February 13, 2001

10:40 AM

The obvious next step has been taken: An Oregon state senator introduces a bill that will expand the definition of hate crimes to include ecoterrorism and illegal actions motivated by anticapitalism. Block a street, go to jail?
posted by aaron (48 comments total)

in the article it points out that the senator is doing this strictly to point out the idiocy behind hate crime legislation.
posted by bliss322 at 11:19 AM on February 13, 2001

I know.
posted by aaron at 11:37 AM on February 13, 2001

I'm no expert on the US Constitution, but isn't there a qualitative difference between being (say) anti-vivisection and (say) anti-Semitic? I'm intrigued by the obvious next step thing.
posted by ceiriog at 11:51 AM on February 13, 2001

There's nothing obvious about extending hate-crimes legislation in stupid ways to make a rhetorical point.

As I've said here in the past, I can understand the initial impetus behind hate-crimes legislation. If someone targets an African-American for a criminal assault as part of an effort to intimidate African-Americans, that's a crime against the community, not just the victim.
posted by rcade at 11:55 AM on February 13, 2001

I wish the first quote from the Senator wasn't him quoting from Scripture. It's just so hard for me to bother listening to a politician who's basing his or her propositions on religion in a society that trumpets the infamous Seperation.

Through the rest of the article he does a pretty good job proving that he's a rational man who has a rather reasonable basis for this form of protest - one I must say I admire, even if I don't agree with the point he's trying to proove.

Reminds me of D.C. trying to get "Taxation Without Representation" on the license plates. Clever. :-)

I do hope it raises some interesting discussion on the matter though, instead of just being outright dismissed.

(or worse, passed into law!)
posted by cCranium at 11:56 AM on February 13, 2001

Update...we do now, in fact, have "Taxation Without Representation" on our newly-issued license plates.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:16 PM on February 13, 2001

In fact, President Clinton had one of the "Taxation without Representation" plates put on the presidential limo, although I don't doubt that it is removed now.
posted by donkeymon at 12:20 PM on February 13, 2001

"a rhetorical point"? the point is that a crime is a crime; and special interest groups should not have laws on the books that allow them prejudice. it opens the door for distortion of the intent and favoritism of certain groups.

take ceiriog's comment: "isn't there a qualitative difference between being (say) anti-vivisection and (say) anti-Semitic?" well, who's to say? if i feel that any victimization i receive was directed at my 'community', shouldn't i be allowed to declare that a 'hate crime'?

in the article above, it mentions how mathew shepard's killers were given life sentences. i don't see those criminals receiving any less of a sentence because they killed a homosexual than if they had killed a heterosexual.
posted by bliss322 at 12:26 PM on February 13, 2001

Let's see, a state Senator with a record of anti-environmentalism is suggesting that hate crime legisilation be extended to cover anti-capitalist actions. And he's doing this to make a rhetorical point? Are you sure?
posted by ceiriog at 12:40 PM on February 13, 2001

Does it matter? It's absurd either way, and a valid (imho) point has been made.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:44 PM on February 13, 2001

I always thought that hate crime legislation was there to protect people from being victimized for things that they have no control over. I mean if some criminal has a history of beating on gay guys and chooses to kill me rather then some straight guys around me didn't he just select me out of a crowd based on something I have no power over.

And on a side note. aaron I was wondering if you could give me some brief bio information on you (age, location, profession, when the anger began, how big your closet is). You have no website in your profile and I'm just curious. Oh yeah and you can leave out the straight white male part, based on your history of posts that's pretty much assumed.
posted by brian at 12:46 PM on February 13, 2001

Are you sure? well, no.... :-\

my point was more about my general dislike for any hate-crime legislation. so, i hope his bill doesn't pass, either.

posted by bliss322 at 12:49 PM on February 13, 2001

"i don't see those criminals receiving any less of a sentence because they killed a homosexual than if they had killed a heterosexual."

But it happens. Ever hear of the "homosexual panic" defense? It's like a rape case where the judge/prosecution asserts the victim brought it on herself.

