More Good News

The attacker in that horrific Macy’s video has been charged.

I don’t believe in “hate crimes” charges so I don’t think he should have been charged with that.

7 thoughts on “More Good News”

  1. Out of genuine curiosity, may I ask why you do not believe in hate crimes, but do (probably, I logically assume) believe in the crimes of murder and manslaughter. The reason for the question is because the difference between murder and manslaughter is almost solely the existence of intent being the source/motivation of/for the crime, which to me is analogous to the crime in the Macy’s video ie ordinary assault vs a “hate crime” in the form of a hatefully motivated assault.


    1. I don’t think people should be punished for emotions. They should be punished for actions. With hate crimes, it’s all about imposing ideology by way of creating “groups that really matter.” There should be some areas in life that are free from endless parsings of intergroup feelings.


      1. \ I don’t think people should be punished for emotions. They should be punished for actions.

        What about terrorism?

        People are not punished for hating someone in hate crimes; they are punished for actions carried out with the intent to create fractures in society and sow terror in specific targeted groups. Whether you think it’s right or not, I believe we can agree a murder done by a ‘usual’ criminal influences people differently than a muder done by a terrorist. Entire groups are terrorised, like Jews in many places in Europe. It changes how people live.

        Do you think “I want to rob someone, ah, here an African-American / Jew comes along… oi, he is dead” is the same as “those … destroy our country, it’s time to do something and shoot some”?

        Punishment is supposed to create deterrence. I know that with seas, nay oceans, of hatred in my country, we need all deterrence we can get.


        1. Interestingly, terrorism isn’t covered by hate crimes legislation. While “he once visited a website we don’t like, so let’s tack an extra charge on” is.


          1. The definition of “hate” has been expanded to mean “doesn’t 100% subscribe to the extra woke agenda.” There’s this idea that anybody who opposes this agenda can only be motivated by hate. Why do these people vote for Trump? Well, it can only be because they hate somebody. It can’t be for any other reason.


        2. “they are punished for actions carried out with the intent to create fractures in society”

          Under this definition, most politicians would be in jail. (maybe not an entirely bad idea, but still…)

          I think you might mean those who seek to limit the democratic equality or property rights of identifiable groups in society through committing a criminal act. I’m not entirely unsympathetic to hate crimes legislation for race-baiting, attacks on religious or cultural groups etc. as it can increase the severity of legal punishments for more commonplace criminal acts like assault and arson.


      2. Another example – remember terror attacks in France and how they instantly became infamous all over the world, affecting what people thought about refugees?

        One group of criminals attacking another wouldn’t have drawn such attention or changed the political field, even if they had killed dozens of innocent passersby by exploding a car of another criminal.

        Shouldn’t the severity of punishment depend on the effect crime has on society? Why not?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.