 

But calling people racist does not make them racist- and that is the problem today. It is slander, libel and simply an effort to make fodder for the political weaponry.
To be called down for being white, (or black) being a male, having any pride in yourself- by people who have no idea who you are or know anything about you- hardly objective or reasonable.

 

Maybe not but if someone displays racist behavior why should it be a crime not to point it out?

If we are talking about someone like Donald Trump, there is a long history there. I for one am not going to be cowed into not talking about it. Nobody is against white people being proud but white grievance against minorities who are trying to attain equality is another thing.

If we are for free speech, why is it okay to call someone a communist or Pol Pot supporter to make a political point but a racist is out of bounds somehow?

 

"Racist behavior" has been determined to be automatic if you are white by some. It's become automatic for a minority who is fired, doesn't get the job or loan- to cry racist. Nothing wrong with calling something what it is- provided you are genuinely doing that, and not just throwing trash. True racist behavior is actually quite rare today- the bulk of what is called racist is something twisted for sake of it becoming useful to damage someone. Implied, alleged- such actions harm people's reputations when there isn't a shred of proof. That makes it a weapon for people who lack character- and that is an issue that has exploded in the last decade or so. It's mostly BS, and it DOES NOT do any good for the nation or the problem. It's actually detrimental to the process of ending genuine racism- keeping it alive by distorting the term into meaning whatever is convenient.

"Long history" in regards to Donald Trump is a prime example. I've seen that slander at least a hundred times, but yet to see any legitimate examplewhere Trump has acted as a racist. Not one.

 

So you are judge, jury, and executioner? The fact is it is a derogatory term, and one used to depict hate for someone else. If hate speech is going to be a thing, then the word racist defiantly meets the criteria.

 

Oh, BS. The same guys who are always whining about PC now want to make it a hate crime to call out someone for racism.

The hypocrisy never fails to astound.

Good luck with making the word racist hate speech. Clearly humans rights and law are not your strong points.

Is this a new meme, or something on Brietbart or another of the right-wing disinfo rags?

 

If I call you a f@@ or a n@@@@@ it is not necessarily central to my motive. The derogatory reference may not say anything about why someone was attacked. If I call you a f@@, it would not reflect my motive, if I did so in a jealous rage because you dated my gay lover. It may be used to goad you into hitting me first as part of the natural course of escalation. But my motive is to keep you specifically away from my lover, not because I hate gay people or intend to harm gay people. The broader gay community is not a target, and need not be intimidated.

But if I called you a f@@, as part of a group of thugs sitting outside a gay bar looking for anonymous queers to attack, then I am attacking you simply because I think you are gay, and gays who frequent that bar or more broadly in the community are directly impacted. We all have reason to worry about you and your comrades every time we walk down a street at night holding hands.

If investigators search your texts, and find you had planned to go gay bashing, or that you were part of online chatroom devoted to anti-gay advocacy and saw posters of gay celebrities with red 'X' s across their faces, that same slur is now evidence of a hate crime.

'hate speech' may be evidence of a hate crime, but it has to shown to be central to the motive rather than incidental . Its an obvious clue that a hate crime may have been committed, but it can just as often be deceptive in the search for motive.

Its important to know that first you have to prove the crime by a reasonable doubt, then you have to prove that the conduct deserved a more harsh sentence secondary to an aggravating factor by meeting yet another burden of proof . One of those factors deemed deserving is hate crime status. you have to meet a separate showing of intent.

 

I don't see racist behavior as being automatic at all. If someone makes racist comments or actions, why cannot we call them out on it? You've yet to see a legitimate example of racist behavior from Trump????? Really.

He and his father both discriminated on minorities in their real-estate holdings. There was the central park incident where he called for the death penalty even after they were proven innocent. His whole political career started on the racist conspiracy theory that Obama was not an American and he declared a judge unable to fairly decide a case because he was Mexican.

And that was all before he was elected - I could go on and on. His policies are clearly meant to divide American and blame immigrants fleeing war and poverty - often caused by our own policies - for their plight. Just because you deny that Trump has said or done anything racist does not mean he hasn't.

The truth is that white Europeans and later Americans have been on a centuries long orgy of plunder, conquest and murder through the use of industrialized weaponry and have become so sure of their own entitlement to rule the world and its resources that any challenge by other races is seen as a threat. As resources become more and more scarce and the world become more populated that threat grows as whites more and more are left behind by a failing economic system and experience the poverty that others have felt for so long.

This is from Chris Hedges new book:

"The American negro has the great advantage of having never believed the collection of myths to which white Americans cling: that their ancestors were freedom loving heroes, that they were born in the greatest country that the world has ever seen, or that Americans are invincible in battle and wise in peace, that Americans have always dealt honourably with Mexicans and Indians or all other neighbors, that American men are the most virile, that American women are pure.

America was founded on an imagined moral superiority and purity. The fact that dominance of others, came and still comes from unrestrained acts of violence is washed out of the national narrative. The steadfast failure to face the truth, Baldwin (James) warned, perpetuates a kind of collective psychosis. Unable to face the truth, white Americans stunt and destroy their capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism. they construct a world of self-serving fantasy. Those who imbibe the myth of whiteness externalize evil - their own evil - onto their victims. Racism, Baldwin understood, is driven by an inner loneliness and latent guilt."

