Tracie, do you have an Instagram?? I know you’re not associated with some previous TH-cam channels but for the past couple years I’ve been binging all of the content you’ve been on, on many different channels. I love the things you say 🙌🏼
No, I don't have an instagram account. This YT channel is all of the short form and long form video content. I do have a mastodon account, though, where I sometimes post other articles: universeodon.com/@athomeinmyhead
Really got a lot out of this one. While this episode makes me dislike pedantry even more, I'm gonna quibble with you when you bring up intent not being there. It's not that intent isn't there, it's that it's not legally provable that it's there. Small difference but the people to whom the law is being charitable in this case are the worst people. All that said, while my comment is spending more words on critique, this was another great episode from you, informative and curiosity stoking.
I don't think we disagree. I tried to make it clear that I do believe laws are not set up to protect people, but to maintain the status quo. My point was literally what you're saying: These laws are set up with oppressors in mind--providing them with loopholes. Making the law /all about/ intent provides a get-out-of-jail-free card that is going to result in most people not being charged with it, unless they wrote their motives down or said them out loud as, or before, they committed these acts of oppression. I can't imagine why we use something so difficult to prove as intent, when it's impact that is the problem and where the actual damages occur. I would prefer to see a "crime of oppression" over a "crime of hate"--where we start with damages to an oppressed community, and then add further penalties based on intention (for the community damage, not the direct victim damage). So, is it reasonable to assume that when these three young men were shot, based on the climate around Arab American citizens and residents right now, that it would have further impacted this community in a negative way--making them more anxious and fearful? If Yes, then you're guilty of a crime of oppression. If you actually did it intentionally, it's a first degree crime of oppression. Currently the way it stands, the person is only going to be convicted for the crimes limited to his direct victims, because intent will be hard to prove, even though most reasonable people understand it was more likely there than not.
Tracie, do you have an Instagram?? I know you’re not associated with some previous TH-cam channels but for the past couple years I’ve been binging all of the content you’ve been on, on many different channels. I love the things you say 🙌🏼
No, I don't have an instagram account. This YT channel is all of the short form and long form video content. I do have a mastodon account, though, where I sometimes post other articles: universeodon.com/@athomeinmyhead
Amazing 👍🏿❤️🖤👍🏿
Thank you
You're welcome. I just felt like this was a very relevant topic with current events based on the commentary I'm seeing.
Really got a lot out of this one. While this episode makes me dislike pedantry even more, I'm gonna quibble with you when you bring up intent not being there. It's not that intent isn't there, it's that it's not legally provable that it's there. Small difference but the people to whom the law is being charitable in this case are the worst people.
All that said, while my comment is spending more words on critique, this was another great episode from you, informative and curiosity stoking.
I don't think we disagree. I tried to make it clear that I do believe laws are not set up to protect people, but to maintain the status quo. My point was literally what you're saying: These laws are set up with oppressors in mind--providing them with loopholes. Making the law /all about/ intent provides a get-out-of-jail-free card that is going to result in most people not being charged with it, unless they wrote their motives down or said them out loud as, or before, they committed these acts of oppression. I can't imagine why we use something so difficult to prove as intent, when it's impact that is the problem and where the actual damages occur. I would prefer to see a "crime of oppression" over a "crime of hate"--where we start with damages to an oppressed community, and then add further penalties based on intention (for the community damage, not the direct victim damage).
So, is it reasonable to assume that when these three young men were shot, based on the climate around Arab American citizens and residents right now, that it would have further impacted this community in a negative way--making them more anxious and fearful? If Yes, then you're guilty of a crime of oppression. If you actually did it intentionally, it's a first degree crime of oppression.
Currently the way it stands, the person is only going to be convicted for the crimes limited to his direct victims, because intent will be hard to prove, even though most reasonable people understand it was more likely there than not.