<#707691030748594294>

> Philosophical question for everyone _*DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT CONDONE ANY VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND THIS IS PURELY A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT*_
>
> If a white person assaults a bunch of white BLM activists. (I'll even go as far as to say peaceful) Would it be considered a "hate crime". Given the definitions, as they stand socially, by our politicians and many pundits/personalities that impact our lexicon, of: BLM, Race, Hate Crime. Please tag me in all responses.
@kriegor191 Well, if a "hate crime" is usually labeled as not supporting a (flawed) movement (based on the ideas of the far Left), then a (white) person attacking another (white) person in that scenario would be justified because the attacker knows that the person supporting the (flawed) movement is apart of the problem. Wouldn't you agree that an *actual* crime is just doing something illegal for no *particularly justified* reason except to just... do it?

Master and Commander is a really good movie imo

<#738823664346333234> @HUNTER4639

OOOOOOO

I didn't know we had a channel

Nice

Kthx

Just made it

😉

It was in the suggestions.

And approved by the mod team

Oh that was by me 😅

<:TrumpSmile:720121948088041513>

@AnonRed First off thank you for tagging me. Im at work and in the middle of trainings so I apologize but this is going to be in parts, I'll tag you when I post so we don't miss anything, together.

You seem to be assuming a couple things and I'd like to get to the "why".

A) In court, would the assumptions of the accused (the assaulter) come into question in regards to that hate crime? How would he defend his assumptions?

B) Can you tell me with 100% certainty that a person committing any act, as long as it's justified, _isn't_ a crime? Would there ever be a reason that simply because something is justified it is still a crime?

O

This is philosophical in nature so I'm treating this conversation as I would a debate.

@AnonRed I hope I'm not coming across as confrontational. That isn't the point of this exercise, which is how I view this.

For A) Welp, if something like that went to court, one of the first things asked is "Why did you do it?". And if the one being accused answers with "BLM is bad because [insert evidence of the violence going around because of the leaders/people involved with the movement], etc", then that could possibly make room for the one being accused to not just instantly be hit with a guilty verdict. For B) Yeah, not all "justified" actions are NOT crimes. I was just saying what I said for this kind of scenario. Other than that, if the protester was doing absolutely nothing violent/wrong to the one being accused, then attacking the protester served no purpose.

I also can't press the ENTER button without sending the message :'D

Feel free to answer in parts if it's easier. If you wanted to copy/paste from a word document after collecting your thoughts feel free. Thats the beauty of a tagging system.

Sure, it served no purpose, but is it a _hate crime_? The reason as to "why" the attack happened was never under review. If you feel the "why" is important then you can ask for that clarification. That is absolutely fair.

To me, in my proposition, it didn't seem necessary since I could rationalize that a _hate crime_ perpetrator sometimes has a reason in their mind why their action was good idea.

Additionally, if you want to strike your previous comment feel free to strike through or delete, if you want more time to think on it.

Ah, I don't think it was a "hate" crime, based on what certain people these days keep referring to it as. If a "hate" crime is ***insulting*** someone who has (unhealthy) radical-Left views on every little thing or is within a Liberal group of people (like LGBT or #MeToo, or Feminists, or Democrats or Antifa/BLM), then that's **not a crime**. If a "hate" crime is **attacking *violent* protesters** of any radical-Left movement, that is directly a danger to your safety, then that's **not a crime**. If a "hate" crime is attacking a person that did absolutely nothing at all but hold-up a sign in public that supports a (not-so-well-known-as-violent) movement, and said person only did a little hoo-haa chant while standing on a sidewalk, then that's not a "hate" crime, but just a **regular crime**.

There is always a reason why someone would attack someone else, but usually, attacking someone and hurting them is going to be seen as bad.

And if a *hate crime* is just called a "hate" crime because the person committing the crime literally ***hated *** who they were attacking, then, based on that, *yes* , it would be a *hate crime*, but there isn't really a need to put "hate" in front of the word "crime" otherwise, since a crime is just a crime.

@kriegor191

Things look more active over here so I'll stay

I'm in ocala and I live in plant city

An hour or 2 away

@AnonRed A hate crime is defined as _"a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds."_
And since the BLM movement is represented by the following:
"
We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.
We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.
The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation."

Couldn't it be said that simply targeting anyone with BLM is an overt aggressive act against black Americans?

@Deleted User Sort of, getting ready to drive so I'll be off and on all day

Is t anon red the one who said ANTIFA is not technically a domestic terrorist org

I have no knowledge of that. Recommend going through the chat log. I posted a Philosophical question and he and I are discussing it.

Ok

I have no strong feelings one way or the other

You're more than welcome to comment and join in. I request you tag me if you need me to look at something. I get a notification. That way

It was more a reference to your pfp

I didnt even catch it. Yeah, it's because I was almost dead center of the political compass test, look up my post on that channel.

I'm technically lub right but my government views make me auth. But there are no questions in that