OTOH, I don't think criminals should receive any less of a sentence for killing an untargeted group (such as heteros). And, though aaron's doing some slippery rhetoric, methinks, with his comments on the Shepard case, I do agree with him that "hate crimes" laws are ridiculous. Any law that tries to intuit someone's intentions in addition to their actions is a law that's vague enough to be misused.
posted by retrofut at 12:50 PM on February 13, 2001

The Federal Bureau of Investigation today released its final 1999 hate crime data in the annual publication, Hate Crime Statistics.
posted by brian at 1:09 PM on February 13, 2001

I see no reason to provide biographical information that a) nobody else is required to provide and b) is being requested via vile insults ("pretty much assumed", "where the anger began").
posted by aaron at 1:26 PM on February 13, 2001

brian, don't be rude. aaron's ethnicity/orientation should have no bearing on your opinion of him. By assuming that this is the factor that defines his opinions, you are stereotyping a large chunk of the population. (You don't like stereotypes, do you?)
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:43 PM on February 13, 2001

Actually I was more interested in his age. Hoping that he is not of my generation.
posted by brian at 2:13 PM on February 13, 2001

(age, location, profession, when the anger began, how big your closet is).
Yeah, that's what it sounds like. My mistake.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:14 PM on February 13, 2001

I seem to recall Aaron being in his early 20's. It might not be in his profile, but he has laid it all out before.
posted by thirteen at 2:28 PM on February 13, 2001

Did I ever mention how much I hate blocked streets as a form of protest?
posted by thirteen at 3:11 PM on February 13, 2001

My feelings towards crime are basic, it REALLY does not matter why you did it, if your unstable enough to commit murder for example, then your ass should go to jail.

This is the first time, that i have heard of a politician trying to pass a law to prove a point. If only more politicians were like him, we would be examining many more bad laws.


posted by Zool at 3:18 PM on February 13, 2001

Our laws already recognize the importance of intention in the criminal act e.g. the difference between first- and second-degree murder. Making the punishment for a racist assault-and-battery more severe than other assaults-and-battery will not bring the justice system to its knees nor create mass confusion. Group-specific anti-discrimination laws that are already on the books would provide an easy guide for what constitutes a hate crime.

And, Aaron, for your sake we're all going to pretend you didn't really write the phrase "pro-gay forces."
posted by Joe Hutch at 4:20 PM on February 13, 2001

My feelings towards crime are basic, it REALLY does not matter why you did it, if your unstable enough to commit murder for example, then your ass should go to jail.

While I tend to think that most hate crime legislation is pretty ridiculous, "why you did it" does indeed matter in established law. The differences between manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder is all based on intent and planning, not on method.

As for hate crimes, the Senator's point is a good one. If hate crimes are defined as actions taken with the intent of creating fear in a community, then why should "capitalists" or "destroyers of the environment" be excluded as protected groups? Surely a series of bombings at the homes of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, and Scott McNealy would put the righteous fear of God into the hearts of the multi-billionaire tech-CEO community. Should we give them protection as well?
posted by daveadams at 6:34 PM on February 13, 2001

And, Aaron, for your sake we're all going to pretend you didn't really write the phrase "pro-gay forces."

Oh, just fuck off with the I defend your right to say it bollocks. Aaron, you're a bigoted arsehole.

Or is it just that one of the goons didn't like being propositioned and wanted this specific gay man dead?


Excuse me? Oh, he was a homosexual? Oh, that's ok then, them pesky homosexuals straying into the straights only areas again.
posted by fullerine at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2001

I am saddened to find so many postsed commentaries getting nasty, viscious, unpleasant. Seems that we would all be better off if we posted comments about an issue and tried to avoid branching out and commenting upon a poster.
That said: I had thought that hate crimes was a category that allowed for punishment for crimes perpetrated against a person or group or material thing (building defacement etc) based on religious or ethnicity.
Thus, if I paint a swatika on a Jewish temple, that is not only an infraction of the law (mischief, crimminal) but includes the element of hate. Or if I beat up a gay guy, that is a hate crime if I I am found to have beat him because of sexual orientation, thus racheting up the offense. A hate crime, then, is one that may be against a single person but clearly has ramifications for a larger societal group. But then I have not specifically read the laws on this issue and may well be off base. Has happened before. And will no doubt again.
posted by Postroad at 8:00 PM on February 13, 2001

