edavidt - Posted - 02/25/2011:  18:25:45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Here's a local paper article with FAQ's about state and federal statutes along with legislative history.

stlbeacon.org/content/view/102548/487/

---

Quote from the article:

"What is a hate crime?

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property or group that is motivated by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin, according to the FBI. "

Seems like, based on this definition, that a vigilante group that commits crimes selectively against Hispanics might fall into this definition. Depends on how you define "motivated."

---

Edited by - edavidt on 02/25/2011 18:28:53

kipperr - Posted - 02/25/2011:  18:28:41

---

Those examples are much better than the Christian Science Monitor article.

edavidt - Posted - 02/25/2011:  18:33:18

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronnie

Two neo-nazis, Cowart and Schlesselman from my area had plans to assassinate Obama after a state-to-state spree of murdering black people. They were arrested by local authorities and incarcerated in our county jail. This was apparently nipped in the bud before anyone was killed. I don't know the final outcome of the case. I think this would qualify as a hate crime.

---

The question that I have when I read about this kind of behavior is: Why do we have so much of it here? I realize that neo nazism is not limited to the US. But, we seem to have a firmly established base of hate here. And we seem to have more political assassinations, or attempted assassinations, than many other industrialized democracies. Kennedy, Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Reagan, Wallace, and the list goes on.

Ronnie - Posted - 02/25/2011:  18:44:52

---

I don't understand it either. In our great nation, you shouldn't need to dive blindly into the melting pot and forget who you are, and where your folks came from, but try to understand and coexist with your neighbor, and unless you are Native American, we are all illegal immigrants.

kipperr - Posted - 02/25/2011:  18:44:55

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by edavidt
The question that I have when I read about this kind of behavior is: Why do we have so much of it here? I realize that neo nazism is not limited to the US. But, we seem to have a firmly established base of hate here. And we seem to have more political assassinations, or attempted assassinations, than many other industrialized democracies. Kennedy, Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Reagan, Wallace, and the list goes on.

---

The French poster on the earlier page said this: "In France, the discourse of extreme right parties is much less free than in America. Curbing by the laws but also by the popular outcry that would arise immediately." I hate to assume too much here, but according to what he's saying, part of the problem would be that we (or these groups) have more freedom here in the USA than they do /would in France.

I think freedom and democracy are good things, and that the people on your list would agree, even to the giving of their lives.
Or maybe some people would rather pass more oppresive/restrictive laws to try to cut down on any violence and potential problems at all.
In this light, it seems to be the old freedom vs. security tug-of-war. I tug for freedom.

---

Edited by - kipperr on 02/25/2011 18:47:15

edavidt - Posted - 02/26/2011:  00:04:57

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kipperr

In this light, it seems to be the old freedom vs. security tug-of-war. I tug for freedom.

---

I don't think it is helpful to reduce this phenomenon to a single dimension - security versus freedom, for example. This kind of reductive thinking encourages people to rationalize, and accept, violence as some kind of trade off for freedom.

This simply isn't true, and talking about this way clouds the reality of the situation, in my opinion. For example, if we carry your argument to its logical end, then one might advocate for total lack of any form of government - with the resultant freedom that is associated with no government restrictions of any kind.

Unfortunately, as developed nations go, we are a bit on the violent side. We have consistent, regular assassination attempts of political figures, and celebrities, relative to other developed democracies. It is not because we have more freedom. Freedom doesn't cause violence.

Back to hate groups - we, meaning the US also seem to have more of these than other developed documents. Freedom doesn't cause hate. Unless, again, you include the right to hate as some kind of personal freedom.

Regarding freedom of hate speech, which you alluded to regarding the French. Freedom of hate speech is an oxymoron. At least, that would be the way I remember my high school and college discussions in civics.

So, I pose another question to you: What is the difference between inciting hatred with speech that ultimately results in death AND simply shooting someone. Are you saying that to kill with words is an example of a "freedom" but to kill with a gun is crime?

---

Edited by - edavidt on 02/26/2011 00:14:25

jbanjoist - Posted - 02/26/2011:  06:34:10

---

Certainly not endorsing true hate groups but I bet the British considered the people that dumped the tea overboard and the militia they fought against way back when including Washington and Revere as hate groups.......hating the "crown".

just sayin........

kipperr - Posted - 02/26/2011:  07:31:42

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbanjoist

Certainly not endorsing true hate groups but I bet the British considered the people that dumped the tea overboard and the militia they fought against way back when including Washington and Revere as hate groups.......hating the "crown".

just sayin........

---

Yes! I'm sure that the British thought that the revolutionaries were "hating the crown". Sadly, that isn't relevant to the discussion about the recent rise in hate groups & violence in this country during the past two years.

