In what scenario/why should calling a trans person by not their name ever be a hate crime when its not for doing the same to someone that is not trans?

Of course all the mods who take WaPO and the NYT seriously-- publications that have never seen a war waged by the US government that they wouldn't cheerlead for-- are on the right.

I suggested that you create a thread about Marxism. I'm not asking you to comment on Marxism. If you're unable to respond to my question without getting into a discussion of Marxism, you're doing it wrong. Seriously.

Why would calling you by a different name be a hate crime? I mean, other than instances that are already covered by hate crime laws, like calling you the N-word?

Is this some kind of weird "contradiction" where calling Elliott Page "Ellen" might be considered a hate crime, but that's not fair because calling you "Ellen" (or Egbert, or Eunice) wouldn't be?

You mean like the way it is right now with hate speech? Are you arguing that all hate speech laws are an issue, or just new ones around transgender people?

How so?

Boy, you sure love trying to find opportunities to derail threads with your political terminology debates, don't you?

It IS the same subject tho, that this trend widens to complete social disorder and then into a marxist style revolt...which marx didn't mean to be against our own freedoms, but me and JP believe that this type of marxism would end up like marx would have professed. The bolded then is my answer without naming marxism.

I sincerely hope that you don't want it to be that if you call someone by their wrong name, only transgender people, that you are then charged with a hate crime. I was more looking for a scenario where you would feel it should be a hate crime.

Calling muhammad ali cassisus clay...hate crime in the new world?

We are cautioning against sliding down the trend, of identifying marginalized groups and creating 'equality laws' for them, we are calling it leftist and marxist. And we feel the definitions from wiki support our intended use of the words.
I have a different framework on this, I think I can't explain it in a post. Maybe if I'm allowed time to articulate and relate to other I can make it clear if its true.

In canada we have this going on that is relevant to the OP
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaki...campaign=64470
"Infamous Canadian trans shop teacher with massive prosthetic breasts returns to classroom this fall"

It's always important to point out that the actual left is anti-war.

Are you the enforcer of trans orthodoxy?

"I can see you're someone who won't be using the language we've deemed appropriate on this issue and probably expressing ideas that do not support the idea that Dave over here should be able to compete on your daughters college Soccer team....so you'll probably get banned, because I am the moderator who bans those ideas or anyone who deviates from the ideas we've determined are acceptable on the matter..."

Something like that?

There ya go, that wasn't so hard. So my question then would be - how so? How does this "trend" cause such a problem that hate speech laws against racist terms, for example, doesn't?

As I believe I've said to you in the past, I don't know of such an implementation of a law that anyone has ever proposed or even suggested. But that certainly is the bogeyman that people like JP try to scare others with.

This is one instance where Lucky's trolling is actually less terrible than the transpobic ashollery that is the usual substance of this thread.

I wasn't commenting on where I or any other moderator fell on the political spectrum. I simply was noting the only part of his post that I understood.

Well, sure.

can we reference a specific legal framework?
I don't think that it hasn't been implemented means we can't forewarn about what the effects would be. But you are implying we agree it would be a bad thing.

I'm not sure how this answers the question, or what you're asking. Who is we?

Forewarn about the effects of a law implementation that no one has ever proposed or even suggested? Seems like sort of a waste of time, but sure.

According to your prior post, her Cashapp screen name is sufficient for you to make such a determination and declare victory. Seems like a pretty low bar.

me and you and the rest of the people here. in regard to ur question lets apply it to an existing framework.

I don't know why you can't just answer the question. If you can explain how this "trend" causes such a problem that hate speech laws against racist terms, for example, doesn't, then go ahead and do so.

Why is that not reasonable? It previously was a name exclusively used by males and I have never known her to go by anything else until now. If she still believes she's a man then she's reverted to using a name exclusively used by females.

Cite please so that I can speak to your question.

Pretty sure you can quite easily find hate speech laws without me Googling them for you. And as I said, that was an example. The point was this - hate speech laws already exist. How does this "trend" cause an issue that those laws don't?

He thinks the slippery slope is to Marxist cannibalism.

Here is the reality:

Tuesday, July 8, 2021
Archival Notice


U.S. Attorneys Investigated More Than 1,800 Hate Crime Suspects From 2005 to 2019
WASHINGTON — U.S. attorneys investigated a total of 1,864 suspects in matters involving violations of federal hate crime statutes during fiscal years 2005 to 2019, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. Hate crime suspects were referred for prosecution to U.S. attorneys from federal judicial districts in all 50 states.