"The differences between manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder is all based on intent and planning"

True, but they are not trying to judge based on what the motivation of the murderer was, just if murder was the intended outcome of the actions. There is quite a large difference between judging IF there was intent to do a crime and judging WHAT the motivation for the crime was. Proof of motivation can (and should) help win a case for the prosecution, but it should not have any specific effect on the sentence. IMO of course.
posted by Nothing at 10:20 PM on February 13, 2001

Considering how you framed the issue, Aaron, I am not surprised that people are angry about it:

If a couple of goons kill a homosexual out on a country road, is it really intended to "send a message" to the gay community-at-large? Especially when the murder would go unnoticed outside the nearest town unless pro-gay forces made it a national news story? Or is it just that one of the goons didn't like being propositioned and wanted this specific gay man dead?

I don't know where you grew up, but in Dallas it was not uncommon for assholes to drive to Reverchon Park to find gay men to beat up, rob, or worse.

Listen to Corey Burley explain why he targeted homosexuals at Reverchon, the place where he murdered Thanh Nguyen in 1991:

"Back then it was the going thing, 'Hey man, let's go over here and rob a homosexual.' You know what I'm saying? We had it embedded in our head that they were weak. And we could take theirs and get away with it and they won't put up a fight."

Saying that homosexuals are murdered because they proposition the wrong people is comparable to saying that rape victims who dress provocatively "had it coming." It's also dead wrong -- gay men are routinely assaulted in this country by people who singled them out for abuse.

Since the law routinely makes distinctions about intent when sentencing a criminal, I see no reason why it can't reserve special punishment for criminals who specifically target groups such as African-Americans, homosexuals, or Jewish people.
posted by rcade at 8:49 AM on February 14, 2001

Of course, implying that someone's comments, beliefs, feelings, etc are somehow less worthy - if not completely dismissable because of their age, sexual orientations, gender, religion, state of residence, what have you, as brian has done ... if that is not hate speech, what is?

You don't believe in hate crimes, but you're willing to conjure up "hate speech" to make yourself look like a victim because people said mean things about you?

Cue the violins.
posted by rcade at 8:55 AM on February 14, 2001

Wouldn't it be horrible to find out that aaron and rcade were really the same person playing us all for fools.
posted by thirteen at 9:16 AM on February 14, 2001

that's a crime against the community, not just the victim.

Virtually ALL crimes are crimes against the community - that's a sound bite, not an argument.

When I was held up at gunpoint (twice!) everyone in the community suffered the loss of safety of their streets. Had I been shot and killed, as some folks have been, the memebers of the community would largely have resorted to hiding behind their locked doors.

Now, both of these incidents occurred within the six-block radius around the U.S. Capitol building, which means that the area is both heavily patrolled by multiple police forces and victims are not allowed to defend themselves by owning, let alone carrying, handguns. (Maybe if some of those "weak" gay men were armed more frequently, gay bashers would think twice. Hell, just thinking about a gay militia makes me want to stand up and cheer.)

[I]sn't there a qualitative difference between being (say) anti-vivisection and (say) anti-Semitic?

Nope. The only Constitutional distinction is that the govenrment cannot discriminate against Jews but may discriminate against vivsectionists. If the penatly for, say killing a Jew were less than that for killing a vivsectionist, then there might be an issue. But if the penalty is the same, there's not.

posted by mikewas at 10:20 AM on February 14, 2001

Hate crimes and hate speech are two entirely different things. You know that. To attempt to conflate the two is pathetic rhetoric.

You're the person who introduced the subject of "hate speech" in this thread, Aaron.

Getting back to the topic at hand, no one is disputing that some homosexuals are the victims of crimes for reasons other than their sexuality. But it's impossible to dispute the fact that gays are often singled out as crime victims. That's one of the biggest reasons hate crimes should be on the books.

To disparage me personally as a human being for not feeling the same way is completely untenable and disgusting. And yeah, it's hate.

Can I disparage you personally for dragging around this persecution complex from thread to thread?
posted by rcade at 10:23 AM on February 14, 2001

Virtually ALL crimes are crimes against the community - that's a sound bite, not an argument.

