frame

Hate crimes

Opening Argument

should US furthet crack down on hate crimes with stricter laws and penalties?
joecavalrynorthsouthkorea
  1. Should Hate crimes be further cracked down in the US

    13 votes
    1. Yes
      61.54%
    2. No
      38.46%
Live Long and Prosper
«134

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • inc4tinc4t 154 Pts
    I think so.  Look whats going on with Spenser.  Hate crime should be actively punished.
  • Why is crime worse just because demographics were involved in the motive. Not saying hate crimes shouldn't be punished, but why more than regular crimes. Why does it matter if a man killed another man because he was black, or because he said something mean. Niether is a good reason to kill someone and either way its murder and should be dealt with accordingly.
    joecavalrynorthsouthkorea
  • inc4tinc4t 154 Pts
    @RollTide420, if someone kills another person than it's not a hate crime but murder (which is obviously much more severe).
  • @inc4t The google dictionary definition of hate crime is "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence." If murder is committed for these reasons it is considered a hate crime. My point is that bigotry as a motive doesn't make any crime worse.
  • @RollTide420, i also agree that a violent crime for hate or other reasons is equally bad. That said, I don't support any type of hate crime or haye activity.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @SilverishGoldNova I would say no, you also have greed crimes, like people robbing for a living because they need the money to support themselves or a family. Not justifying this, but it is a different motive than any form of hate. With that being said, the term hate crime, given the definition of hate, should encompass a wider variety of crimes than it does. Additionally you also have "false crimes" which are legally listed as crimes but aren't criminal in nature, such as marijuana possession, but then again, its debatable whether crime should really be used to describe that at all.
    SilverishGoldNovajoecavalry
  • Hate crimes are a diverse group of crimes and so are greed crimes which is in the family of general crimes, but both are very bad. These type of crimes must be cracked down, because they are a lagged percentage of crimes committed in the States and also the world.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Hate crime is different from other types of murder because it is contagious. Most murders do not make murder seem more acceptable, but hate crimes do. In this era of the rise of the alt-right and acceptance of borderline racism, we need to be especially careful to bite any racist criminal movements in the bud. We already see racism becoming a larger issue as it is deemed more acceptable, and we need to avoid all out killing sprees of minorities. I believe the real issue here is how much a crackdown will help. Harsher punishments have not always yielded a decrease in crime. At this point, what we need most is to make it clear that crimes of hate will be absolutely unacceptable.
  • @THEDENIER How do hate crimes make murder seem more acceptable? People on both the right and left adamantly oppose any racial violence, with the exceptions of a very small number of radicals on both sides (BLM leadership is every bit as racist as the alt-right). Trump supporters will deny his promoting violence, not defend it. While they may be wrong to deny it, that's far better than promoting and justifying it. Don't let the media trick you into thinking that the actions of a few define how people are thinking. The alt-right and alt-left are getting tons of media attention despite making up extremely small minorities within their own respective sides of the political spectrum. The average American is disgusted with racial violence, and when they defend a guy who does it, they'll deny that it happened, not defend racial violence itself. I know plenty of Trump supporters, some of whom are a little racist, others who aren't but even the ones who are racist are completely against racial violence. Racial violence isn't growing that rapidly, its actually very low compared to where it was historically. What is growing is media coverage of racial violence (see any American history textbook, read the section from the civil war up into the 90's). Racial violence never went away, it just got to the point where it wasn't a big part of our culture. Its becoming part of our culture now, not because its happening more often, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen.
    THEDENIER said:
    In this era of the rise of the alt-right and acceptance of borderline racism, we need to be especially careful to bite any racist criminal movements in the bud.

    Shouldn't we try to bite any movement which is inherently criminal in the bud?
    THEDENIER said:
    we need to avoid all out killing sprees of minorities. I believe the real issue here is how much a crackdown will help. Harsher punishments have not always yielded a decrease in crime. At this point, what we need most is to make it clear that crimes of hate will be absolutely unacceptable.

    Shouldn't we avoid all out killing sprees of anyone? Why is minority life so much more precious than other forms of life? No person, regardless of minority status or lack thereof should be subjected to killing sprees. Harsher punishments sometimes do and sometimes don't reduce crime, but whether that's the way to crack down or not, I see no reason to focus our anti-crime efforts on hate crime any more than other crime. What we need to make clear is that ANY behavior that is by nature criminal (by nature means they are actually criminal in orientation, as opposed to drug possession which is only criminal because of what some human wrote on paper) is absolutely unacceptable whether hate was the motive or not.
    Erfisflat
  • @THEDENIER How do hate crimes make murder seem more acceptable? People on both the right and left adamantly oppose any racial violence, with the exceptions of a very small number of radicals on both sides (BLM leadership is every bit as racist as the alt-right). 
    BLM leadership may be racist but does not spray swastikas on walls. The level of racism is totally different.
    Trump supporters will deny his promoting violence, not defend it. While they may be wrong to deny it, that's far better than promoting and justifying it. Don't let the media trick you into thinking that the actions of a few define how people are thinking. The alt-right and alt-left are getting tons of media attention despite making up extremely small minorities within their own respective sides of the political spectrum. The average American is disgusted with racial violence, and when they defend a guy who does it, they'll deny that it happened, not defend racial violence itself.
    The fact that a borderline racist has been elected into one of the most powerful positions in the world shows that Americans are willing to dismiss or look over racism and accept it more. Sure, Trump supporters deny he is racist, and that is better than endorsing that side of Trump, but the fact that he has supporters shows American's willingness to put up with a borderline racist. 
    Racial violence isn't growing that rapidly, its actually very low compared to where it was historically. What is growing is media coverage of racial violence (see any American history textbook, read the section from the civil war up into the 90's). Racial violence never went away, it just got to the point where it wasn't a big part of our culture. Its becoming part of our culture now, not because its happening more often, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen.
    You are wrong. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right or http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hate-crimes-20-percent-2016-fueled-election-campaign-n733306 .
    THEDENIER said:
    In this era of the rise of the alt-right and acceptance of borderline racism, we need to be especially careful to bite any racist criminal movements in the bud.

    Shouldn't we try to bite any movement which is inherently criminal in the bud?
    Yes, hate crimes are just especially likely to become a movement so we need to address them. Mugging is probably not going to create a criminal movement so it doesn't need to be specially addressed (not for this reason anyway).
    THEDENIER said:
    we need to avoid all out killing sprees of minorities. I believe the real issue here is how much a crackdown will help. Harsher punishments have not always yielded a decrease in crime. At this point, what we need most is to make it clear that crimes of hate will be absolutely unacceptable.

    Shouldn't we avoid all out killing sprees of anyone? Why is minority life so much more precious than other forms of life? No person, regardless of minority status or lack thereof should be subjected to killing sprees. Harsher punishments sometimes do and sometimes don't reduce crime, but whether that's the way to crack down or not, I see no reason to focus our anti-crime efforts on hate crime any more than other crime. What we need to make clear is that ANY behavior that is by nature criminal (by nature means they are actually criminal in orientation, as opposed to drug possession which is only criminal because of what some human wrote on paper) is absolutely unacceptable whether hate was the motive or not.
    Yes, minorities are not any more important or deserving of life that majorities. Yes, no one should be subjected to killing sprees. Yes, it need be made clear that anything by nature criminal is absolutely unacceptable. And finally, yes drug possession charges are stupid. Here's why hate crimes are different. Simply because A) they promote hate and B) they are on the rise. Humans are social creatures who follow trends. Most crimes by nature criminal have been treated a unacceptable, and have not been officially government organized. But, when we look at history, there have been many times when it acceptable too kill those religiously, ethnically, and/or culturally different from you. For example, the holocaust, Rwandan massacre, and massacre of the native north and south Americans. I'm not saying America will do this; I am merely saying that most of the widespread killing in history is what now constitutes as a hate crime. Also, hate crime needs to be addressed because it is on the rise. Society is becoming more accepting of racism, (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-10/after-donald-trumps-election-racist-outbursts-in-us) and hate crimes are on the rise (see earlier) so we need to address this problem further as we have obviously been unsuccessful.
  • That emoji was a typo, sorry.
  • @ale5

    That seems pretty counter intuitive. The entire reasons that there are a wide range of sentences available for exactly the same crime is because the context of how it happened matters. Even putting aside race, crimes are not equal. For instance someone committing first degree murder in California will get 25 to life. That's a big potential difference between the minimum and maximum because there are a lot of different circumstances where people can commit crimes. Some circumstances can even allow us to empathise with the perpetrator (although that's less likely in the event of murder).