---

I think it is relevant. I think jbanjoist is trying to say is that one man's "hate group" may be another man's "freedom fighters." Che and his followers spring to mind as another example. That's why so much of this thread has concentrated on how to define "hate group." In this case, the definition is important, and certainly not easy to pin down in a way that all or most people would agree or be happy with.

Certainly a very contentious, multi-layered, and interesting (and important) problem and thread.

kipperr - Posted - 02/26/2011:  07:42:35

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by edavidt

I don't think it is helpful to reduce this phenomenon to a single dimension - security versus freedom, for example. This kind of reductive thinking encourages people to rationalize, and accept, violence as some kind of trade off for freedom.

This simply isn't true, and talking about this way clouds the reality of the situation, in my opinion. For example, if we carry your argument to its logical end, then one might advocate for total lack of any form of government - with the resultant freedom that is associated with no government restrictions of any kind.

Unfortunately, as developed nations go, we are a bit on the violent side. We have consistent, regular assassination attempts of political figures, and celebrities, relative to other developed democracies. It is not because we have more freedom. Freedom doesn't cause violence.

Back to hate groups - we, meaning the US also seem to have more of these than other developed documents. Freedom doesn't cause hate. Unless, again, you include the right to hate as some kind of personal freedom.

Regarding freedom of hate speech, which you alluded to regarding the French. Freedom of hate speech is an oxymoron. At least, that would be the way I remember my high school and college discussions in civics.

So, I pose another question to you: What is the difference between inciting hatred with speech that ultimately results in death AND simply shooting someone. Are you saying that to kill with words is an example of a "freedom" but to kill with a gun is crime?

---

I wasn't trying to reduce what is admittedly a complex issue and discussion to an easy answer; that's why I wrote "part of the probelm," but by no means all. I was simply trying to look at one dimension of it, and IMO the freedom vs. security issue plays a part.

Like most things, a balance must be maintained. In this case a too-broad definition of "hate group" could lead to a loss of first amendment freedoms for some groups. Like in the 50's when many groups were labled "communist." On the other hand, I'm not advocating for the "total lack of any form of government." I'm just wanting the balance to be maintained on what is an extremely difficult issue to grapple with.

I'm not quite sure what "to kill with words" means, or your definition of that. Depending on your definition, there are arleady laws on the books (which I agree with) against that kind of speech.

Oktave - Posted - 02/26/2011:  07:49:24

---

Hello,

I do not know for America, but in France,, in recent years, there are more and more TV reports on urban violence, police, burglary, street violence, prisons, murders, urban violence, delinquency , theft with violence ... not to forget urban violence!
Every evening there are at least 2 or 3 reports on this (for 18 channels).
I do not think people really enjoy watching these shows.
In the savannah, a gazelle can not help but watch the lion that walks beside. She did not fascinated by it. She not admires the lion. A reflex told him "always look at the danger!"
People watch these shows with the same reflex !
The chains TVs know. These programs are cheap to make and "catch" the eye.
These reports scare people. After, they tend to support those who say "we will protect you".
In large cities, in streets, people are not comfortable. They walk and look down.
Humans are animals empathic. Empathy allows the social herd animals have an overall reaction.
At the edge of the herd, a wildebeest see a lion. It scares him. He is nervous, he trembles and utters small moans. Wildebeest around him see that he is nervous. It makes them nervous. In the middle of the herd, a wildebeest see all his friends nervous. It scares him. When the lion comes too near, the first wildebeest panic and run. The others, already nervous, panic and run too. Wildebeest in the middle doing the same, he has not seen the lion, he does not know why they ran away! Everyone panicked, it makes her panic.
If people are nervous in the street, it makes everyone nervous!
It just happens that a man, smiling stupidly. Maybe because he just had his first kiss, maybe just because be daddy!?
Behind him,everyone looks a little higher. If some smiled, it will make a few smiled somebody again ... .. etc... until the party returns to the overall nervousness.

Comrade! Let's fight for the good mood of the overall spirit! Do not look at these reports. And silly smile at unknown!
Maybe even a little "Ballad of jed Campetti" or "Mapple leaf rag" bring smiles to the passer !?