There are numerous crimes committed against specific people for specific reasons. I don't think Amy Fisher was sending a message to Long Island when she shot Mary Jo Buttafuoco in the head.
posted by rcade at 10:25 AM on February 14, 2001

What the fuck?

If you don't like each other, whatever, that's your business, but this isn't the place to insult each other. If you want to do that, go off-site. If you can't argue your point without personally attacking someone, then do you really have a point? Even if you do have one buried in there somewhere, it gets lost in the sheer stupidity of carrying out a personal attack.

Bicker elsewhere, please.
posted by cCranium at 11:23 AM on February 14, 2001

Alright, I should've posted the above here in MetaTalk. Sorry.
posted by cCranium at 11:39 AM on February 14, 2001

No cC, you GO with your bad-ass blogging self!
posted by Avogadro at 11:41 AM on February 14, 2001

Aaron, you're a bigoted arsehole.
Bigots are the new communists.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:18 PM on February 14, 2001

"Of course, implying that someone's comments, beliefs, feelings, etc are somehow less worthy - if not completely dismissable because of their age, sexual orientations, gender, religion, state of residence, what have you, as brian has done ... if that is not hate speech, what is?"

Then that's what you're writing, by your own definition, since your use of "pro-gay" as a qualifier implies that "gay activists" are the only people who would be concerned with such a minor thing as some guy getting beaten into a coma and strung up on a fence for a few days like a coyote -- isn't that implying that the comments, beliefs, et cet, of "gay activists" are somehow less worthy? And that anyone who is concerned with this must be a "gay activist"?

The rhetoric of calling those who you disagree with "special interest groups" so you can dismiss them is exhibited here as well, which belies the idea that you're looking for a serious debate. Characterizing people who get AIDS as homos or druggies, for example (and to be clear I haven't seen aaron do that here), and thus AIDS activists as a "special interest group" that's selfishly hoovering public money for its own purposes, ignores the fact that public health is a public concern (ask anybody who gets airborne drug-resistant tuberculosis from just talking to somebody), and that AIDS is a worldwide health disaster.

Seems to me that it's a matter of equal human rights, not "special" gay rights. Look, you don't have to be gay for someone to attack you for appearing to them as gay. It could happen to you, would it be justice then for your attacker to avoid jail by asserting you came on to him? Would you applaud the decision from your wheelchair or grave, cuz at least the "heterosexual community" would have been saved from all those uppity queers and their foolish claim to equal rights under the law?

If an unwanted sexual advance (as asserted by you, though it was also part of Shepard's assailants' defense) is really cause for beating someone to death . . . hell, I can't come up with words enough to say how vile that idea is. You try.

ps: Word to the wise -- don't try to jack up the rhetoric again by saying you're being "bashed" here. If you were really bashed, you'd be missing teeth, in the hospital ICU, crippled, or dead. "Gay bashing" is usually among the most violent of assaults.
posted by retrofut at 1:44 PM on February 14, 2001

And that anyone who is concerned with this must be a "gay activist"?

Well, yeah. People who are concerned with equal rights for [discriminated group of choice] are activists for [discriminated group of choice].

I'm a member of the pro-gay forces, and the pro-women and pro-black and all the other pro-[discriminated group of choice, except Flash Designers] forces, and I'm damn proud of the fact.

Read what aaron wrote, read the context in which he said "pro-gay forces". He said that if a gay man was killed in a small town in the middle of nowhere, the only way it'd make national news is if it was publicised by gay activists.

That's not a prejudiced statement, it's a statement of fact. If anyone was killed in the middle of Main St., Nowheresville, it wouldn't make national news unless someone made it national news.

Because it wouldn't be made national news, how is it a message to the nation that some classification of people are "wrong"?

That's all aaron's asking, and rather then addressing that point, everyone here's jumped on the "Ew, homophobe!" bandwagon without actually reading anything he said.

If an unwanted sexual advance ... is really cause for beating someone to death

Again, it's called context. context. He's not saying this is a reason for himself to kill someone, he's saying it's a reason people have claimed for killing someone. He doesn't say it's a good reason, or a valid reason, and in fact he doesn't make any kind of judgement on the reason, he just offers it up as a datapoint.

