Woman fired for reporting racist t-shirt

[Elok]

More Americans die every year from firearm homicides than died in 9/11 but the motive of 9/11 is different from the motives of most firearm homicides so 9/11 had a more profound impact on Americans.

DanS'ed. No, 9/11 had a bigger impact because they flew four gigantic planes into buildings and killed four thousand people at once, so it was a lot scarier than four thousand disparate reports most of us never even read. My memory of the day is a bit hazy with time, but I don't recall anyone saying "Oh dear god my husband is dead and--WHAT? They did it because of an extreme interpretation of Wahhabi Islam formed in reaction to U.S. troops on Arabian soil? Oh, God, NO! That just makes it ten times worse!"

[Elok]

Terrorism and hate crimes have a detrimental psychological impact on entire communities.

Yes, because they kill, maim or threaten entire communities. The Beltway Sniper had everyone crapping their pants for weeks, and the whole time nobody had the slightest idea what his motivation was. Looking back, I think it might have involved Islam somehow, but it might have been money or fame or something. Mostly I remember people being scared to leave the house.

Also, school shootings. I'm not totally sure what the guy who did Sandy Hook believed in, if anything, but that big heap of dead five-year-olds was somehow upsetting anyway.

[kentonio]

Ken, there is much to admire about Great Britain, but that law is a lot of pantywaist nonsense. Hurting people's feelings should not be a crime. Nothing should be considered a crime until it has some sort of discernible impact on something more concrete than emotions. Or poses an imminent threat of same. The correct response to a woman being a racist on the train is for the other passengers to say "shut up, you crazy *****" or perhaps see if there's an official around to order her off the train. Wasting the time of the police on that is ludicrous.

We tried your way for a very long time. People calling Asians 'pakis' on the street and black people the n word. It isn't just words though which everyone else except for America seems to have figured out by now, its a vile form of discrimination that spreads into all aspects of life and ends up with impressionable youngsters commiting random acts of violence and murder against minorities.

Abusing people on the grounds of race is a sickness that is not justified on the grounds of 'I can say what I want, because that's my right!', that's complete schoolground nonsense that was never acceptable back in the days when the first amendment was written either. It's an idiotic misunderstanding from a time when language was extremely important, and people had few qualms about using violence in the face of offensive language or behaviour. Now we live in a time where the violence is treated as completely unacceptable, but the provocative language is totally protected. It's ridiculous.

[Elok]

Yes, yes, you look down on us, gotcha. You look down on us for a lot of things, and it kind of stings on stuff that matters, like healthcare and our overabundance of firearms. This is just stupid, and I reject your X-leads-to-Y, therefore X-is-Y mentality. Drinking leads to drunk driving, but I don't see you banning booze.

[kentonio]

Yes, yes, you look down on us, gotcha. You look down on us for a lot of things, and it kind of stings on stuff that matters, like healthcare and our overabundance of firearms. This is just stupid, and I reject your X-leads-to-Y, therefore X-is-Y mentality. Drinking leads to drunk driving, but I don't see you banning booze.

I don't look down on America, I love America. Who I look down on are the leaders and corporate interests who spent decades and billions of dollars pumping a near ceaseless stream of propoganda into American (and English to a lesser extent) ears under the guise of patriotism and fear of external enemies. The same leaders who use racism and anti-immigrant fear to disract people from the sins they themselves are commiting. You're completely free to call your neighbour a welfare queen or a parasite immigrant rapist, because then you're not focusing on the policies that keep your people without basic healthcare or a basic living wage so billionaires can buy up more politicians.

[Elok]

Well, you can believe that, or the alternative explanation that we're simply a more individualistic society. I dislike the idea of your law not because it violates people's supposedly sovereign right to be asshats on trains (I don't even believe in natural rights), but because it strikes me as needless and seems to treat the populace like infants. Like we can't shrug off our neighbors being nasty, or that allowing us to have negative thoughts will inevitably lead to us shooting up the place unless the state intervenes. We don't roll that way. Some of our leftists are leaning that direction, but I want no truck with it. Feel free to import some of your more congenial cultural traits, like tea or lemon curd.

Our racial problems are not caused by public speech, anyhow. That's just the vent for a pre-existing attitude.

[Sava]

"Hate crime" is a catchall for "ordinary crime, only we feel like punishing the motive as well as the actually damaging act." Hate crime is worse than shoplifting if it involves beating the snot out of somebody or dousing them in kerosene and setting them on fire. Being an ******* on a train is not as bad as actually stealing merch and therefore possibly hurting someone's business. On this side of the pond, it ain't even a crime at all, though it may get you kicked off the train. And if someone catches you on video, it'll probably be uploaded to some social justice site sooner or later. Then the members of said site will mob you for a couple of weeks to make your life hell. By and by, I imagine some of the crazier ones will make threats against you and/or your family, and then the police will become involved. But not before.

The only people who have problems with "hate crimes" are racist pieces of **** like you. **** off

[Sava]

antichristian bastard

[Elok]

I wuv you too, snookums.

