Limiting speech that can be offensive to minorities
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,924
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
I dont claim to know if the planned parenthood shooter was always obsessed with his cause, or not. Nor do I claim to know if that makes any difference to whether he is labeled as a terrorist or not.
Let's say that you're a Columbine type who plans for a long time to shoot up your highschool (collect the guns and etc), but like the Columbine shooters you did not claim any political agenda.
And then when the big day comes and you- suddenly change your mind about your target- and you think "I like animals so instead of shooting up my highschool I will attack the local mink farm -murder the employees- and set the minks free." And lets say you carry that out. Does that make you a "animal rights terrorist". Or would you still just be a nutter?
Alternatively: lets say you were always obsessed with spree killing in the name of animal rights- but were never in any kind of communication with PETA, or any group like that. Even then-would that make you a political "terrorist"? You were not in communication with PETA. You would be doing on your own. So your not doing the act to advance any group's agenda. So are you still defined as a terrorist?
And what if you're not a spree killer, but are a serial killer( kill a lot of folks on the installment plan rather than killing the bunch all at once) with a private political agenda? The Unabomber did his mail order style serial killing in the name of his own private political ideology. So does that make Ted Lozinski a "terrorist"? Or is he just "a nutter"?
Nutter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive, good point. The distinction would have a lot to do with planning.
As far as your specific points, terrorism has more to do with ideology than any specific group. The ideology of animal rights as motive supersedes affiliation with an established animal rights group. As long as it the perpetrator makes clear that it is "in the name of animal rights," and there is evidence for that motive, I would say that it is still terrorism.
Teddy Kaczynski had a cause. Even if it was his cause alone, he committed his crimes to bring awareness to his cause. I would consider that terrorism.
This Robert Dear character, well, I just don't think enough is known for certain to make that call. I could be persuaded to believe he is a terrorist with sufficient evidence. From what I do know, it just doesn't add up that this guy was ideologically motivated. Even a quote about baby parts is insufficient to me. I initially heard he was attempting to rob a bank next to the PP building before being holed up in there. To me that does not preclude a degree of opportunism on part of the perpetrator. In other words, perhaps he tried to make the most of his surroundings and was already thinking about his day in court. Of course, he could be a terrorist. He could also be completely irrational. But I also hold open the possibility that he is being very calculating and using a cooperative media to help obfuscate the facts.
There, I said it. I have a very high threshold for proof. I prefer not to jump to conclusions. Just because I hear a particular narrative repeated in the media doesn't mean it always holds water.
Facts are stubborn things.
As far as I know it has been confirmed he was not trying to rob a bank, that was simply what a couple of witnesses thought may have been going on as there was a bank within the same shopping center. And well bank robberies are probably more common that planned parenthood clinics getting shot up. Also he has targeted planned parenthood before.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,924
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Terrorism attacks like the one at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood do not simply occur in a vacuum.
Oh, so we're going with there's a scientific consensus of 99% that the Colorado guy was a terrorist instead of a nutter? I must have missed that memo.
Guess I'm a 1 percenter.
Given that he is said to have targeted Planned parenthood in the past and even indicated his political beliefs were his reason for the attack, seems pretty obvious it was domestic terrorism. Pretty sure its not usually a 'scientific consensus' that determines if one is a terrorist or not. I guess you don't know what you speak of.
Interesting that you choose to rely on criminals to communicate without deception, let alone delusion.
What are you talking about? what criminals am I relying on.
_________________
We won't go back.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,383
Location: Long Island, New York
Can you limit comments by the Supreme Court Justice?
Scalia’s Comment on Black Students Draws Gasps in Supreme Court
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
True, but "offensive" is also not necessarily the same as, "harmful", which is what this entire controversy is really about. If the speech is harmful to someone or a group of someones, then the question takes on an entirely different moral and ethical problem. Too often lately when there is talk of hate speech, those who would do such things or simply also don't particularly like the targeted group reform the issue as one of "offensive" speech rather than harmful speech.
_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan
Offensive is whatever you're willing to fight to the death to suppress.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.
Really? I've never seen the definition or usage taken to that extreme. Harmful, yes. But not being equated with life threatening. That difference is exactly why speech that is harmful is attempted to be downgraded to "merely offensive" by those who wish to continue inflicting it.
_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan
Well, the language was certainly clearer when the way to express that you were offended was to challenge the offender to a duel.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.
I notice that most often tended to happen when both parties were relatively well placed in their social hierarchy (ie had nothing to do with minorities).
_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan
Terrorism attacks like the one at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood do not simply occur in a vacuum.
Oh, so we're going with there's a scientific consensus of 99% that the Colorado guy was a terrorist instead of a nutter? I must have missed that memo.
Guess I'm a 1 percenter.
Given that he is said to have targeted Planned parenthood in the past and even indicated his political beliefs were his reason for the attack, seems pretty obvious it was domestic terrorism. Pretty sure its not usually a 'scientific consensus' that determines if one is a terrorist or not. I guess you don't know what you speak of.
Interesting that you choose to rely on criminals to communicate without deception, let alone delusion.
What are you talking about? what criminals am I relying on.
"he...indicated his political beliefs were his reason for the attack"
"He" is the criminal whose word you are relying on.
Scalia’s Comment on Black Students Draws Gasps in Supreme Court
No, you can't.
Also, the legal system is an adversarial system. Judges are supposed to ask difficult questions so the prosecution and defense clarify their legal standing.
If that offends you, then you need to make sure you don't let the news into your safe space.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,924
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
"he...indicated his political beliefs were his reason for the attack"
"He" is the criminal whose word you are relying on.
Well he is the one who committed the crime, surely he has some clue as to why he did it. And if he's lying about that motivation well still makes him look like a terrorist so if he's trying to avoid that its not a very good reason to give.
_________________
We won't go back.
Saying that minorities given affirmative action placement in top schools where their likelihood of failing increases, could be better served by placement in schools where they will excel, is common sense. Like all people, the education of your parents has a lot to do with your own.
It is the same as saying men of 5 foot 2 and 120 pounds are not the best choice for hand to hand combat posts where fast movement while packing 80 pounds of gear is the main requirement.
We do not exclude women from combat posts because of Racism, even at the same size and weight, they have less upper body strength.
It is not sexism or racism to have a sign saying, "You must be this tall to ride on this amusement."
Where we do not follow common sense, The American Educational System, where testing has replaced education, we have teachers teaching the test, and nothing else, as they get more money for higher test scores, teachers changing test answers to reach the same goal, or low scoring students being pushed into dropping out, transferring to other schools. Education is not being served.
Schools with entry exams can pick students who can all do the work and graduate.
Public Schools will always have students that can not do well enough to pass even a watered down program.
The response of failure is not acceptable denies reality. Pass them somehow does not benefit the student.
We need some life path for those who can not pass academic studies.
I would rather offend someone, but give them the best possible answer, than to not offend, and blame their failure on them.
Groups that use female combat soldiers, the Kurds, WWII Russians, I think Israel, have female units. With the Kurds and Russians, women were not front line, they made great snipers.
Just because someone cannot reach one measure of performance, should not bar them from finding a place they can function.
Those who fail school, drop or are pushed out, are likely to wind up in prison. American Prison costs are greater for the 1% behind bars, than the money spent educating the other 99%.
This offends my common sense.
This offends my common sense.
Then what should colleges do when entrance requirements are already heavily skewed toward non-minorities both overtly and due to institutional bias throughout the education systems available to minorities? I have relatives who teach high school and college who have discussed at great length an example of the latter; well-documented grade inflation throughout non-minority school systems designed to ensure they gain entrance to the "good" colleges.
_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan
This offends my common sense.
Then what should colleges do when entrance requirements are already heavily skewed toward non-minorities both overtly and due to institutional bias throughout the education systems available to minorities? I have relatives who teach high school and college who have discussed at great length an example of the latter; well-documented grade inflation throughout non-minority school systems designed to ensure they gain entrance to the "good" colleges.
Asians face the most discrimination in college admission; it's called the "Asian penalty".
Many California "good" colleges are 30-50% Asian, despite Asians being only 5% of the US population. So, people think that justifies discrimination.
I am OK with letting these colleges become 90%+ Asian.