    WHY someone commits a crime matters and effects their sentences, referred to as aggravation and mitigation. Committing a crime because you are racist against someone is always going to be an aggravating circumstance because the basis of why you committed the crime, not just the crime itself, is unacceptable to modern norms and laws.
    northsouthkorea
  • @inc4t , made good argument. Hate crimes need to be cracked down on to prevent the development of  some countries in a negative way.
  • @AlwaysCorrect Actually the degree of murder has nothing to do with the motive, it has to do with the amount of premeditation that took place. Crimes have 2 components, a mens rea (mental state) and actus reus (The act itself). The state of mind a person was in is determined in order to determine their ability to prevent it. There's willful wrongs where you knew it was wrong, thought about it and did it anyway, there's spur of the moment, where you act without thinking, there's negligence where you failed to prevent something you should have, and then you may have been a complete accident with no wrongdoing on your part. Your state of mind and level of criminal culpability is not the same as motive, which is merely a factor needed to prove guilt in certain crimes, usually those with higher mens rea requirements.
  • Aggravating and mitigating factors are things which make a crime more or less justified, they are not related to the motive except to the extent that your motive caused mitigating or aggravating factors to come into play. An example of an aggravating factor would be continuing to stab someone who is bleeding out, or abusing a child before you murdered it. Why you continued to stab or abused this child don't make them more or less aggravating.
  • @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    BLM leadership may be racist but does not spray swastikas on walls. The level of racism is totally different.
    BLM has assaulted people. How is drawing a verbal symbol worse than physically assaulting someone?
    THEDENIER said:

    The fact that a borderline racist has been elected into one of the most powerful positions in the world shows that Americans are willing to dismiss or look over racism and accept it more. Sure, Trump supporters deny he is racist, and that is better than endorsing that side of Trump, but the fact that he has supporters shows American's willingness to put up with a borderline racist. 
    Yes, but let's look at why borderline racism is becoming more accepted, and what caused the Trump movement to begin with. It stems from middle America being sick of hearing how racist they are, and how any little mention of race that someone doesn't agree with makes you a bigot. People are so tired of being called bigots that they've given up, and embraced the title. By embracing the title bigot, it becomes easier to accept borderline racism. A perfect example of the media blowing race out of proportion is how they cover any violence with a potential racial twist. Many of the police shooting we've seen had nothing to do with race, as both the officer, and so-called "victim" were black, yet the media spun these as a police shooting a black man and people were marching through the street yelling about how evil white men were. I'm not saying that embracing bigotry is an appropriate response, but hate crime and the way the media covers it has actually helped exacerbate our problem of racism becoming more accepted.
    THEDENIER said:


    Racial violence isn't growing that rapidly, its actually very low compared to where it was historically. What is growing is media coverage of racial violence (see any American history textbook, read the section from the civil war up into the 90's). Racial violence never went away, it just got to the point where it wasn't a big part of our culture. Its becoming part of our culture now, not because its happening more often, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen.
    You are wrong. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right or http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hate-crimes-20-percent-2016-fueled-election-campaign-n733306 .


    I never said hate groups weren't on the rise, but that they are no where near their historical levels. If you honestly believe racial violence, or racial attitudes in general  is anywhere near as big a problem today as it was in the 60's then you don't know what you're talking about. If hate groups were to triple today, all their members combined would still be smaller than the Klan of the 60's and you would literally have to add a few digits to get it to even compare to the size of the Klan in the 20's. So it isn't growing that fast.

