4 ms·
gives social proof making it "more acceptable" to target that group for both crimes and less than crimes. I think you need data to support this assertion. Foll
by Locke1689 15y ago
gives social proof making it "more acceptable" to target that group for both crimes and less than crimes.
I think you need data to support this assertion. Following the Skokie march was there more violence against Jews in Chicagoland?
As far as terrorizing the subgroup, I guess that depends. As a Jew I don't feel terrorized by Neo-nazi mailing lists, despite many of them being public. Moreover, even if I felt uncomfortable, I don't believe that my feeling overrides their right to express themselves in methods which don't constitute harassment.
- AkThhhpppt 15y agoEver hear of the "Overton Window" concept? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window Demonizing an outgroup to turn them into acceptable targets is exactly what this law is to prevent (and there is something to prevent: see the British National Party).
- gte910h 15y agoYou're talking about different things: He's talking about sentence enhancements on already violent crimes. You're talking about something about talking. I find the British reaction to this tweet appaling, that they jailed the racist twit. I however fully support the lengthening of sentences when a subgroup bias is determined to be likely. While nothing easy popped up via a google search, here is another reason: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_study.html http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_study... Apparently, victims of bias based crimes have more trouble getting over the crimes as well (as they can't very well stop being that thing).