If you were really bashed, you'd be missing teeth...

"Bashed", in the context (I keep having to say that word) of an online discussion forum is exactly what's happening to aaron. He's being personally insulted and attacked for making what's essentially a statement of fact.
posted by cCranium at 2:53 PM on February 14, 2001

Well, yeah. People who are concerned with equal rights for [discriminated group of choice] are activists for [discriminated group of choice].

I'm a member of the pro-gay forces, and the pro-women and pro-black and all the other pro-[discriminated group of choice, except Flash Designers] forces, and I'm damn proud of the fact.

Well, I appreciate your position but I think you're buying into impoverished concepts of "activism" and "discrimination".

It's not even logical. Notice that you used the same rhetoric for Flash designers (none of whom are AFAIK actually targeted for death) as for gender, race and orientation, none of which are particularly optional. I could as easily call myself a "right-hander activist", "masturbation activist" or "temporary-filling activist" and still sit on my thumbs all day. Some "activism". Would you call me a cigarette smoker (or cigarette "activist") because I'm often in their presence and don't wrestle the poisonous, air-befouling things out of their mouths?

I suppose I could call you racist purely because you're a citizen (of the US, I assume) of a country where racism has been institutionalized (racism, like many other prejudices, not being the exclusive property of designated oppressors). Not only does it leave you without a useful word for when you encounter real bigotry (against anyone), it confuses the difference between action, speech and thought . . . which was what we were describing, and I think aaron was trying to point out (among many other things).

As I said, I agree with him on the ludicrous nature of "hate crimes" laws.

Read what aaron wrote, read the context in which he said "pro-gay forces". He said that if a gay man was killed in a small town in the middle of nowhere, the only way it'd make national news is if it was publicised by gay activists.

. . . which, conveniently, are defined here as those who would publicize it. Seems circular reasoning to me, and rather exclusive -- again, why do I have to be a "gay activist" to be appalled at such a murder? If my mom got upset about it, would she be a "gay activist" or a "child activist"?

That's not a prejudiced statement, it's a statement of fact. If anyone was killed in the middle of Main St., Nowheresville, it wouldn't make national news unless someone made it national news.

I'm not saying it's a prejudiced statement, I just don't think it's true. (And there's plenty of crime in large cities that doesn't make the media either.) The slaying of James Byrd around the same time made the news because of the heinous nature of the crime. (You remember, he was tied to the back of a truck and dragged to pieces so someone could "send a message" that he should be included in a white supremacist group.) I don't recall it being necessary for "pro-black" "activists" to bring it to the public's attention. And what if it was? Are we supposed to ignore it because of their self-interest? (That assumes they're all black, which doesn't have to be true any more than all AIDS activists being gay, IV-drug users or HIV-positive.)

Because it wouldn't be made national news, how is it a message to the nation that some classification of people are "wrong"?

You mean, rather than being partly the result of all the previous messages? Prejudice exists in a context, too. Godhatesfags.com is just the nauseous tip of the iceberg of those who preach homo-hatred, demonizing and dehumanizing queers until it's no big deal to hurt or kill one. After all, they might be better off dead.

And would a burning cross or lynching be ineffective communication if knowledge of it didn't go further than the neighborhood? I doubt it, a burning cross is by definition a symbolic message -- we own this place, you are not equal/welcome.

[I should say that I'm not in favor of calling these things "messages". (As Harry Warner is presumed to have said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union.") When McVeigh was on trial for blowing up the building in Oklahoma City, and given that we're in a societal surround that sez campaign contributions are an "expressive message" and can't be regulated, I was afraid he'd be found not guilty because he wanted to express a message covered by the First Amendment.]

He's not saying this is a reason for himself to kill someone, he's saying it's a reason people have claimed for killing someone. He doesn't say it's a good reason, or a valid reason, and in fact he doesn't make any kind of judgement on the reason, he just offers it up as a datapoint.

There's an argument that he's not talking about Matthew Shepard, but it sure looks like that was the template he had in mind. Still, I can't read his mind so it's not conclusive.

Calling it a purely hypothetical question robs his argument of its validity, since there's no distinguishing between all those silly inconvenient, quotidian facts from any real interaction between people that get left out and a straw man being propped up. You know, context. ("Oh, I didn't mean Matthew Shepard, I meant some foul, depraved cocksucker who wouldn't take no for an answer. He ate babies, too.") Unlike a strict reading of his hypothetical, Shepard was targeted for appearing gay. So why did his four captors pick him up before robbing him? I doubt a walk on the wild side was what two straight couples had in mind at the time.

"Bashed", in the context (I keep having to say that word) of an online discussion forum is exactly what's happening to aaron. He's being personally insulted and attacked for making what's essentially a statement of fact.

Well, I think your threshold for considering someone an activist is rather low, and I'd say the same for your definition of bashing. About the only similarity I can see is that he's being attacked -- verbally, not physically -- because of other people's perceptions (accurate or inaccurate or both) of him. Show me the blood.
posted by retrofut at 5:57 PM on February 14, 2001

Notice that you used the same rhetoric for Flash designers (none of whom are AFAIK actually targeted for death) as for gender, race and orientation, none of which are particularly optional.

Yeah, it was a joke. You know, funny, humour, lighten the mood in here a little bit?

I suppose I could call you racist purely because you're a citizen (of the US, I assume)

You assume wrong. And for you to call someone a racist because they're a citizen of a nation? Wow. Just, wow. I mean, that's a big blanket.

Some "activism".

When I say that I'm an activist, I mean that if I see discriminatory activity I call people on it. Daily. I do not sit on my thumbs. I say that I'm an activist because I treat everyone I meet equally until they demonstrate to me that they're not worth of my respect. I call myself an activist because every day of my life I not only live it in the best way that I know how, but I'm constantly trying to learn better ways to learn it.

I've protested government actions that I believe are wrong, I've rallied for political movements that I believe in. I call myself an activist because I act.

why do I have to be a "gay activist" to be appalled at such a murder?

No one said you do. What was said is that you won't even KNOW about the murder to be appalled by it, unless it makes national news, and it won't make national news until someone acts to make it so. That was the point being made.

we supposed to ignore it because of their self-interest?

Who said that? Who implied that? Where did anyone say "We shouldn't pay attention to something unless there's prejudice involved?"

Regarding James Byrd. What I gather from your description ("a heinous crime") is that it's an exceptional case. Certainly not all murders are as brutal as being dragged around behind a truck, so of course something that disgusting is going to be considered newsworthy outside of the (small? you didn't say and I don't know the case) town/city where it happened.

Still, I can't read his mind so it's not conclusive.

I have a suggestion for you. If you aren't explicitly told what someone's trying to say, don't assume that you know what they're saying. It clouds the issue and makes productive discourse very difficult. If you want clarification on a point, ask.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm here for the interesting discussion and the expansion of my knowledge. Arguing because of something you think it's probable that someone you don't know may have possibly meant to subtly insinuate is quite fruitless.

Show me the blood.

Um, you realize that you're online right? :-)

Words are quite capable of having more than one definition, and while often similar, they do mean different things in different environments. "Being bashed" in an online context has long meant being verbally abused. I'm sorry if I used jargon you're unfamiliar with.

Actually, after looking up the definition of bashing I stumbled across this:

bash (bsh)
v. bashed, bash·ing, bash·es.
v. tr.

1) To strike with a heavy, crushing blow.
2) Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: “He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair” (Lally Weymouth).

v. intr. Informal
To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

n.
Informal. A heavy, crushing blow.
Slang. A celebration; a party.

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

So, it's not even jargon, or even "my" definition. It's a recognized definition of the word.
posted by cCranium at 5:57 AM on February 15, 2001

There are numerous crimes committed against specific people for specific reasons. I don't think Amy Fisher was sending a message to Long Island when she shot Mary Jo Buttafuoco in the head.

But if you don't think that Long Island community suffered from her crime, you might want to try talking to some folks who lived on Long Island at the time - many of them feel differently.

The actual victim of a crime is not limited to the intended victim(s).
posted by mikewas at 7:06 AM on February 15, 2001

Regarding James Byrd. What I gather from your description ("a heinous crime") is that it's an exceptional case. Certainly not all murders are as brutal as being dragged around behind a truck, so of course something that disgusting is going to be considered newsworthy outside of the (small? you didn't say and I don't know the case) town/city where it happened.