    THEDENIER said:

     
    THEDENIER said:
    In this era of the rise of the alt-right and acceptance of borderline racism, we need to be especially careful to bite any racist criminal movements in the bud.

    Shouldn't we try to bite any movement which is inherently criminal in the bud?
    Yes, hate crimes are just especially likely to become a movement so we need to address them. Mugging is probably not going to create a criminal movement so it doesn't need to be specially addressed (not for this reason anyway).


    Mugging is far more common than racial violence. Its most common in bad neighborhoods where entire criminal cultures have set in. Also, murders over gang related violence in these neighborhoods far outweighs racial violence in our country. If we really want to get to the source of criminal movements, we should target all gangs, not just hate groups, as other types of gangs are far more common, and account for far more of our nation's violence.

    Also, hate movements tend to die on their own anyway, although I'm not saying they should be tolerated, just not treated any differently than other groups which engage in violence. The Klan grew rapidly in the early 20's because of its community service efforts and what people considered noble goals (while the Klan of the 20's was much larger in terms of membership, the Klan of the 60's was more notorious for its violence, and was far less popular nationwide). The Klan peaked in 1924, reaching between 4 and 5 million members (approximate 15% of the national population). However, between 1923 and 1926, some incidences of Klan violence occurred and by 1930, Klan membership was below 30,000. Again, not saying its right, but people can react violently when they feel threatened, but history has shown us that movements based on racial violence don't stay popular very long, as tension dies down and people are averse to violence. Violence may not be an acceptable way to react to what is going on, or that Trump as President is a good solution, but people have good reason to feel threatened after 8 years of a president telling us how racist we, after we've been trying to make progress and raise our children with non-racist attitudes, meanwhile people are marching through our streets burning down businesses because of a police shooting that we had nothing to do with us, but that's ok because they have a right to be angry.

    THEDENIER said:

    THEDENIER said:
    we need to avoid all out killing sprees of minorities. I believe the real issue here is how much a crackdown will help. Harsher punishments have not always yielded a decrease in crime. At this point, what we need most is to make it clear that crimes of hate will be absolutely unacceptable.

    Shouldn't we avoid all out killing sprees of anyone? Why is minority life so much more precious than other forms of life? No person, regardless of minority status or lack thereof should be subjected to killing sprees. Harsher punishments sometimes do and sometimes don't reduce crime, but whether that's the way to crack down or not, I see no reason to focus our anti-crime efforts on hate crime any more than other crime. What we need to make clear is that ANY behavior that is by nature criminal (by nature means they are actually criminal in orientation, as opposed to drug possession which is only criminal because of what some human wrote on paper) is absolutely unacceptable whether hate was the motive or not.
    Yes, minorities are not any more important or deserving of life that majorities. Yes, no one should be subjected to killing sprees. Yes, it need be made clear that anything by nature criminal is absolutely unacceptable. And finally, yes drug possession charges are stupid. Here's why hate crimes are different. Simply because A) they promote hate and B) they are on the rise. Humans are social creatures who follow trends. Most crimes by nature criminal have been treated a unacceptable, and have not been officially government organized. But, when we look at history, there have been many times when it acceptable too kill those religiously, ethnically, and/or culturally different from you. For example, the holocaust, Rwandan massacre, and massacre of the native north and south Americans. I'm not saying America will do this; I am merely saying that most of the widespread killing in history is what now constitutes as a hate crime. Also, hate crime needs to be addressed because it is on the rise. Society is becoming more accepting of racism, (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-10/after-donald-trumps-election-racist-outbursts-in-us) and hate crimes are on the rise (see earlier) so we need to address this problem further as we have obviously been unsuccessful.

    Even if racial violence continues, it wouldn't get to the point of the places you are talking about. All of these examples are groups in society who were segregated from each other socially and developed an us v them mentality so that the violence here was viewed almost like warfare. Not saying its right, but its very different than  our atmosphere. While extremists are developing that attitude more and more, the average American has plenty of friends of other races, and even when they disagree on these issues its not a huge deal. Racial equality if too engraved in our majority for hate crimes to ever rise to the level they were in America historically, when blacks and whites were segregated, and racist attitudes was the prevailing norm. We should address hate crime just like any crime, but not treat it like a special category worthy of more punishment or stricter legislation.
    THEDENIER
  • edited August 1

    THEDENIER said:

    BLM leadership may be racist but does not spray swastikas on walls. The level of racism is totally different.@THEDENIER 's posts show the problem with hate crimes.  Who gets to decide which are hate crimes and which are not?  All too often the decisions are made unfairly on a political basis rather than adhering to any real standard.
    Hmmm, who is painting those swastikas?