- skuse my inglish, am frênch -


French version :
Salut,

Je ne sait pas pour l'Amérique, mais en France depuis quelques années il y a de plus en plus de reportage sur les violences urbaines, la police, les cambriolages, les violence urbaines, les prisons, les meurtres, les violences urbaines, la délinquance, les vols avec violence ...sans oublier les violences urbaines !
Tout les soirs, il y a au moins 2 ou 3 reportages là dessus (pour 18 chaines).
Je ne crois pas que les gens aiment vraiment regarder ces émissions.
Dans la savane, la gazelle ne peut pas s'enpécher de regarder le lion qui marche à coté. Elle n'ai pas fasciné par lui. Elle n'admire pas le lion. Un rèflexe lui dit de bien regarder le danger !
Les gens regardent ces émissions avec le même réflexe !
Les chaines de télés le savent. Ces émissions ne coutent pas chér à faire et "attrape" l'oeil.
Ces émissions effraient les gens. Aprés ils aurront tendance à soutenir ceux qui disent pouvoir les protéger.
Dans les grandes villes, dans les rues, les gens ne sont pas à l'aise. Ils marchent droit et regardent en bas.
Les humains sont des animaux ampathiques. L'ampathie permet au troupeau d'animaux sociaux d'avoir une réaction globale.
Au bord du troupeau, un gnou vois un lion. Ca lui fait peur. Il est nerveux, il tremble et pousse des petits gémissements. Les gnous autour de lui voient qu'il est nerveux. Ca les rends nerveux. Au milieu du troupeau, un gnou voient tous ses copains nerveux. Ca lui fait peur. Quand le lion s'approche de trop prés, le premier gnou panique et cour. Les autres, déjà nerveux, panique aussi. Le gnou au milieu fait de même, il n'a pas vu le lion, il ne sait pas pourquoi ils se sont enfuis ! Tout le monde a paniqué, ça la fait paniquer.
Si les gens sont nerveux dans la rue, ça rends tout le monde nerveux !
Il suffit qu'un homme passe en souriant bêtement. Peut'être parce qu'il viens d'avoir son premier baiser, peut'être parqu'il viens juste d'être papa ! Derriére lui tout le monde relévera un peu la tête. Si certain se souris, ça en fera sourire quelques autres ..etc... jusqu'à ce que la nervosité globale regagne la partie.
Camarade ! Militons pour la bonne humeur de l'esprit global ! Ne regardons pas ces reportages, et sourions bêtement au inconnus !
Peut'être même qu'un petit "Ballad of jed Campett" ou "Mapple leaf rag" redonnerai le sourire au passant !?

---

Edited by - Oktave on 02/26/2011 08:00:25

mullie1 - Posted - 02/26/2011:  07:59:48

---

Michael (kipperr) - good points and I agree in general terms. There is certainly a grey area regarding the dividing line of "freedom fighter v hater/criminal" and the definitions are important. I guess that in my mind, that is worthy of another thread and would be an interesting discussion!

However, the current environment in this country of racism, homophobia, anti-government hatred, bigotry, and fear of anything/anyone different has been ratcheted up many notches during the past couple of years and this hate has taken a strong turn toward violence and violent rhetoric - and the formation of hate groups based on that. Yes, revolutionaries of the past might have been considered "hating on something".....but I would like to see any argument that the current hate in this country in any way resembles the freedom fighters of the past. To me, that viewpoint is just ignoring the main point of this thread and avoiding the sad situation at hand.

kipperr - Posted - 02/26/2011:  08:29:43

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1


However, the current environment in this country of racism, homophobia, anti-government hatred, bigotry, and fear of anything/anyone different has been ratcheted up many notches during the past couple of years and this hate has taken a strong turn toward violence and violent rhetoric - and the formation of hate groups based on that. Yes, revolutionaries of the past might have been considered "hating on something".....but I would like to see any argument that the current hate in this country in any way resembles the freedom fighters of the past. To me, that viewpoint is just ignoring the main point of this thread and avoiding the sad situation at hand.

---

Absolutely I agree that there is a difference between current hate groups (KKK, Black Panthers) and our revolutionary forefathers.
The problem is to how to define and where to draw the line between the two.

I'm not a moral relativist; there IS a line to be drawn. I can intuitively figure out which groups cross the line for myself, but I'm not sure everyone would agree with my judgement. I've though often about throwing out a defintiion of my own, but there's no way we'd all agree.


I guess a starting point could be: what types of "hate" speech or actions should be against the law that are currently allowed?

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/26/2011:  08:50:59

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1

Michael (kipperr) - good points and I agree in general terms. There is certainly a grey area regarding the dividing line of "freedom fighter v hater/criminal" and the definitions are important. I guess that in my mind, that is worthy of another thread and would be an interesting discussion!

However, the current environment in this country of racism, homophobia, anti-government hatred, bigotry, and fear of anything/anyone different has been ratcheted up many notches during the past couple of years and this hate has taken a strong turn toward violence and violent rhetoric - and the formation of hate groups based on that. Yes, revolutionaries of the past might have been considered "hating on something".....but I would like to see any argument that the current hate in this country in any way resembles the freedom fighters of the past. To me, that viewpoint is just ignoring the main point of this thread and avoiding the sad situation at hand.

---

I don't believe for a minute that there is more of what you describe as "hate" has been ratcheted up in the past few years. When I was growing up, racism, homophobia, and bigotry was much more commonplace and out in the open - even accepted - sad indeed. Now, trying to protect our borders is often seen as racism, when it has nothing to do with it. Yes, there are some people who are racists toward the Hispanics that have come here either legally or illegally - but how they got here has nothing to do with it. They would be racists regardless.

People who have a moral disagreement with the practice of homosexuality are now "homophobes" because they will not accept the practice. They are "homophobes" not only because they disagree with it, but because they don't accept it! Because one person disagrees with something does not mean that they cannot love the person doing it.

I think defining "hate" or "hate groups" is really important, but who gets to define them? If you are going to define a person or group as hateful just because you disagree with them, then I guess you could say that hate has ratcheted up - otherwise no!

Incidentally, the Paul Broun incident was quite lame, as I heard no condemnation from any group when violence (even a movie) was advocated against President Bush. It's also silly in that each of us could give numerous anecdotes exactly like that on each side of the spectrum.

mullie1 - Posted - 02/26/2011:  09:27:33

---

Hey banjolink, whether you choose to believe it or not, at least based on discussions with a 30+ year veteran of the FBI, the amount of, and level of violence planned/enacted by, hate groups is at a level currently that he has not seen in his career. This source is also a politically conservative fellow (trust me!). I'm sure that you saw quite a bit of "open" racism/bigotry/hate while growing up too. Sadly, we have not come very far.

This thread, and I, am not talking about your run of the mill racist fool - the type that just thinks less of homosexuals, mexicans, muslims......rather this discussion is about a different level of hate that takes the form of violence and threats of violence. Actual attacks on muslims or gay people. Beatings of hispanics. Plots against blowing up government buildngs. Threats against the President and other political figures. Hate speech encouraging violence against government officials and then the planning of such crimes. My brother has been involved in this nonsense at the federal law enforcement level since just after the Vietnam War and is retiring this year. I believe him when he tells me that we are living in an incredibly dangerous time based on all of the above. Keep believing what you will, but it doesn't change things.

And please save the Bush comparisons. I would have been equally appalled had someone stated "when is someone going to shoot Bush" (I don't recall anyone saying that at an open town meeting...you?) as I am today with the disgusting remarks. Paul Broun is a disgrace and the person that asked the question should be in custody for questioning. Certain areas of the country are worse than others based on my travels, but I don't believe any particular region is immune to this bs.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  09:50:59

---

Nobody has thought to mention the hidden role that "thought crime" plays in this thread. That could mean that most posters think that punishing 'thinking' is perfectly OK. Has the general moral sense fallen so low among banjo players? I don't think so; I believe it is only that stylish way of non-thinking among the few intellectual banjo pickers that we see popping up so often when we read the daily threads. I always enjoy the reading when they give the rest of us hints on how to behave and think.

But let that pass. I am interested in knowing why 'group' is so important to you. What about all the haters, racists, and homophobes swarming over the landscape who aren't organized--the ones mullie has warned us about? (Thank you for the heads up, I am so busy watching and reading about the hate and violence spreading nationally that I never would have noticed mullie's swarms.) Since they are not an issue, then it really comes down to 'groups'. Why is that? Maybe that is why nobody can come up with a definition that makes sense: perhaps old nobody is in the business of making money or accumulating political power and doesn't really care about definitions making sense. Has anyone considered that there is no sensible definition?

And maybe that could be taken as a sign that this 'hate group' thing is a hustle? Think about it. If the individual haters are already considered the church's problem, the only way to make money off sinners is to start your own church or focus on them when they congregate and get paid to watch them. Now don't get all upset. I am just suggesting that it might be a hustle, if you look at the big picture.

So what is this insistence on groups, when hate is the real issue? And if hate is the real issue, then how will you read somebody's mind to see if they are breaking your insidious law? I would really like to know if Art Bell is somehow deeply involved in your strategizing.

Anyway, I don't expect anyone to address my questions so let's move on to examining this blindness to 'favored' groups practicing hate. If it's not on SPLC's list then it's not hateful and we should ignore it. Logically, that is so simple-minded that it is embarrassing. But politically it seems to have some value in giving people something else to think about rather than what is really going on in the streets today. After all, it is possible that some dark night a wild skinhead will actually sneak down out of the mountains and glue a bumper sticker on your lunchbox, Lord have mercy on us all.

Stop looking at the moronic list and look around you. Focus on reality. I know that is not the main point of this thread, but just give it a try.

---

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/26/2011 09:54:23

mullie1 - Posted - 02/26/2011:  10:10:51

---

Hi Richard, the condescension and false generalizations are just oozing from your keyboard today. Where to begin? I don't have time frankly after reading your last post. But from a bird's eye view - nobody here has proposed the punishing "thinkers" of hate (let alone "many posters", lol) and what the heck are you babbling about "intellectual" posters or anyone telling you how to act & think? Really, are you at THAT stage of the discussion as to just throw things against the wall to make yourself feel better? I would hope you could do better than that....but thanks for making fun of my post regarding increased hate crime in the country. I didn't use the word "swarms" but I'm sure it sounded good when you typed it.