Look I'm not going to say that you shouldn't be proud to be white but I think there is more going on. This new meme of victimization of whites is in complete denial of our long history of brutality and conquest from one end of the indigenous world to the other and all our wars for resources in the Middle East. It is born of a realization that we are no longer the burden of ruling the world and now experiencing the same failed economic system that we have subjected others to for so long.

I am proud of my Scottish heritage. That does not mean I have to whitewash the past or play victim.

The sooner whites res

 

Your post is typical of the hostility of the left towards honest discussion of the issues. It is ashamed you are not civil enough to discuss this issue with civility. The fact is hate speach is more than just racial or sexual in nature, and that it is practiced on the left as much as on the right....

 

Thank you for the intelligent post. Would not your same example work for other examples, such as protesters who go to a Trump rally looking to incite violence against Trump supporters, and who use slurs during that attack? Or someone who is slurred and threatened with, or actually attacked for wearing a MAGA hat?

 

Sorry if I was uncivil. It appears you are trying to criminalize the ability to call behavior racist. I see that as a repression of my right to freedom of speech.

I am certainly willing to discuss with you. Keep in mind though, the left certainly has no copyright on incivility. Right-wing attack media are not a bunch of buttercups promoting civility and kind words to all. Don't forget myself and others are regularly attacked for ideas. I agree that civility makes for better interaction though so I will tone it down.

Al I was asking is if all this new butt-hurt and victimhood is a new meme? The victimhood of whites seems to be a regularly occurring theme these days.

 

Calling a behavior racist, and calling a person racist is two completely different things. It is my point that prejudice is not something the right has a copyright on either. The word racist is often accompanied by violence in places like Trump rallies, or other conservative gatherings which attract protesters sometimes seeking violence. People have been called racists and attacked for doing nothing more that wearing a MAGA hat. Should that be prosecuted as a hate crime?

 

Nope, just a crime. I am against violent protest and against the use of violence in counter protests.

 

So what is your reasoning that a racial slur or sexual slur while comiting a violent crime is a hate crime, but the slur of racist is not?

 

The most important thing about anecdotes is not to read in what isn't there. Obama would not be an American under many circumstances- and being black isn't one of them.
While I don't rent property, I've been involved in construction of projects that certainly provided damn good reason for people to think in racist terms, and be very careful who you rented property to. But I still see all people as having value determined by their actions and values. One of our problems has been making minority race a free pass- blaming everything that happens to a minority on discrimination. Tain't so as granny used to say- but it's a handy excuse that a lot of minorities rush to take advantage of. That too, is racism.

 

You may have to clarify the slur so that I know what form of hate speech you are referencing. In the hate crime statutes they are pretty specific about the classes of discrimination into which they fall based on historic claims of targeting. They will mention 'race' 'religion' 'orientation' just as they do in civil rights statutes or ordinances, because those groups have historically been targeted in campaigns of fear, repression and harassment. Its unlikely they are going to include political targets in a hate crime statute such as trump supporters or Republicans or environmental activists etc because obviously those groups do not carry that historical baggage. Civil Rights laws never cover discrimination based on political affiliation either.

That could change, if you decide to amend the hate crime or civil rights laws to include political affiliation as a protected class.

 

Seems like policy based more on politics than justice......

 

No. You do understand the logic behind these statutes. The theory is that society/ community is also a victim of a hate crime. They lead to deep historic and cultural divisions within communities with mistrust, fear and civil unrest in their wake. Hate crimes such as lynchings and gay bashings are about terrorizing classes that been around while. The classification choices are a reflection of history - unless you want to tell me there is a long established history of Trump supporters being driven out of neighborhoods or subjugated throughout the 20th century.

You can decide to amend these laws to include political affiliation as another class if you can get together a compelling argument that such targeting results in the same sort of societal victimization and get the votes to do it.

 

There has been history of Trump supporters being attacked, beaten, and having their rights deprived for no other reason than their political views.
You do not think that is worth classifying as hate? How about the war protesters of the 60's who were beaten and shot down for their political views?
Are people undeserving of equal protection under the law just because they do not belong to a certain race or sexual orientation?

 

No. When people deal in the ridiculous, inane, and irrational their peers should shame them. That isn’t “hate” speech.

People have the right to think and say stupid things and others have the right to point out their stupidity.

When it comes to race we do need to serve up a large helping of shame and do a better job of living up to our aspirations.

 

Well there has been a history of people fired for their political beliefs, denied service, or harassed for expressing them, bullied, attacked and denied employment for a hell of a long time. Think of how early union supporters and socialists were treated. The entire McCarthy era red scare was based on it, as was the treatment of civil rights activists of any race. Every major reform movement has been treated to harassment, often physical intimidation and assault. If you want to consider non discrimination and hate crime laws based on political ideology, or party or candidate affiliation, I am willing to consider it, but the scope has to be a bit broader than protecting the owners of a MAGA hat, or those Trump supporters.

 

There you go again!

Ruining a right wing whine with inconvenient FACTS!

Spoilsport!

 

"Should calling someone a "rasist" qualify as hate speach?"

not if they are a racist

now if one beats up a black or white person cause they think they are a racist only because of their skin color, then yes, that would be a hate crime in my book, because they are assaulting people based on race and race alone

one has to commit a crime based only on their victims race to be a hate crime