4 ms·

The problem isn't finding someone introvert or extrovert to fit in with the rest of the crew, the problem is with a catch-all phrase that has lost all meaning e

The problem isn't finding someone introvert or extrovert to fit in with the rest of the crew, the problem is with a catch-all phrase that has lost all meaning except where it is used as a petty excuse not to hire the brown person or the older person or the person who supports the wrong football team.

lend000 9y ago
Perhaps the fact that it's unprovable should give pause to entertaining thought crimes in the first place (i.e. discrimination cases, where the employment decision is only a crime contingent on what the employer was thinking while making it).
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  All throughout our legals system we have crimes where intention is absolutely instrument in determining the severity of punishment. Ex. Murder vs Manslaughter. Why does no-one complain about any of those, but seem to be so upset about illegal discrimination having the same distinction?
  - lend000 9y ago
    There is a key difference. In all of those "normal" crimes, the action itself was unequivocally a crime, whereas with discrimination laws, the action is only a crime contingent on the intention / what the employer was thinking, which is borderline Orwellian in my opinion.
    - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
      It's entirely arbitrary to say intention can change a sentence from 5-20yrs, but it cant change it from 0-5yrs. Either intention matters or it doesn't.
      - lend000 9y ago
        No, there is an objective difference -- the difference between "a crime was committed" and "a crime was not committed." For any other crime, there is no question that the action is criminal -- it's only a question of whether the defendant intended to/conspired to/did commit it. However, when intention is the only crime and the action is perfectly fine unless the perpetrator had a certain thought when doing it, it's a thought crime, and not only are thought crimes much more impractical to regulate, but to even attempt to do so would impose a tremendous loss of privacy and freedom of expression upon society. I'm all for addressing externalities in society, and perhaps there is an externality-centric justification for affirmative action/quota/discrimination laws. Perhaps certain types of publicly-traded corporations beyond a certain size can be considered public goods in certain ways and subject to such laws. However, when we cross into individual cases of thought-crimes, that is where the left has completely lost me.
        BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        I understand that you feel there is a distinction, but there isn't a substantive difference. A persons thoughts distinguish between criminality and non-criminality. One of the most fundamental rights is a right of interpretation. If a person perceives themselves to been a risk of harm they have a right to commit otherwise criminal acts. The only reason they aren't deemed criminal is their state of mind and what they thought of the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

lend000 9y ago

Perhaps the fact that it's unprovable should give pause to entertaining thought crimes in the first place (i.e. discrimination cases, where the employment decision is only a crime contingent on what the employer was thinking while making it).

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
All throughout our legals system we have crimes where intention is absolutely instrument in determining the severity of punishment. Ex. Murder vs Manslaughter. Why does no-one complain about any of those, but seem to be so upset about illegal discrimination having the same distinction?
- lend000 9y ago
  There is a key difference. In all of those "normal" crimes, the action itself was unequivocally a crime, whereas with discrimination laws, the action is only a crime contingent on the intention / what the employer was thinking, which is borderline Orwellian in my opinion.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    It's entirely arbitrary to say intention can change a sentence from 5-20yrs, but it cant change it from 0-5yrs. Either intention matters or it doesn't.
    - lend000 9y ago
      No, there is an objective difference -- the difference between "a crime was committed" and "a crime was not committed." For any other crime, there is no question that the action is criminal -- it's only a question of whether the defendant intended to/conspired to/did commit it. However, when intention is the only crime and the action is perfectly fine unless the perpetrator had a certain thought when doing it, it's a thought crime, and not only are thought crimes much more impractical to regulate, but to even attempt to do so would impose a tremendous loss of privacy and freedom of expression upon society. I'm all for addressing externalities in society, and perhaps there is an externality-centric justification for affirmative action/quota/discrimination laws. Perhaps certain types of publicly-traded corporations beyond a certain size can be considered public goods in certain ways and subject to such laws. However, when we cross into individual cases of thought-crimes, that is where the left has completely lost me.
      - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        I understand that you feel there is a distinction, but there isn't a substantive difference. A persons thoughts distinguish between criminality and non-criminality. One of the most fundamental rights is a right of interpretation. If a person perceives themselves to been a risk of harm they have a right to commit otherwise criminal acts. The only reason they aren't deemed criminal is their state of mind and what they thought of the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense