Relationship Between 'Culture War' Debates And Hate Crimes

[Chekhov]

29 minutes ago, Mister M said:

In the terms as set out by organisations such as the Crown Prosecution Service. They themselves have drawn their guidance on this as set out by Parliament 

I want to know how you define it.

 

16 minutes ago, Palomar said:

Yeah right:

 

When dealing with such a race as Slavic—inferior and barbarian—we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy ... We should not be afraid of new victims ... The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps ... I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians ...

— Benito Mussolini, speech held in Pola, 20 September 1920

I was simply answering L00b who said:

Fascism never comes to the fore as fascism.

 

Mussolini's party was actually called the Fascist party. In fact the word fascism comes from the Latin fasces, which denotes a bundle of wooden rods that typically included a protruding axe blade. In ancient Rome, lictors (attendants to magistrates) would hold the fasces as a symbol of the penal power of their magistrate.

 

In fact the Italian air force in WWII had three of them as its emblem :

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Chekhov

[Palomar]

11 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I was simply answering L00b who said:

Fascism never comes to the fore as fascism.

 

<snipped irrelevant filler>

L00d didn't say that, they said:

 

'Fascism never comes to the fore as fascism. It always comes to the fore as the contrarian friend, finger-pointing at all those others who have it better than you because they are different, whispering in your ear all along about all that jam that you could have tomorrow if it weren’t for those others.'

 

The second part expands on the first and contains the point of the post, you might as well be arguing that fascists don't always whisper, or that not everybody eats jam, for all the insight you're demonstrating.

 

[Chekhov]

8 minutes ago, Palomar said:

L00d didn't say that, they said:

 

'Fascism never comes to the fore as fascism. It always comes to the fore as the contrarian friend, finger-pointing at all those others who have it better than you because they are different, whispering in your ear all along about all that jam that you could have tomorrow if it weren’t for those others.'

 

The second part expands on the first and contains the point of the post, you might as well be arguing that fascists don't always whisper, or that not everybody eats jam, for all the insight you're demonstrating.

 

I thought the point the was making is that people don't want to be called Fascist, even if they are.

[Palomar]

14 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I thought the point the was making is that people don't want to be called Fascist, even if they are.

I think just I've bruised the underside of my jaw on the linoleum.

 

WOW

[Mister M]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I want to know how you define it.

 

Physical assault, threats, graffiti, intimidation, verbal abuse, harassment, **** through the door etc.

[leviathan13]

Where we are now... you can be arrested for claiming a woman is 'an adult female' and that trans women are just biological men playing dress up.

 

It's all very depressing that denying reality makes you virtuous.

[Chekhov]

12 hours ago, Mister M said:

>>Chekhov said : I want to know how you define it [a hate crime].<<

 

Physical assault, threats, graffiti, intimidation, verbal abuse, harassment, **** through the door etc.

Other than "abuse" (which I am not prepared to accept is a crime, and certainly not if it's defined by the "victim"), aren't all those "crimes" in the classic sense ?

Why should the punishment for the "offender" be any worse than if some white bloke is on the end of it ?

Maybe there is more "hate crime" because a higher and higher percentage of people are now covered by the definition ?

Or we simply have more transgender or gay people about, or more accurately more openly identifying themselves as such ?

Or it could be that the police are now hot on recording normal crimes as "hate crimes" ?

It's all about subjective, invented and, above all, irrelevant definitions as far as I am concerned.