Honestly, Ken, your whole racist speech ----> racial violence argument reminds me of the Saudis' line that we have to veil women because otherwise men will be overwhelmed by lustful thoughts and commit adultery. If anyone has a hard time controlling himself, he can learn by suffering the penalties. No reason to preempt every possible bad event by attacking its theoretical precursors. Or so I think.

[kentonio]

I wuv you too, snookums.

Honestly, Ken, your whole racist speech ----> racial violence argument reminds me of the Saudis' line that we have to veil women because otherwise men will be overwhelmed by lustful thoughts and commit adultery. If anyone has a hard time controlling himself, he can learn by suffering the penalties. No reason to preempt every possible bad event by attacking its theoretical precursors. Or so I think.

I have no idea how you can justify the abuse of people going about their everyday lives under a failsafe argument of 'well people should be able to say anything they like'. You don't have freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre because it poses a risk to peoples lives. Screaming racial insults at people in the street does the same, just in a more roundabout way.

[Elok]

Not every trouble we face in our lives requires recourse to the law. Your POV seems to be that an act is acceptable once it is proven harmless, mine that it is acceptable until proven harmful. There are many answers to being accosted by a creep: you can fight fire with fire, ignore him, find solidarity in a group of friends, or have him ejected from the area if it is private property. If these are not viable--if said creep is very persistent or vicious--you may have grounds to pursue legal action for harassment. Failing that, his ignorance is his problem, not yours. I don't think there's any real way to bridge the gap between our two positions, but that's how I see it.

(Note that, at present, I have three people basically dedicating their whole time on this forum to chasing me around insulting me every time I post. Granted this is not the same as real life, since I can simply silence everything they say, but really it's almost perversely flattering that I even make that much of a difference in strangers' lives.)

[kentonio]

Not every trouble we face in our lives requires recourse to the law. Your POV seems to be that an act is acceptable once it is proven harmless, mine that it is acceptable until proven harmful.

It was proven harmful. We can now look at a country with vastly reduced rates of racially motivated violence.

There are many answers to being accosted by a creep: you can fight fire with fire, ignore him, find solidarity in a group of friends, or have him ejected from the area if it is private property. If these are not viable--if said creep is very persistent or vicious--you may have grounds to pursue legal action for harassment. Failing that, his ignorance is his problem, not yours. I don't think there's any real way to bridge the gap between our two positions, but that's how I see it.

Why the hell should an innocent person need to formulate a plan to protect themselves from abuse when they're doing nothing more than just going about their business?

(Note that, at present, I have three people basically dedicating their whole time on this forum to chasing me around insulting me every time I post. Granted this is not the same as real life, since I can simply silence everything they say, but really it's almost perversely flattering that I even make that much of a difference in strangers' lives.)

Is that because of positions you defend or because you happened to have been born with a slightly different skin colour?

[Elok]

We're not getting anywhere here.

A thought experiment, to take things in a newish direction: we have a new category called "Lust Crime," which includes every untoward action a person might take under the influence of frustrated, unhealthy or inappropriate sexual desire. These run the gamut from the merely obnoxious (catcalls, lewd texts) through the blatantly criminal (groping, voyeurism) to the outright horrific (gang rape, killing your ex-girlfriend). All are described as "Lust Crime" and regarded with uniform revulsion regardless of which behavior one is thinking of at present, on the grounds that the lesser can eventually lead to the greater.

Would that strike you as a sensible policy to adopt?

(not to dismiss what you're saying, but we're repeating much the same arguments we've already made here, and this is the point where discussions around here typically turn into vicious exchanges of frustrated insults because neither can make the other budge)

[Uncle Sparky]

You think hate crimes are 'pettier' than shoplifing. Wow, thanks for the look under the veil.

Hitler was never accused of shoplifting.

[Uncle Sparky]

We're not getting anywhere here.

A thought experiment, to take things in a newish direction: we have a new category called "Lust Crime," which includes every untoward action a person might take under the influence of frustrated, unhealthy or inappropriate sexual desire. These run the gamut from the merely obnoxious (catcalls, lewd texts) through the blatantly criminal (groping, voyeurism) to the outright horrific (gang rape, killing your ex-girlfriend). All are described as "Lust Crime" and regarded with uniform revulsion regardless of which behavior one is thinking of at present, on the grounds that the lesser can eventually lead to the greater.

Would that strike you as a sensible policy to adopt?

(not to dismiss what you're saying, but we're repeating much the same arguments we've already made here, and this is the point where discussions around here typically turn into vicious exchanges of frustrated insults because neither can make the other budge)

In Canada, the first few things you mentioned would be called 'harassment', and could cost you a job, require you to apologize, and may result in charges. So, you think these are good things, or equal?

I guess we all think wearing a tasteless racist t-shirt should be equal to firebombing a full 'black' church, shooting parishioners trying to escape.

So, you would feel comfortable with your children looking to overt racists as good role models? You would feel comfortable with role models sending them rude texts?

Finally, can you post a picture of your man boobs, sweetcheeks?