4 ms·

There aren't protected class allowances for assault. This thread, more than others on HN, fatally suffers from abuse of jargon. Your last two sentences are wo

There aren't protected class allowances for assault. This thread, more than others on HN, fatally suffers from abuse of jargon. Your last two sentences are word salad. Between the double negative and hyperbole I have zero idea what you are trying to say.

mcdonje 3y ago
Flippant response. I didn't abuse jargon and there is no word salad. My comment is clear. You're describing hate crimes and saying police are trying to treat actions against them the same way they treat hate crimes. It's not hyperbole to say that amounts to them making up laws.
- mrangle 3y ago
  Yes, a flippant response. The flippant response is well deserved. It's audacious of you to defend unreadable grammar. An indecipherable double negative is word salad, as is the referential sentence that follows it. Again, because the sentence that it references is indecipherable. I'm not a pedant. I virtually never correct on grammar. I never use correction as a rhetorical device. I legitimately can't interpret your writing. Fix your sentence, if you choose to. As long as laws have existed, their scope has been argued in court. To wit, we have strong equal protections law in this Nation. As anti-protected-classes law and constitutional law activists have long argued, laws of this type will be used beyond their intended narrow scope and across the political isle. Also, see speech censorship efforts. None of that means that law enforcement is conjuring laws. The part of this that you dislike was always inherent in the creation of hate crime enhancements. And, in part, this potential is why many have always seen the notion of protected classes as a terrible idea. You're complaining now. Wait until they fully reverse the law to only apply to them. At that point, it will still be the fault of those who advocated for this unconstitutional nonsense to begin with.

mcdonje 3y ago

Flippant response. I didn't abuse jargon and there is no word salad. My comment is clear. You're describing hate crimes and saying police are trying to treat actions against them the same way they treat hate crimes. It's not hyperbole to say that amounts to them making up laws.

mrangle 3y ago
Yes, a flippant response. The flippant response is well deserved. It's audacious of you to defend unreadable grammar. An indecipherable double negative is word salad, as is the referential sentence that follows it. Again, because the sentence that it references is indecipherable. I'm not a pedant. I virtually never correct on grammar. I never use correction as a rhetorical device. I legitimately can't interpret your writing. Fix your sentence, if you choose to. As long as laws have existed, their scope has been argued in court. To wit, we have strong equal protections law in this Nation. As anti-protected-classes law and constitutional law activists have long argued, laws of this type will be used beyond their intended narrow scope and across the political isle. Also, see speech censorship efforts. None of that means that law enforcement is conjuring laws. The part of this that you dislike was always inherent in the creation of hate crime enhancements. And, in part, this potential is why many have always seen the notion of protected classes as a terrible idea. You're complaining now. Wait until they fully reverse the law to only apply to them. At that point, it will still be the fault of those who advocated for this unconstitutional nonsense to begin with.