Law Enforcement officials are pointing to a more organized gathering of these types of people that plan and enact hate crimes recently. The <gasp> groups are growing in number and many times it is not just some isolated nutjob, rather a more planned out event by multiple people.....based on the number of cases and incidents being uncovered. Many of these criminals are thankfully caught before any real damage is done, but the amount of people involved lately is apparently at a high level. A "hustle"? First time I've heard that gem but I'm sure some would like people to believe that that is the case. It is sadly comical to me, though. Many of these federal agents are in danger on a daily basis and I can't count the number of times over the years that a person close to me had their life at risk. For someone to glibly assert that the level of hate crime around them is some propped-up hustle for additional funds or attention is frankly sickening. I'm done with this thread so enjoy the weekend and happy, blissful, picking.

The Fifth Element - Posted - 02/26/2011:  10:19:09

---

Hating is not a crime. It may be reprehensible, intolerant, obnoxious, and so on, but it is not a crime -- yet. Thinking you hate someone, saying you hate someone, none of these things are crimes. If they were, a lot of divorced (and still married) people, a lot of activists, and a lot of politicians would be in jail.

Advocating, perpetrating, and participating in violence is a crime, whether it comes about through hatred, fanaticism, or cold calculation. This is why we need to be aware of groups that advocate hatred of groups of people and encourage others to hate them too through half-truths and twisted logic.

The best way to end hate and violence is not to participate in it. It takes a lot longer to change injustice that way, but it's the only way if you really want things to change hearts and minds. Turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love those who hate you, give peace a chance.

---

Edited by - The Fifth Element on 02/26/2011 10:25:12

KE - Posted - 02/26/2011:  10:27:25

---

Thanks, mullie1. It's hard to know how to respond to such like.

The local mosque has been cleaning up regularly from hateful graffiti. The hindu center as well, interestingly they get regularly confused with the moslems. Our state university has been considering what to do about the painting of particularly offensive racial graffiti on university property. Westboro Baptist Church tells the families of our local dead soldiers that God is punishing them for homosexuality. One of the skinhead groups said by Richard to be sequestered in prison has purchased a property in the area where they will come together for national rallies. And worst of all, my otherwise respectable neighbors sit around boy scout campfires telling racist jokes about the president, the punchline of which involve tar, feathers, and nooses as if the cover of night absolves them somehow.

Please don't try to suggest that we're imagining this, or that the SPLC has engineered all this as a fundraiser.

mander - Posted - 02/26/2011:  10:43:17

---

Let me see...
starting in second grade, I've been ostrasized and or hated by various people and groups for .... being the "wrong" religion, being the "wrong" gender, having the "wrong" perceived orientation, being the "wrong" race, having the "wrong" opinion, being in the "wrong" income bracket, having the "wrong" chest measurements, name it, I'm sure I could find someone to hate me for it.

Having had to deal with hate all the life I remember, it is difficult for me to imagine that it is really on the rise so much as it is more willing to expose itself. The tiger in the grass lays hidden long before it leaps.

Think globally, act locally. Love begins with you!

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  10:53:54

---

"For someone to glibly assert that the level of hate crime around them is some propped-up hustle for additional funds or attention is frankly sickening. " -- mullie

Is it that hard to read my post or are you just looking for sympathy from others who can't read and think I said they are imagining the skinhead violence? I already said that there always a risk of having someone vandalize your lunchbox and I even suppose that racist Scouts might also tip over your outhouse. But read before ranting is my advice and if you can't understand it, ask questions.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/26/2011:  10:54:57

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

Nobody has thought to mention the hidden role that "thought crime" plays in this thread.

---

Or Beluga whales.

mike gregory - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:02:26

---

It seems that it makes little difference to the individual, once death has occured.

If someone kills me because he learns I went to Catholic high school, and hates me because he thinks I'm still Catholic, am I any more dead than I would be if he had discovered I had studied at Lutheran Hospital School of Nursing, and hates me because he thinks that any man who considers a career as a Registered Nurse MUST be homosexual?

I think I agree with Mander on a lot of this.
People hate other people for a lot of stupid "reasons", always have, and probably always will.
We're just more aware of it, and it's just currently easier for like-minded individuals to connect via current technology.

I do see a lot of merit in the postings of both Mr. Dress and Mr. KE.
And the hate-driven loner, not connected to anyone, can kill me just as dead as any member of any group can, for just as ridiculous a misinterpretation of what he or she perceives as fact.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:06:59

---

"A hustle? First time I've heard that gem but I'm sure some would like people to believe that that is the case." --mullie

Read the thread. Right up front someone suggested it was a hustle. I never thought of SPLC as a hustle until I read the links. Well, we all learn as we go along, right? You could actually go back and read that post and then look at the evidence and, like me, change your point of view given the new information. You couldn't say you never heard of that gem in such a sneering way. You would have learned something and it would prevented such a silly sentence. I learned something: a new way to look at SPLC, the linchpin of the whole thread. I thank the poster for educating me and improving my understanding of the thread.

---

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/26/2011 11:08:28

KE - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:11:10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

"For someone to glibly assert that the level of hate crime around them is some propped-up hustle for additional funds or attention is frankly sickening. " -- mullie

Is it that hard to read my post . . .

---

Since you ask, yes it is. But I suspect we may not be on the same wavelength, or planet for that matter.

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:14:17

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Fifth Element

Hating is not a crime. It may be reprehensible, intolerant, obnoxious, and so on, but it is not a crime -- yet. Thinking you hate someone, saying you hate someone, none of these things are crimes. If they were, a lot of divorced (and still married) people, a lot of activists, and a lot of politicians would be in jail.

Advocating, perpetrating, and participating in violence is a crime, whether it comes about through hatred, fanaticism, or cold calculation. This is why we need to be aware of groups that advocate hatred of groups of people and encourage others to hate them too through half-truths and twisted logic.

The best way to end hate and violence is not to participate in it. It takes a lot longer to change injustice that way, but it's the only way if you really want things to change hearts and minds. Turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love those who hate you, give peace a chance.

---

Ditto

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:26:32

---

"Since you ask, yes it is. But I suspect we may not be on the same wavelength, or planet for that matter." -- KE

Anyone who will admit to serial bestiality to establish their credibility on this thread has to be heard with respect. KE may have a point since I crammed so much into the post. But you can still find things to jump on without inventing them, cant you?

black flag - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:26:33

---

Richard--It's clear where your sympathies lie, even though you take pains to clothe them in neutral-sounding language.

Chris

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:30:11

---

Chris, You may be the answer to our prayers. A mind reader. One who can settle the question who is thinking correctly and who isn't. Where have you been hiding all this time? Can you go back through the thread and check everybody else out? Maybe you will detect a new hidden group. There's gold in them thar hills.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/26/2011:  11:33:17

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress


Anyone who will admit to serial bestiality to establish their credibility on this thread has to be heard with respect.

---

James Harry's personal blogs were offensive enough to someone to warrant censorship, and this doesn't? Really? REALLY?

---

Edited by - Sultans of Claw on 02/26/2011 11:34:43

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/26/2011:  12:18:57

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1

Hey banjolink, whether you choose to believe it or not, at least based on discussions with a 30+ year veteran of the FBI, the amount of, and level of violence planned/enacted by, hate groups is at a level currently that he has not seen in his career. This source is also a politically conservative fellow (trust me!). I'm sure that you saw quite a bit of "open" racism/bigotry/hate while growing up too. Sadly, we have not come very far.

This thread, and I, am not talking about your run of the mill racist fool - the type that just thinks less of homosexuals, mexicans, muslims......rather this discussion is about a different level of hate that takes the form of violence and threats of violence. Actual attacks on muslims or gay people. Beatings of hispanics. Plots against blowing up government buildngs. Threats against the President and other political figures. Hate speech encouraging violence against government officials and then the planning of such crimes. My brother has been involved in this nonsense at the federal law enforcement level since just after the Vietnam War and is retiring this year. I believe him when he tells me that we are living in an incredibly dangerous time based on all of the above. Keep believing what you will, but it doesn't change things.

And please save the Bush comparisons. I would have been equally appalled had someone stated "when is someone going to shoot Bush" (I don't recall anyone saying that at an open town meeting...you?) as I am today with the disgusting remarks. Paul Broun is a disgrace and the person that asked the question should be in custody for questioning. Certain areas of the country are worse than others based on my travels, but I don't believe any particular region is immune to this bs.

---

Well the FBI agent that you talked to ought to have read his own organization's statistics. Hate crimes peaked in 1993, dropped slightly, and have been at a lower level for most of the 2000's. I'm just guessing that the hate crime statistics could have some bearing on the activity of hate groups - at least according to some that agree with you. I personally think that a very large percentage of these crimes are committed by pathetic individuals who probably don't belong to those pathetic groups.

My brother also has recently retired from 30 years in law enforcement in a relatively large municipal area (metropolitan population of around 400,000). I am sure that he has attended many of the same seminars as your brother - maybe your brother even conducted them. I can tell you that very little of his time was spent monitoring hate groups, unless you want to consider loose knit drug gangs and robbery gangs as hate groups. The people that were robbed and mugged by these "groups" probably could care less if they were in a hate group. Nothing I have seen statistically indicates that we are living in an "incredibly dangerous time". Where is your proof?