    George Nathaniel Stang, 26, admitted in a handwritten statement to spray painting a swastika, “fag church,” and “heil Trump” on St. David’s Episcopal Church in Bean Blossom, Indiana. “I suppose I wanted to give local people a reason to fight for good, even if it was a false flag,” Stang wrote, according to a local NBC report.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/04/yet-another-hate-crime-turns-out-to-be-a-hoax/


    Jasskirat Saini, 20, of Plainview, was arrested Tuesday for 12 incidents dating back to Oct. 15, Nassau County police said.
    He drew 110 swastikas, along with phrases like “KKK,” “Germany” and “Heil Hitler,” mainly using markers, cops said.
    ...
    Authorities say he was reacting to perceived slights from the Jewish community.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-nab-man-20-allegedly-covered-campus-swastikas-article-1.2918012


    Those are just a couple of the many fake hate incidents committed by people on the left.  More are listed here;

    HATE HOAX EPIDEMIC: At Least 17 Faked Trump Hate Crimes Reported Since November Election


    THEDENIER said:

    SPLC???  Seriously?!?  They're still sore that their campaign contributions to Hillary went to waste.  They conveniently forgot to mention in that report that they of the 10000 respondents, had uncovered over 2000 bias-related incidents against white students. 

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/


    RollTide420
  • @RollTide420 ;
    BLM has assaulted people. How is drawing a verbal symbol worse than physically assaulting someone.
    The alt-right murdered people.
    THEDENIER said:

    The fact that a borderline racist has been elected into one of the most powerful positions in the world shows that Americans are willing to dismiss or look over racism and accept it more. Sure, Trump supporters deny he is racist, and that is better than endorsing that side of Trump, but the fact that he has supporters shows American's willingness to put up with a borderline racist. 
    Yes, but let's look at why borderline racism is becoming more accepted, and what caused the Trump movement to begin with. It stems from middle America being sick of hearing how racist they are, and how any little mention of race that someone doesn't agree with makes you a bigot. People are so tired of being called bigots that they've given up, and embraced the title. By embracing the title bigot, it becomes easier to accept borderline racism. A perfect example of the media blowing race out of proportion is how they cover any violence with a potential racial twist. Many of the police shooting we've seen had nothing to do with race, as both the officer, and so-called "victim" were black, yet the media spun these as a police shooting a black man and people were marching through the street yelling about how evil white men were. I'm not saying that embracing bigotry is an appropriate response, but hate crime and the way the media covers it has actually helped exacerbate our problem of racism becoming more accepted. 
    Let me quote you from earlier "Its becoming part of our culture now, not because its happening more often, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen." So, you do now admit it is happening more often? The cause has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You can defend bigots all you want, but racism is still on the rise, so my point still stands. The fact that the media is promoting it is just another problem that needs to be addressed.
    THEDENIER said:


    Racial violence isn't growing that rapidly, its actually very low compared to where it was historically. What is growing is media coverage of racial violence (see any American history textbook, read the section from the civil war up into the 90's). Racial violence never went away, it just got to the point where it wasn't a big part of our culture. Its becoming part of our culture now, not because its happening more often, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen.
    You are wrong. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right or http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hate-crimes-20-percent-2016-fueled-election-campaign-n733306 .