Yes, it was a small town (Jasper, Texas). So are you suggesting that aaron's hypothetical was wrong? After all, he didn't leave any loopholes for "exceptional cases", and we've come up with two right here -- Byrd and Shepard (one of which is arguably what he had in mind -- I did think long about this before going ahead with my assertion).

That's the trouble with blanket statements attached to hypothetical contextless scenarios. No, I don't think generalizations are useless, but in a freewheeling discussion like this it's easier to speak to specifics and ask questions about facts, known or disputed. Aaron stated what seems to you to be a fact in his hypothetical, though you seem to accept that there are exceptions to the fact; I say it's not a fact, with reference to those exceptions. Is one of us right? Are we possibly saying the same thing with different words and emphasis? I doubt you could achieve the same clarity with a one-sentence hypothetical.

If you aren't explicitly told what someone's trying to say, don't assume that you know what they're saying. It clouds the issue and makes productive discourse very difficult. If you want clarification on a point, ask.

Thanks, I'm sorry you didn't recognize my questions as such a process even though you answered them.

I'm glad you have an active activist life -- more power to you! (We may well agree more on this than you realize.) And I'm sure every one of your activist actions is fully justified to the extent you suggest above. And we should take everyone's words at face value, because everybody speaks plainly and honestly at all times, and each of us understands the depths of our lives and souls completely.

Oh, that that were true. Politics, especially (and literature too), is partly the process of decoding what people say into what they mean but won't or can't say. (Try reading Doonesbury or editorial cartoons for examples of this.)

ps: To quote Lally Weymouth for an "informal" definition of "bashing" is to throw out the context. Odds are (given the period in which she's been active as a writer, my first approximation being 1978-present) that this is an example of the process of "jacking up the rhetoric" that I originally referred to in my injunction above (last paragraph). I remember hearing "bashing" used (abused, IMO) in this way back in the Reagan years. OTOH, show me an example from before 1970 and I'll admit I'm wrong and just a word-fascist at heart.

("The poet's first duty is to the language, which is alive." -- doug barbour)
posted by retrofut at 3:01 PM on February 15, 2001

Carroll students shocked
By LAURA TODE
Helena Independent Record

HELENA – Carroll College is a community that has been described as a family – safe, secure and quiet – but an attack on a gay student in his dorm has sent shock waves of fear through the school and shattered the peace that once marked the campus.

Students and staff were informed Thursday of the Jan. 17 attack, which occurred in one of the campus residence halls. The student had returned from the shower to his room at 1:30 a.m. when he was hit in the head with a bottle, knocked unconscious and further beaten, according to a report filed by the student with school administrators. The words “Die Fag” were written on his body, and the student later required surgery because of cuts on his eye.

Several days later, fearing for his safety, he withdrew from Carroll and returned to his Spokane-area home. He was an openly gay senior studying biology hoping to graduate this spring.

Full story here, taken from Unknown News. I guess this makes me a gay activist, though I'm not gay. (Maybe we should revisit our assumptions about how info gets passed around in this new age of the 'Net.)
posted by retrofut at 3:29 PM on February 15, 2001

retrofut, I agree that we agree on a lot more than we're letting on. I also agree that we're disagreeing about the ways in which we agree, which is frustrating, and probably the source of our contention. :-)

To be quite honest, I'm too tired to argue with you any more. You've made some great points and given me lots to think about.

You're still wrong of course, but I'm rather content to disagree on the semantics and move forward. Thank you for the discussion, it's been mostly entertaining.

To veer this conversation even more off course now , regarding word facism. I consider myself a word facist in many ways also, which is partially why I disagree with your exclusion of my definition of "bash".

If a word's had common usage for something for even 30 years (I agree, I'd be hard-pressed to find "bash" used for verbal abuse before 1970, and I'm too busy and lazy to bother trying anyway :-) then that usage should be accepted into the lexicon.

Like you quoted, language is alive. I don't see the point in forced stagnation of it. :-)




posted by cCranium at 7:40 AM on February 16, 2001