Antisemitism

Debating Hate Crime Laws With Thom Hartmann

|

Today I debated hate crime statutes on Thom Hartmann's radio show. You can listen to the segment here.

The provocation was my recent column about Dharun Ravi's trial.

NEXT: Married Couple Who Live On Different Sides of the U.S.-Mexico Border Further Proof of America's Stupid Immigration Laws

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hate the phrase “agree to disagree”. Fuck that, keep disagreeing.

  2. Hate Crime Laws are weaponized Political Correctness.

  3. I need not hear this since it is a safe assumption that Libertarians fall on the side of allowing sich hates crime. Since there are few Libertarian minorities, this comes as no surprise.

    1. Ah’m agin hate crimes ‘n sich.

    2. It really is impossible to tell Tony from SpoofTony.

      1. Was there ever a Real Tony?

    3. it is a safe assumption that Libertarians fall on the side of allowing sich hates crime.

      Or, you know, being of the opinion that a crime isn’t MORE of a crime if you’re thinking impolite thoughts as you perpetrate it. But hey, you’re the king of the false choices, so keep on trucking.

      1. Isn’t Tony against hate-crime laws?

        Oh, and why does anyone from this magazine/website bother talking to Team Blue radioheads? That seems as pointless as talking to, say, Rush Limbaugh.

        1. I forgot… he’s all for them. Probably only when it’s his side getting skewered, but he’s definitely for thoughtcrime laws.

  4. Seriously, the Libertarians go apeshit when it is mandated that all Americans buy health insurance. Nevermind that it will come out of all of our pockets if they don’t buy it and get injured, Libertarians are against it because of some outdated notion about how they wished the constitution worked and bizarre notions of personal freedom.

    Tyler Clementi was making out with his boyfriend in the privacy of his own room and this privacy was intruded on to the extent that he was extremely and publicly humiliated, and personal freedoms, like the freedom from humiliation of actions you commit in your own room, suddenly become irrelevant.

    Even though you claim it’s because you support the constitution, the reality is you are essentially saying you don’t care about whether or not someone has health care or is essentially driven from this mortal coil for the mere crime of being gay.

    1. Uh, sure, Tony… we all cheered when Clementi died.

      :eye roll:

      Seriously… do you even think before you type anymore?

      1. As for being forced to buy health insurance… how the fuck does that tie in with Clementi’s death?

        1. Libertarians claim to be for personal freedom when the issue of a health insurance mandate arises by crying foul about the sensible piece of legislation. But, when the issue of Tyler Clementi’s personal freedom arises, then suddenly they claim his personal freedom doesn’t matter. Again, the common theme of apathy towards anyone’s well-being and rigid adherence to a ideology.

          1. I’ve never seen anyone claim Clementi’s personal freedom “doesn’t matter”. Examples, please.

            Also, let’s see some “sensible legislation”. I’m assuming you mean what Team Obama has been snake-oiling us with, so don’t bother with that.

            1. The sensible legislation is ObamaCare. Libertarians rail against raising taxes to pay for other people’s well-being, so Obama in response mandates that people pay for their own insurance, and you cry foul. You simply want to have it both ways in your quest to ignore reality.

              1. I said “point out the sensible legislation” pertaining to health care, not Obama bullshit.

                1. ObamaCare isn’t about health care? Disliking the bill doesn’t mean it doesn’t adress the issues that it addresses.

                  1. *sigh*

                    Okay… let’s try this phrasing:

                    I want to see sensible health legislation that DOESN’T come from Team Blue egalitarian bullshit.

                    Happy now? Or do I have to re-rephrase it?

                    1. Well, I didn’t see any health care legislation coming from Bush. Obama bothered to address this problem, and you call it bullshit. No wonder no one looks to the libertarians to solve our problems.

                    2. Fuck Bush, as well. I despise him, too.

                    3. Again, dodging the point. What have you, or any libertarians, done about our health care problems? Obama did pass a bill, and you piss on it.

                    4. Again, dodging the point. What have you, or any libertarians, done about our health care problems? Obama did pass a bill, and you piss on it.

                    5. Why should we bend over when Obama does things, Tony?

                      For that matter, why should we do so when ANY president does things?

                      I don’t worship power. The president = power. The virulent anti-authoritarian in me has hated every president in my lifetime, and I’m not likely to change that.

                    6. Again, dodging the question.

                    7. No, I didn’t. I was explaining why you’re wrong to say “you’re just against this because Obama was behind it”, which is just another sneaky way you use to call people racists.

                      IF sensible legislation comes along, I may or may not support it. IF it came from a Democrat, even.

                      So far, though, none of it has been sensible.

                    8. I’m sensing an anti-intellectual strain to your political discussion. I see I shall never have you see the light. Good day to you, sir.

                    9. I’m sensing an anti-intellectual strain to your political discussion. I see I shall never have you see the light. Good day to you, sir.

                    10. I’m just not a snob about it, Tony.

                      Then again, I’m not a bigot. You might want to mull that over next time you look down your schnozz because I’ve never been to college.

          2. “Freedom from humiliation?” Since when is that a right? That sounds like an excuse to shut someone up if what they say embarrasses you. That would be violating SOMEONE ELSE’S freedom. Hypocrite.

    2. A single moment of embarrassment is not the equivalent of relentless bullying. And given that he was going through official channels and felt that his complaints were being taken seriously… I don’t know, I think suicidal people usually feel a lot more helpless about these things.

      It seems like something is missing — something extra to push him to suicide. Maybe a fight with his parents. Maybe a fight with his boyfriend. Maybe something else entirely. As far as I know, he never explained his motivations in detail, so people are just pointing to something that happened at around the same time and claiming it was the cause. Ravi’s a scapegoat. He isn’t being punished for his own crimes, but as a symbol of a social problem.

      1. He isn’t being punished for his own crimes, but as a symbol of an alleged social problem.

  5. Libertarians claim to be for personal freedom when the issue of a health insurance mandate arises by crying foul about the sensible piece of legislation. But, when the issue of Tyler Clementi’s personal freedom arises, then suddenly they claim his personal freedom doesn’t matter. Again, the common theme of apathy towards anyone’s well-being and rigid adherence to a ideology.

    1. Libertarians hate gays and want them to die.

      1. I’m not saying that Libertarians hate guys, but your lack of humanity and compassion in this issue is astonishing. A boy was humiliated for no other reason that he was gay, and you simply have nothing useful to say except blind, knee-jerk defense for the guy who did it.

        1. Point out who here defends the guy “who did it”.

          I didn’t follow the story much, but it sickened me no end. So don’t lump me in that bunch, schmuck.

          1. So you agree he should be committed of a hate crime? If not, you are defending him.

            Just because you claim not to condone this crime, it is not enough to claim you are against it. If you honestly think someone should get away with such heinous behavior, you are no better than the person who did it. We live in an inter-connected world.

            1. Hey, asshole… I’m in favor of justice being done, but that doesn’t mean I *must* be in favor of “hate crime” being part of the punishment determination.

              This is like when you have called me a racist. Knock it the fuck off with the lies, prick.

              1. Alright, specifically tell me what crime you think he should be convicted of.

                1. Not up to me. Privacy was violated, so it’s up to a DA to figure out how to charge him.

                  I’m still not going to call for thought-crime to be part of the mix. That’s a dangerous road, Tony; you, being a supposedly smart college guy, should be able to see that danger.

                  1. A slap on the wrist for violating someone’s privacy is not sufficient to deal with the terror that an action like this strikes into the heart of homosexuals everywhere.

                    Hatred lies at the heart of this action, if you are not willing to admit it, then you are part of the problem.

                    1. That’s basically the same as equating someone like me, with actually committing hate crimes.

                      Nice try.

                    2. It is not basically the same, it IS the same. Unless you want to prevent hate crimes, you are essentially committing them.

                    3. If I don’t commit a crime… I have not committed a crime.

                      You went to college *where*, again? Shit, you should ask for your money back.

                    4. Then you were against the war in Afghanistan. After all, the Taliban didn’t not commit 9/11, Bin Laden did. But, yet, we took down the Taliban? Oh right, we were holding them responsible for Bin Laden’s actions. Again, we do not all live in isolation, despite libertarians wishing we did.

                    5. I was definitely against the Iraq conflict, Tony. Shit like that is part of the reason 9/11 happened.

                      Which has fuck-all to do with Tyler Clementi.

                    6. I was talking about Afghanistan. You do know that’s not the same country as Iraq, do you not?

                    7. Yes, asshole. I was talking about my personal opinion on us being in Iraq, though.

                      Never was that crazy about going into Afghanistan, but then again I have no power to make that kind of decision.

                      Maybe it’s my fault we’re in Afghanistan, since I didn’t do anything to stop it… to use your previous analogy.

                    8. I tire of your dime-store politics. This thread is well-nigh over.

                    9. Candyass.

        2. I hate all men, because they’re ugly, but I love all women. On balance, I think it more than evens out.

    2. I’ll cop to being apathetic. A lot. It also goes by the name of “Live and let live.”

      What I have seen from the Tonys of the world is that their “caring” about other people rarely results in them doing anything personally, and often results in them “caring” people into jail and/or bankruptcy.

      I’ll take apathy over that, any day.

      1. Dharun Ravi is allowed to live and let live, but Tyler Clementi isn’t? I’m beginning to think I should take back the notion that libertarians don’t hate gays.

      2. One of Tony’s fellow travelers told me if I wasn’t out there protesting for gay rights alongside him and his fellow local group, it was because I hate gays.

        Just can’t please some people.

        1. We live in an inter-connected world. You can not just sit in your mother’s basement and claim that you have done your part. If you claim to care about gays, you have to do more than just post from the comfort of your basement that you do.

          1. 1. No basement.

            2. No mother.

            3. What do you want me to do? Quit both my jobs and protest full-time?

            4. Fuck off.

            1. Besides, how is it an anti-straight bigot like yourself can stand in judgement of anyone else?

            2. “What do you want me to do? Quit both my jobs and protest full-time?”

              Accepting that a hate crime was committed would be a start. No extra time needed, just an admission that knee-jerk libertarian ideology isn’t the solution to every problem.

              1. I’ll take my ideology over yours any day, Tony, but don’t pretend you’re not the only one who knee-jerks.

                Hate *was* part of the crime, but it cannot be used as a modifier. The crime should stand on its own, and punishment should be dealt.

                Next?

                1. Well, you can comfortable have that opinion since, as a presumably straight man, no one has committed a hate crime against you.

                  The crime against Tyler Clementi was committed against all gays. When a crime like this is committed against all straights, I will value your opinion more.

                  1. Tyler Clementi was ONE gay, Tony.

                    When a gang of black gang members beat up a non-black victim, it’s against ONE non-black victim.

                    When a gang of white supremacists beat up a black man, they beat up ONE black man.

                    Must you collectivize everything?

                    1. By that logic, we should not really care about terrorism. It killed about 3,000 Americans in the last year, whereas car accidents kill tens of thousands annually. Yet, we spend all this time and energy stopping terrorism, and Reasoners are dead-set against trains, which would reduce car accidents. If it were a numbers game, you would be desperately looking to alternatives to automobiles as a way to save lives. Instead, you recoil in horror at the idea of building trains that have apparently made the lives of Europeans so horrible.

                    2. ” It killed about 3,000 Americans in the last year” should be in the last ten years.

                    3. Driving a car = terrorism.

                      Amazing.

                    4. Re-read the post. I’m not going to explain it twice.

                    5. You’ve never seen the way Tony drives!

                    6. I read it four times, Tony. It’s not going to be any more coherent on the fifth read-through.

                    7. That says more about your comprehension abilities than the content of my post. I shall retire this thread and converse with those who are more of my caliber of intellectual ability.

                    8. Tony has the power to retire threads?!

                    9. He thinks he does, Noob. His kind think they’re better than everyone else, especially the ones with Team Blue Superpowers in Congress.

                      They’re just as evil and control-oriented as Team Red.

          2. I don’t care about gays as a group any more than I care about straights as a group — which is not a whole lot.

            1. Then you hate gays, Kenny.

              1. But then I hate straights just as much!

                1. At least we agree about straights.

                  1. So Tony’s just a bitter gay man? Is that what all this has been about all these years?

                    1. He’s probably been bitter since before he found out he was gay.

                      Kinda hate-crimey, the way he thinks.

                    2. It’s a bit of a let-down, I must say.

  6. What I hate is Thom Hartmann’s criminal style of continually interrupting his guest.

    Will America ever be capable of this level of public conversation (between two Americans, btw)?

      1. Also hier, straight-up.

        1. “straight-up”

          That’s anti-gay, anarch.

          1. Heh – my earlier reply to my own comment asked “Can I say that here?” never posted.

            Squirrels are so ghey.

  7. Anyone who dreams of a risk-free world where our every basic need is cost-free and no one gets sick or dies… is just like Tony.

  8. This has got to be spoof-Tony. The spoofer has the insane pretensions of moral superiority just about pitch-perfect, but gives the game away with the quasi-aristocratic “I shall now retire this thread” stuff.

    1. I got tired of spoofing, so gave the game away. I think the best way to defeat progressives, is to try to emulate them, that is the only way to truly understand them.

      1. Maybe you should put some kind of keyword in there, or an extra period or something… because it’s damn hard to tell.

  9. This makes a lot of sense I like the sound of that dude.

    http://www.Done-Anon.tk

  10. By applying greater penalties to “hate” crimes, the government punishes supposed motives, which it can surmise or prove only by referencing ethnicities or sexual orientations, etc., and the words or thoughts attributed to the assailant. What assailant speaks nicely to someone he is assaulting or menacing? Therefore, hate crimes legislation punishes an assailant for being of a different ethnicity or sexual orientation that the victim.

  11. This is nice conversation about the hate crime and issues raise in this topic is really notable, the governments are improving their rules on this issue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.