    I never said hate groups weren't on the rise, but that they are no where near their historical levels. If you honestly believe racial violence, or racial attitudes in general  is anywhere near as big a problem today as it was in the 60's then you don't know what you're talking about. If hate groups were to triple today, all their members combined would still be smaller than the Klan of the 60's and you would literally have to add a few digits to get it to even compare to the size of the Klan in the 20's. So it isn't growing that fast.
    You did say hate groups weren't on the rise. "Its becoming part of our culture now, NOT because its HAPPENING MORE OFTEN, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen." I agree, racism is nothing like the 60's, but that's like saying we don't need to address governments murdering civilians because it is not as bad as the holocaust. Racism is still a problem on the rise, so we still need to address it more than we do now.

    Mugging is far more common than racial violence. Its most common in bad neighborhoods where entire criminal cultures have set in. Also, murders over gang related violence in these neighborhoods far outweighs racial violence in our country. If we really want to get to the source of criminal movements, we should target all gangs, not just hate groups, as other types of gangs are far more common, and account for far more of our nation's violence.

    Also, hate movements tend to die on their own anyway, although I'm not saying they should be tolerated, just not treated any differently than other groups which engage in violence. The Klan grew rapidly in the early 20's because of its community service efforts and what people considered noble goals (while the Klan of the 20's was much larger in terms of membership, the Klan of the 60's was more notorious for its violence, and was far less popular nationwide). The Klan peaked in 1924, reaching between 4 and 5 million members (approximate 15% of the national population). However, between 1923 and 1926, some incidences of Klan violence occurred and by 1930, Klan membership was below 30,000. Again, not saying its right, but people can react violently when they feel threatened, but history has shown us that movements based on racial violence don't stay popular very long, as tension dies down and people are averse to violence. Violence may not be an acceptable way to react to what is going on, or that Trump as President is a good solution, but people have good reason to feel threatened after 8 years of a president telling us how racist we, after we've been trying to make progress and raise our children with non-racist attitudes, meanwhile people are marching through our streets burning down businesses because of a police shooting that we had nothing to do with us, but that's ok because they have a right to be angry.
    Yes, I'm not saying hate crimes should be addressed more than other crimes, I am just saying they should be addressed more than they are being addressed now. Even if hate crimes were the same as their non hate related counterparts (which they are't) we must increase the amount of resources we spend on them for the simple reason that they are on the rise. The resources spent on any given type of crime should be proportional to its severity and to its frequency. The severity of hate crimes are not on the rise, but the frequency is, so we must increase the amount of resources spent combating them. Also, before you lose your head about minority privilege, hate crimes are any crimes on the basis of religion, race, sex etc. If minorities attack majorities for these reasons, it is still hate crime.
    @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    BLM leadership may be racist but does not spray swastikas on walls. The level of racism is totally different.
    BLM has assaulted people. How is drawing a verbal symbol worse than physically assaulting someone?
    THEDENIER said:

    The fact that a borderline racist has been elected into one of the most powerful positions in the world shows that Americans are willing to dismiss or look over racism and accept it more. Sure, Trump supporters deny he is racist, and that is better than endorsing that side of Trump, but the fact that he has supporters shows American's willingness to put up with a borderline racist. 
    Yes, but let's look at why borderline racism is becoming more accepted, and what caused the Trump movement to begin with. It stems from middle America being sick of hearing how racist they are, and how any little mention of race that someone doesn't agree with makes you a bigot. People are so tired of being called bigots that they've given up, and embraced the title. By embracing the title bigot, it becomes easier to accept borderline racism. A perfect example of the media blowing race out of proportion is how they cover any violence with a potential racial twist. Many of the police shooting we've seen had nothing to do with race, as both the officer, and so-called "victim" were black, yet the media spun these as a police shooting a black man and people were marching through the street yelling about how evil white men were. I'm not saying that embracing bigotry is an appropriate response, but hate crime and the way the media covers it has actually helped exacerbate our problem of racism becoming more accepted.
    THEDENIER said:


    Racial violence isn't growing that rapidly, its actually very low compared to where it was historically. What is growing is media coverage of racial violence (see any American history textbook, read the section from the civil war up into the 90's). Racial violence never went away, it just got to the point where it wasn't a big part of our culture. Its becoming part of our culture now, not because its happening more often, but because of media sensationalism when it does happen.
    You are wrong. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right or http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hate-crimes-20-percent-2016-fueled-election-campaign-n733306 .