Hate crimes are defined according to four statutes in the U.S. Criminal Code and collected by federal justice agencies. These include crimes in which the perpetrator selected the victim based on certain characteristics, such as race, color, religion, and national origin.

U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute 82% of suspects, prosecuted 17% and disposed of 1% for prosecution by U.S. magistrates. Insufficient evidence was the most common reason hate crime matters were declined for prosecution.

Among the 310 defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for hate crime violations during 2005-19, more than 9 in 10 defendants (284) were convicted. About 85% (240) of those convicted of a hate crime were sentenced to prison, with an average term of over 7.5 years. About 14% (39) were sentenced to probation only, and 1% (4) received a suspended sentence. Forty percent of the convictions for hate crimes during 2005-19 occurred in federal judicial districts in six states: New York (30), California (26), Texas (19), Arkansas (15), Tennessee (13) and Pennsylvania (12).

During the most recent 5-year period of 2015-19, the conviction rate for hate crimes increased to 94%, up from 83% during 2005-09. During the same period, the number of hate crimes investigated by U.S. attorneys for prosecution fell 8%, from 647 during 2005-09 to 597 during 2015-19. Nearly half (48%) of the suspects investigated for a hate crime during 2015-19 were referred to U.S. attorneys for violating the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA).

Over the 15-year period from 2005-19, U.S. attorneys most often (22%) prosecuted hate crimes as part of other charges, followed by hate crimes involving damage to religious property (19%), violations of the HCPA (18%) and fair housing violations (16%). Most (63%) hate crime matters investigated by U.S. attorneys during 2005-19 involved one suspect, while 37% involved multiple suspects. The number of suspects ranged from 2 to 10 persons per matter. Hate crime matters over fair housing (47%) and HCPA (44%) violations were the most likely to involve multiple suspects. Matters involving damage to religious property (22%) were the least likely to involve multiple suspects.

The report, Federal Hate Crime Prosecutions, 2005–19 (NCJ 300952), was written by BJS statistician Mark Motivans, Ph.D. The report, related documents and additional information about BJS’s statistical publications and programs are available on the BJS website at bjs.ojp.gov.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for collecting, analyzing and disseminating reliable statistics on crime and criminal justice in the United States. Doris J. James is the acting director.

The Office of Justice Programs provides federal leadership, grants, training, technical assistance and other resources to improve the nation’s capacity to prevent and reduce crime, advance racial equity in the administration of justice, assist victims and enhance the rule of law. More information about OJP and its components can be found at www.ojp.gov.

###

OFFICE: bjs.ojp.gov
CONTACT: Tannyr Watkins at 202-532-3923 or Tannyr.M.Watkins@ojp.usdoj.gov

Date Created: June 23, 2021
Top

While the table did not come out correctly, here are the states with hate speech laws already on the books. Have we started our descent into Marxist cannibalism yet? Looks like jboutens kind is only welcome in AR, SC and WY.

KEY: Yes ⚫ | No ◯

State Race/Color National Origin Religion Sexual
Orientation Gender/Sex Gender
Identity Disability
Alabama ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Alaska ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Arizona ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Arkansas ◯ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
California ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Colorado ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Connecticut ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Delaware ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
District of Columbia ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Florida ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Georgia ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Hawaii ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Idaho ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Illinois ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Indiana ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Iowa ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Kansas ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Kentucky ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯
Louisiana ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Maine ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Maryland ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Massachusetts ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Michigan ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯
Minnesota ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Mississippi ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯
Missouri ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Montana ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Nebraska ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Nevada ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
New Hampshire ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
New Jersey ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
New Mexico ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
New York ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
North Carolina ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯
North Dakota ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯
Ohio ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯
Oklahoma ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Oregon ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Pennsylvania ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Rhode Island ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
South Carolina ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
South Dakota ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Tennessee ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Texas ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫
Utah ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Vermont ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Virginia ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Washington ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
West Virginia ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ⚫ ◯ ◯
Wisconsin ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ◯ ◯ ⚫
Wyoming ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯

I can confirm that everyone talks **** to one another here in Wyoming.

Same in South Carolina

so what are you referencing versus this:

Right, the US isn't a great example when it comes to hate speech, but plenty of other countries are, like ours.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-319.html

The framework you are citing, covers trans people. Fom chat gtp

And from your source:


Where are you getting hate speech laws that exclude trans such that they only apply to say race?