I know you last paragraph is a joke, so I won't comment on it!

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/26/2011:  12:35:21

---

The Students for a Democratic Society
The Weatherman Underground
The Ku Klux Klan.

Lots of stuff going on in the 60s and 70s

The folks who use numbers to prove things are worse today don't understand statistics. How many US presidents or candidates were shot in the last decade?

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  12:57:52

---

"James Harry's personal blogs were offensive enough to someone to warrant censorship, and this doesn't? Really? REALLY?" -- claw

Really? I thought KE was showing a sense of humor. I thought it was a good rhetorical maneuver on his part. Maybe you should go back a re-read page seven of this thread before you rant. Can't we have a little fun along the way?

KE - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:06:07

---

Does it really matter if the level of violence-inciting hatred is worse now or then? The question is whether it is acceptable now. Honestly, do you wish to defend hate crimes or those who instigate them? All who have consciences know the difference between hating and acting on that hate, and that one who incites violence by exploiting hatred is culpable.

And dammitol richard, I said "cereal" not "serial"

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:12:20

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

All who have consciences know the difference between hating and acting on that hate, and that one who incites violence by exploiting hatred is culpable.

---

I agree with your sentiment but not with the statement. If enough people agree with you, it ain't called 'hatred,' it is called 'culture.'

KE - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:18:23

---

So if I get enough people to agree, we can tie someone to a fence post who has a lifestyle we don't like, beat them with a pipe, and that's okay?! That's not culture, that's a mob.

And may I remind you, banjo players are on the fringe.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:29:05

---

BanjoLink, you must be hallucinating. There is a flood of retired hooded rangers in wheel chairs sweeping across the flooded plain. This very forum two years ago linked a newspaper report from east TN about a Melungeon sect called the Canites coming across the line from KY in their pickups and assaulting the local hounds in an intimate way. It's very interesting in an anthropologic way. Their behavior is similar to the Steppe horse tribes who swept into history every century or so, propelled by some unknown pressures. Anyway these lunatics are also out there poised to strike again, and their next victims may not their Tennessee neighbors. We may all be at risk.

Gangs aren't really a danger because they practice even handed diversity in choice of victims. The make-up of gangs themselves shows how diverse these organizations can be as they range all the way from the skinheads to the cartels. A rainbow coalition that brings all together, working on the common goal of feasting on society. If you buy my newsletter you can keep up this ever-changing threat (I mean the tattooed canine criminals).

It will take your mind off the daily riots and bloodshed across the street.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:31:09

---

"And dammitol richard, I said 'cereal' not 'serial'" -- KE

Even more cunning than I suspected.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:33:34

---

"So if I get enough people to agree, we can tie someone to a fence post who has a lifestyle we don't like, beat them with a pipe, and that's okay?! That's not culture, that's a mob." -- KE

Just don't mention rocks and nobody will object to the truth of what you say. You are skating close to a CAIR lawsuit.

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:35:05

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

So if I get enough people to agree, we can tie someone to a fence post who has a lifestyle we don't like, beat them with a pipe, and that's okay?! That's not culture, that's a mob

---

Christians are not a cult, nor are they a hate group. Neither are freedom-loving Americans. Just ask the Sioux, the Arapahoe, the Kiowa, the Cheyenne, the Seminoles, the Cherokee, the Apache, the Navajo, the Hopi, the Utes, the Iriquois, the ...

Yes, if enough people agree, then it is called 'culture' and it is not examined. That's essentially the definition of culture--what we 'all' agree is 'right.'

There are no fundamental bedrock principles of ethics or morals or philosophy. Humans performs behaviors they think are necessary and use whatever words they need to justify it.

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:40:27

---

And I've always been on the fringe which is why it's a lot easier for me to see the flaws in other people's 'principles' of culture or ethics or religion or whatever.

In high school during desegregation, none of the Hispanics or Blacks tolerated me because I was (and still am) White. Most of the Whites despised me because I was a long-hair. Most of the White long-hairs despised me because I didn't buy into any of their reasons for protesting 'the man.'

Groups that are large enough can do whatever the hell they want.
We call it History.

pick1936 - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:41:52

---

I keep hearing the word homophobes, Who are They?? The most hated people today are Christians, So are these people called Christiphobes?? I Do Not hate anyone, but I have read so much of this thread, That it is really kinda scarry the way some folks beleave, according to many on here We All are a little bit haters. I think We should show love to all.


Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso

dlc - Posted - 02/26/2011:  13:44:40

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pick1936

I keep hearing the word homophobes, Who are They?? The most hated people today are Christians, So are these people called Christiphobes?? I Do Not hate anyone, but I have read so much of this thread, That it is really kinda scarry the way some folks beleave, according to many on here We All are a little bit haters. I think We should show love to all.


Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso

---

Yep. (That's not a comment, it's an agreement.)

edavidt - Posted - 02/26/2011:  14:03:30

---

Some posters on this thread continuously and relentlessly try to confuse the difference between political ideology, hatred, and hate crimes.

Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage (politically, that is), to commit crimes against someone because they are gay is defined as a hate crime. On the other hand, to lobby against gay marriage is politics, not hate crimes. The emotion of "hate" is something else altogether.

(As an aside, to hate someone simply because they are gay is stupid, a waste of emotional energy, and says more about the hater than the hated. To be politically motivated out of hatred is even stupider. Note that the root word parts of emotion and motivation are the same. And when we are motivated out of emotion (hate, for example), we are working primarily in the mammalian brain - and are functioning like, well, like my dog. The primate part of our brain, while sometimes in conflict with the reptilian and mammalian part of the brain, offers more "reasonable" alternatives and thus offers a better source of motivation, if we can allow it dominate.)

Similarly, a person may have strong political sentiments regarding immigration and immigrants; however to commit a crime against an Hispanic or Mexican immigrant because of their race or national origin, regardless of their legal status, is by definition a hate crime. Check your definition. To elect officials who want to limit immigration, or the legal rights of immigrants is not hate crime - it is politics.

(As I said above, if someone hates immigrants, well that is indeed a problem for them. Hatred leads to stress, poor health, poor emotional outlook, possible depression, and so on. Who would want to walk around with hate all day long? Says more about the hater than the hated.)

Also, back to the rise of hate groups - how is it that a nation, founded on the principles of individuals being different, breaking from tradition, encouraging diversity and tolerance, etc. has come to be a place with so much intolerance? Religious freedom was why many folks came to this country. Or, have the historians mis represented our origins with all these notions of tolerance and freedom?

This in my opinion is the elephant in the room, or the thread, that no one is acknowledging.

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/26/2011:  14:11:59

---

If one person beats someone up because of their homosexual lifestyle or whatever, then it is a hate crime.

But if the majority passes laws against living together or having consensual sexual relations, then it is legal and therefore 'not hatred.'

I don't buy into that sort of 'reasoning' which is why I get really confused between legal and illegal 'hate' crimes. Sorry edavidt but I don't see any substantive difference.

A Jew getting beat up on the streets by a German citizen in 1942 is a hate crime, but a German soldier locking that same Jew up in a concentration camp is not a hate crime. (It's easier to see when looking at other peoples and cultures).

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  14:14:00

---

As you say a crime was committed. The crime will be punished. The law is working fine. So why do you think discrediting the law by having juries guess someone's mental processes is somehow a step forward? Little fancies like these that sound nice in the faculty lounge actually work to dissolve the society that protects us.

inniepie - Posted - 02/26/2011:  14:15:16

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sultans of Claw

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress


Anyone who will admit to serial bestiality to establish their credibility on this thread has to be heard with respect.

---

James Harry's personal blogs were offensive enough to someone to warrant censorship, and this doesn't? Really? REALLY?

---

Personally I didn't appreciate his avatar very much but no one seemed to give a toss...(sorry to change the subject)

---

Edited by - inniepie on 02/26/2011 14:16:57

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011:  14:21:30

---

First KE diddles me with a quibble and now Canada hates my photo. I see now that I must retract the 'serial bestiality' because of Bill Clinton-like word sleight of hand.

inniepie - Posted - 02/26/2011:  14:33:49

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

First KE diddles me with a quibble and now Canada hates my photo. I see now that I must retract the 'serial bestiality' because of Bill Clinton-like word sleight of hand.

---

No not your photo silly, James Harry's...it's a bit vulgar to say the least.

edavidt - Posted - 02/26/2011:  15:16:26

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minstrelmike

If one person beats someone up because of their homosexual lifestyle or whatever, then it is a hate crime.

But if the majority passes laws against living together or having consensual sexual relations, then it is legal and therefore 'not hatred.'

I don't buy into that sort of 'reasoning' which is why I get really confused between legal and illegal 'hate' crimes. Sorry edavidt but I don't see any substantive difference.

A Jew getting beat up on the streets by a German citizen in 1942 is a hate crime, but a German soldier locking that same Jew up in a concentration camp is not a hate crime. (It's easier to see when looking at other peoples and cultures).

---

I tried to distinguish between hate crimes (as defined legally), hatred, and politics motivated by hate. And, I was using the FBI definition of "legal" hate crime.

I agree with your post. Just because something is "legal" doesn't prevent it from being crime in the bigger moral sense. However, by moving to this place (crime in a bigger moral sense) then we really are going over to "morality" in the discussion. And that discussion is really a different one.

---

Edited by - edavidt on 02/26/2011 15:22:52