    I never said hate groups weren't on the rise, but that they are no where near their historical levels. If you honestly believe racial violence, or racial attitudes in general  is anywhere near as big a problem today as it was in the 60's then you don't know what you're talking about. If hate groups were to triple today, all their members combined would still be smaller than the Klan of the 60's and you would literally have to add a few digits to get it to even compare to the size of the Klan in the 20's. So it isn't growing that fast.

    THEDENIER said:

     
    THEDENIER said:
    In this era of the rise of the alt-right and acceptance of borderline racism, we need to be especially careful to bite any racist criminal movements in the bud.

    Shouldn't we try to bite any movement which is inherently criminal in the bud?
    Yes, hate crimes are just especially likely to become a movement so we need to address them. Mugging is probably not going to create a criminal movement so it doesn't need to be specially addressed (not for this reason anyway).


    Mugging is far more common than racial violence. Its most common in bad neighborhoods where entire criminal cultures have set in. Also, murders over gang related violence in these neighborhoods far outweighs racial violence in our country. If we really want to get to the source of criminal movements, we should target all gangs, not just hate groups, as other types of gangs are far more common, and account for far more of our nation's violence.

    Also, hate movements tend to die on their own anyway, although I'm not saying they should be tolerated, just not treated any differently than other groups which engage in violence. The Klan grew rapidly in the early 20's because of its community service efforts and what people considered noble goals (while the Klan of the 20's was much larger in terms of membership, the Klan of the 60's was more notorious for its violence, and was far less popular nationwide). The Klan peaked in 1924, reaching between 4 and 5 million members (approximate 15% of the national population). However, between 1923 and 1926, some incidences of Klan violence occurred and by 1930, Klan membership was below 30,000. Again, not saying its right, but people can react violently when they feel threatened, but history has shown us that movements based on racial violence don't stay popular very long, as tension dies down and people are averse to violence. Violence may not be an acceptable way to react to what is going on, or that Trump as President is a good solution, but people have good reason to feel threatened after 8 years of a president telling us how racist we, after we've been trying to make progress and raise our children with non-racist attitudes, meanwhile people are marching through our streets burning down businesses because of a police shooting that we had nothing to do with us, but that's ok because they have a right to be angry.

    THEDENIER said:
    Yes, minorities are not any more important or deserving of life that majorities. Yes, no one should be subjected to killing sprees. Yes, it need be made clear that anything by nature criminal is absolutely unacceptable. And finally, yes drug possession charges are stupid. Here's why hate crimes are different. Simply because A) they promote hate and B) they are on the rise. Humans are social creatures who follow trends. Most crimes by nature criminal have been treated a unacceptable, and have not been officially government organized. But, when we look at history, there have been many times when it acceptable too kill those religiously, ethnically, and/or culturally different from you. For example, the holocaust, Rwandan massacre, and massacre of the native north and south Americans. I'M NOT SAYING AMERICA WILL DO THIS; I am merely saying that most of the widespread killing in history is what now constitutes as a hate crime. Also, hate crime needs to be addressed because it is on the rise. Society is becoming more accepting of racism, (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-10/after-donald-trumps-election-racist-outbursts-in-us) and hate crimes are on the rise (see earlier) so we need to address this problem further as we have obviously been unsuccessful.

    Even if racial violence continues, it wouldn't get to the point of the places you are talking about. All of these examples are groups in society who were segregated from each other socially and developed an us v them mentality so that the violence here was viewed almost like warfare. Not saying its right, but its very different than  our atmosphere. While extremists are developing that attitude more and more, the average American has plenty of friends of other races, and even when they disagree on these issues its not a huge deal. Racial equality if too engraved in our majority for hate crimes to ever rise to the level they were in America historically, when blacks and whites were segregated, and racist attitudes was the prevailing norm. We should address hate crime just like any crime, but not treat it like a special category worthy of more punishment or stricter legislation.
    ALERT! ALERT! STRAW MAN! ALERT! ALERT! Obviously, you didn't read everything I said. Let me quote myself for you. "I'm not saying Americans will do this [genocide];" My point was that hate crimes are fundamentally different from other crimes and more likely to be widely accepted. (note: I said more likely, I never meant that they will probably be widely accepted, just in case you were looking for another straw man.) I would caution against saying "never". Obviously, there are already racist Americans, and it is obviously possible to make Americans racist, so hate crimes rising to historic highs is always a possibility that must be considered, however unlikely. Hate crimes are somewhat unique, and even if you don't believe that, you must admit that we must address the more than we do right now, because they are on the rise.
  • If Americans would never do this, and you admit that, what are you so afraid of?

