This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some here may know of Keith Woods, who is a well-known figure on the Dissident Right. He had his Twitter account unbanned a month ago. Keith is Irish, and he made a tweet about an upcoming hate speech law being considered in Ireland:
Keith was retweeted by Elon Musk who replied "This is a massive attack against freedom of speech". He was subsequently retweeted by Trump Jr. and retweeted by Jordan Peterson.
So overall Keith's brief analysis of the hate speech law reached 11 million people, and sparked debate among opposition politicians and gave the law more public visilbity than it had before.
There's a very slim chance that any of those three know who Keith is or his politics. But it's still a good demonstration of why Twitter is important, and being banned from the public square really does shift the discourse. Of course that is the entire point.
New Florida hate speech law coming out of Jerusalem
After Trump Jr. retweeted Keith, Keith made a reply that was quite strategically intended to goad Trump Jr. into attacking Ron DeSantis for his recent trip to Israel:
You see, Ron DeSantis made a secret trip to Jerusalem (!) last week where he signed a new Florida hate-speech law which "aims to crack down on antisemitic and other heritage based threats." The press release, Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation in Israel Further Combatting Antisemitism provides a summary, and one of the more significant parts of the legislation is:
In tandem with Florida, a couple of weeks ago it was reported that several people from the 2017 torch-light march in Charlottesville on the UVA campus are being charged with felonies on the basis of burning an object with an intent to intimidate. So there seems to be a broader strategy of expanding the definition of "intimidation" to mean "politically incorrect protest" and ban those displays from public universities.
Another significant fact of this Florida Law which was signed in Jerusalem is that it mandates that all manner of offenses, including minor litter (i.e. flyering) are to all be reclassified as hate crimes for statistical reporting. The ADL and various Jewish organizations were recently up in arms that hate crime data did not show enough of a rise an antisemitism, so there's a significant effort to expand the reporting of "hate crime" to include all manner of things.
I am unfortunately not surprised by this affair- an American hate speech law being signed in Jersualem. It goes to show that just because a conservative plays tough on some culture war issues does not at all mean they are an ally. The conservative establishment is not an ally, it's entirely compromised. Supporting conservatism is not an option for people who oppose this sort of influence. I would support Biden over Ron DeSantis at this point- I would be genuinely afraid of what Ron would do at the behest of Israel.
Judging by the context, I’m guessing he hates Jews? Spends all his time looking out for secret field trips? Somehow, I doubt that he’s trying to “goad” Trump Jr. into more socially acceptable forms of political speech.
The full text of the bill can be found here. Your summary is not correct.
Littering is classified as a hate crime if and only if it falls under the new section, “intentionally dumping litter onto private property for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the owner…” Sounds fair to me. Dropping a cup on the sidewalk will not pad any hate crime stats.
Edit: Definitely not. In addition to the above criteria, for it to count, the crime must have been motivated by "race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, homeless status, or advanced age."
In fact, these offenses are generally reasonable corollaries to existing Florida law. Anyone who “Does not have legitimate business on the campus,” is already committing a second-degree misdemeanor; first-degree if they refuse to leave. This act merely breaks out the “intent to threaten.” I much prefer specific, explicit laws to the generalist approach used by Virginia.
Maliciously disturbing a funeral? Added to an existing offense for disrupting schools and assemblies for worshipping God. Projecting images onto buildings? That one…I feel like there must be a headline behind that. But you know, if someone projects “I am going to kill netstack” on a building, I don’t mind making that a third-degree felony.
Just because Israel endorses something doesn’t make it a bad idea.
Your guess on keith is (descriptively) correct, ctrl-f jew. Do hate crime laws serve any meaningful purpose, though? They are generally 'reasonable corollaries' to existing laws. And a doubled fine or two extra weeks in jail isn't going to deter a racist litterer, nor will a ten-year instead of five-year sentence deter someone who's assaulting people on the basis of their race. Similar laws might make sense in the context of, like, constant race-based white nationalist vs black nationalist gang warfare, but that doesn't happen in western countries nowadays. But by the same logic, hate crime laws aren't really an obstacle for dissidents, because 'burning crosses on lawns' or 'random terrorist attacks' isn't an effective strategy today anyway.
That same argument could apply to different degrees of murder or even felonies in general. Clearly there’s some value to creating a continuum of punishments. I find it reasonable to rate crime+intimidation slightly higher than the crime alone.
Is stereotypical intimidation not effective?
If I had a cross burned on my lawn, I think I’d be fearing for my life. That’s a sign someone really wants you dead or gone. Flyers, less so, but more due to history. It’d still be really unsettling.
I've heard that argument, yeah. But to be honest it moves me more towards "maybe we shouldn't have degrees of murder" than "maybe hate crime laws are good". I just can't agree that it is just to have laws where it's already illegal to do X, but if you do it to the wrong person then it's double secret illegal (TM).
There are different degrees of murder to reflect different degrees of moral culpability. Moral culpability, of course, at the heart of Western ideas of criminal justice. See People v. Sanchez, 98 N.Y.2d 373, 407 (2002) ["This consequence violates a fundamental principle of the criminal law, which seeks to punish defendants in proportion to the blameworthiness of their offense."]. Certain forms of murder are also punished more harshly because they are deemed more dangerous to society, such as, in New York, murdering a police officer, murder for hire, and murdering a witness.
The argument re hate crime enhancements is similar: Those who select victims because of their race, gender, whatever, are deemed more culpable, and in addition "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm." * Wisconsin v. Mitchell*, 508 US 476, 487-488 (1993).
And note that "if you do it to the wrong person" is not the issue; a hate crime enhancement depends on the motive for the crime, not the identity of the victim per se. Note also the races of the victim and defendants in Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. You can use them to make trivial offenses that many people are guilty of (though they generally go unprosecuted or occasionally result in a fine) into serious offenses when committed by people pushing political views you dislike, thus effectively criminalizing expression of those views.
I don't think that happens enough to matter, in the specific case of hate crime laws. The case for something like that is much stronger for 'hostile work environment' / 'hiring discrimination' - I still think those are an effect, rather than a cause, for the most part, but just in terms of 'number of people affected' or 'amount of right-wing behavior suppressed' they have to be 10,000 times as impactful.
(also, even w/o hate crime enhancements, prosecutorial discretion still exists)
That's the whole point of the Florida law (which is aimed at the "Goyim Defense League"), and also the Virginia law against burning things on a highway which is being used against the tiki torch protestors. It was originally intended to be used against the Klan of course.
If you mean it was meant to outlaw cross-burning, you are mistaken. Virginia has a separate law specific to cross-burning. That law appears to date to 1950; the law in question appears to have been enacted in 2002.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lol that is literally the only thing that happens with hate crime laws. Take that littering one for example - how many stories have you heard of where some bigot dumped a bunch of racist flyers on someone's lawn to intimidate them? Never, because that's a dumb way to intimidate someone. But still! It could be used to intimidate someone! We need a law in place! Cut to 6 months later and some guy is getting arrested for passing out flyers calling George Soros an asshole. Every piece of hate speech legislation gets used this way, to add ambiguity to the system, because that is precisely what they are designed for.
A whole third of the US population despises Soros, every other day there's a new Fox article calling him out. Enough to matter is the point, are hate speech laws actually materially preventing any right-wing progress or activism? Not that I know of. Something can be bad, yet also not effective at being bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link