    There are racists in America because their are still a few people left who haven't joined the rest of us and started socializing with other races. Do you have examples of hate crimes committed by anyone with close friends of the race their hate crime was directed towards? The majority of American have close friends of other races, and so the odds of this racism problem becoming a majority thing is very, very unlikely.

    Hate crime, as you define it, isn't unique. How is a white man killing a man because he's black any different morally than a crip killing a man because he is a blood? The first is considered a hate crime by your definition, the second is not, although in reality gang violence is a much larger problem in our country than racial violence.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't do more about it. We should do more about it in the same sense we should do more about crime in general. Sure we should do more to prevent people from attacking people based on race, but why should we do any more to stop people from attacking people based on race than we do to stop people from attacking people based on gang affiliation, personal beef, or pure greed such as with robberies?
  • @THEDENIER
    THEDENIER said:
    @RollTide420 ;
    ALERT! ALERT! STRAW MAN! ALERT! ALERT! Obviously, you didn't read everything I said. Let me quote myself for you. "I'm not saying Americans will do this [genocide];" My point was that hate crimes are fundamentally different from other crimes and more likely to be widely accepted. (note: I said more likely, I never meant that they will probably be widely accepted, just in case you were looking for another straw man.) I would caution against saying "never". Obviously, there are already racist Americans, and it is obviously possible to make Americans racist, so hate crimes rising to historic highs is always a possibility that must be considered, however unlikely. Hate crimes are somewhat unique, and even if you don't believe that, you must admit that we must address the more than we do right now, because they are on the rise.

    What does bringing up unfounded fears do to support your argument. You admit that this wouldn't happen in America, yet you use it as a reason we should be worried. Why should we worry about what you admit won't happen. Using unfounded fears to justify a point is fear mongering, and you yourself admit your fear is unfounded.
  • @THEDENIER
    I never claimed hate groups weren't on the rise, I said they weren't growing "that fast."
  • You fail to understand my point again. I said it was unlikely, not that it was never going to happen. You ask for examples of Americans who are willing to commit hate crimes even though they had extensive contact with the race they want to attack. First of all, it is hard for an American to go through their early life without contact with other ethnicities, but maybe a white American could be "shielded" from other races if their parents really tried. Here are a list of Americans who joined ISIS. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/americans-15-who-left-united-states-join-isis-n573611 You will notice that all of them went to school, and as Muslims are a minority in the US, the claim that none of these 15 had any close contact with anyone other than Muslims is simply preposterous. This claim just gets more unbelievable when you realise that Shia have a very different ideology, so they must be considered a separate group. Yet, they joined ISIS, one of the most racist, xenophobic organizations of earth. This is also a fantastic example because most foreigners who join ISIS are turned in adulthood, not raised as extremists. So there, an example of people who almost definitely had close relations with the groups they now hate, and were turned, not raised to be racist and xenophobic.
  • Firstly, hate crimes are unique because they hold a somewhat special place in history and have a somewhat unique possibility of all out slaughter. I never said my fear was unfounded, or that it was impossible, and I am not trying to fear monger. If it comes across as that, then I have obviously not made myself clear. Even if hate crimes are not unique, my second point (which you always fail to address) still stands. We must address hate crimes more than before because there are more of them than before.The logic is clear and undeniable.
  • THEDENIER said:
     Even if hate crimes are not unique, my second point (which you always fail to address) still stands. We must address hate crimes more than before because there are more of them than before.

    You never provided proof of this assertion, aside from the discredited report from the equally discredited SPLC.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch