What is something you agree with the "other side" about?

[Cerb]

To be is to know that life is good, that human beings at their root are good (em. added), and that all there is is to share that fact with others, to manifest love in the world.

Except when they really believe this, and find out it's not true, whether it's traveling the Middle East or Africa, or just going down the wrong alley in any number of American cities. We can be that, and we should be that, but that is potential, and must be learned. Human beings at our root are savage tribal predators, weak individually, but stronger than any other land animal in groups. Our behavioral elasticity has allowed us to rise above that, while still serving those needs of the brain, and with the right cultural backgrounds (Western civilization's roots in Mesopotamia, and whatever some of the East Asians got right and spread, that I am historically more ignorant of), create great civilizations, and go above and beyond those basic instinctual needs. Look at South Africa, right now, turning itself into Zimbabwe 2.0, for example: that is humanity getting back to its root. To prevent that requires each generation to be raised with values beyond oneself, beyond near-term needs, and with skepticism/vigilance of oneself and one's community.

 

[jackstar7]

It would be much easier if you would just admit you feel rule of law is secondary in importance (if to be considered at all) relative to outcomes. Maybe your Mom should have read you some more nursery rhymes and maybe you would have learned something.

I get that you'll be dead before the consequences are fully realized, but that's not really an excuse, you know?
Nihilism has no morality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In a Euclidian space, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.

 

[Cerb]

If we're talking left vs. right as the, "side," there's a lot to agree with, or at least accept as having value. I can't really say that I disagree with anything that isn't going to moralist/authoritarian extremes, on either side of the left/right divide. I lean way more left than right, but politically side with the right more, these days, as the left with power (as government officials, and with the media) wants to go pro-totalitarian by leaps, while the right inches its way there (giving lip service to rights all the time, Rs have to be more careful about it). I have little in common with authoritarians, and consider them a threat, when they get more power than being middle management, if we're going with authoritarian vs. libertarian as our, "sides." Most of the tenants of the left and right are both good, in moderation, just easy to go to extremes with. Tradition and assumed hierarchies are fundamental to society, but shouldn't be adhered to so tightly that they impede social progress. OTOH, social progress run amok can get us into situations like having sanctuary cities, and the difficult to dismantle, but usually detrimental to its recipients, welfare state.

 

[Jhhnn]

It would be much easier if you would just admit you feel rule of law is secondary in importance (if to be considered at all) relative to outcomes. Maybe your Mom should have read you some more nursery rhymes and maybe you would have learned something.

I suggest we need to change the law to better provide for the general welfare & to promote domestic tranquillity. You know, the stated reasons for establishing the constitution in the first place.

We've done so in the past & we can do so again.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's definitely perfectly sensible. Your interpretation relies on the idea that a murder in a personal dispute and a murder intended to terrorize a community are equivalently damaging things to society.

That's transparent nonsense, hence why we don't treat them the same. Regardless - nearly all crimes require a specific mental state where someone has the intent to commit the crime. Two people can achieve an identical result, one with intent, one without. The one with intent goes to prison, the one without intent does not. Thoughtcrime.

Hate crime is a sentencing enhancement, no different than many others. For example, you can have your sentence enhanced if the killing was "gang related," meaning you get a longer sentence if your motive was to get into a gang as opposed to something else. This is literally no different than the hate crime enhancement. Both are enhanced punishment based on having a certain specific motive.

It isn't just a question of formally recognized enhancements either. Motives can matter for sentencing in that they can affect the judge's discretion. If you stole to feed your family as opposed to stealing for pure greed, a judge may take pity and give you the minimum sentence. It's exactly the same principle.

None of these are "thoughtcrime," however. A thoughtcrime (as defined originally by Orwell) means punishing thoughts without any related action. Glenn is employing hyperbole when he uses that term. The fact there is an actus reus in addition to the mens rea makes it not a thoughtcrime. You can have any of these thoughts but with no bad act there is no crime.

 

[nOOky]

I think agreeing with the other side ultimately depends on how close to the middle you are. The further left or right people go, the more batshit crazy they are imho. More moderate people find it easier to find common ground and be objective, or at least see the other point of view. That's why either a conservative or a liberal that is more moderate always makes a better candidate imho and it's really time to start looking for an independent candidate to represent more Americans as demographics shift that way.

 

[dank69]

If we're talking left vs. right as the, "side," there's a lot to agree with, or at least accept as having value. I can't really say that I disagree with anything that isn't going to moralist/authoritarian extremes, on either side of the left/right divide. I lean way more left than right, but politically side with the right more, these days, as the left with power (as government officials, and with the media) wants to go pro-totalitarian by leaps, while the right inches its way there (giving lip service to rights all the time, Rs have to be more careful about it). I have little in common with authoritarians, and consider them a threat, when they get more power than being middle management, if we're going with authoritarian vs. libertarian as our, "sides." Most of the tenants of the left and right are both good, in moderation, just easy to go to extremes with. Tradition and assumed hierarchies are fundamental to society, but shouldn't be adhered to so tightly that they impede social progress. OTOH, social progress run amok can get us into situations like having sanctuary cities, and the difficult to dismantle, but usually detrimental to its recipients, welfare state.

"I lean way more left than right"

Truer words were spoken by Donald Trump.

 

[glenn1]

I suggest we need to change the law to better provide for the general welfare & to promote domestic tranquillity. You know, the stated reasons for establishing the constitution in the first place.

We've done so in the past & we can do so again.

The way you provide for the general welfare is by having the government be involved in things that benefit all its citizens, not just shift around money between them. You know like the stuff our nation did for the first 150 years like build roads and canals. As like what the guy who wrote the Constitution said about the matter, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Ironically you're citing words in the Constitution that in their day meant debtors prison for achieving domestic tranquility and such.

 

[glenn1]

Hate crime is a sentencing enhancement, no different than many others.

People like Dylan Roof who was convicted of a hate crime (specifically 12 counts of the The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) would disagree with your analysis of it being just a "sentencing enhancement" instead of its own separate crime. As would it being a standalone item in the U.S. code (18 U.S.C. § 249).

 

[Jhhnn]

The way you provide for the general welfare is by having the government be involved in things that benefit all its citizens, not just shift around money between them. You know like the stuff our nation did for the first 150 years like build roads and canals. As like what the guy who wrote the Constitution said about the matter, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Ironically you're citing words in the Constitution that in their day meant debtors prison for achieving domestic tranquility and such.

You mean stuff like progressive income tax (1894) & antitrust law (1890)? Even the 1935 Wagner act wrt to collective bargaining falls within your 150 year window.

You're Gish galloping with the reference to debtors' prison.

 

[Indus]

It's funny.. I gave this a day and not 1 person from the other side mentioned lgbt equality. When they don't even think we're equal and need equal protection and rights under the law, its hard to agree with them or even vote for them.

 

[jackstar7]

To answer the OP, nothing. There's no part of bigotry and class warfare that I find appealing or respectable.

 

[ivwshane]

Then you prosecute for the separate crime of incitement to violence. You don't say "well you incited to violence in a hateful way thus I'm doubling your sentence because it was doubleplusungood."

That's exactly what it is, dumbass, hence the reason why the sentences are longer than a crime that doesn't have a hate element to it.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's funny.. I gave this a day and not 1 person from the other side mentioned lgbt equality. When they don't even think we're equal and need equal protection and rights under the law, its hard to agree with them or even vote for them.

Of course not, you flaming fa@@ot.

That's sarcasm for anybody who wants to contrive the usual right wing faux outrage.

 

[glenn1]

It's funny.. I gave this a day and not 1 person from the other side mentioned lgbt equality. When they don't even think we're equal and need equal protection and rights under the law, its hard to agree with them or even vote for them.

Of course not, you flaming fa@@ot.

That's sarcasm for anybody who wants to contrive the usual right wing faux outrage.

I was unaware that homophobic slurs got a pass for merely saying "just sarcasm!"

 

[jackstar7]

I was unaware that homophobic slurs got a pass for merely saying "just sarcasm!"

Your concern is noted.

 

[ivwshane]

The way you provide for the general welfare is by having the government be involved in things that benefit all its citizens, not just shift around money between them. You know like the stuff our nation did for the first 150 years like build roads and canals. As like what the guy who wrote the Constitution said about the matter, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Ironically you're citing words in the Constitution that in their day meant debtors prison for achieving domestic tranquility and such.

Benefit all citizens? Maybe in theory and in some weird ass utopia. Its pretty much impossible to have any policy where everyone benefits. It would be better to think that policies shouldn't arbitrarily hurt or penalize people.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I was unaware that homophobic slurs got a pass for merely saying "just sarcasm!"

Just like racial slurs, it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged if it's from a leftist protest/mob and black cops are protecting them

 

[Jhhnn]

I was unaware that homophobic slurs got a pass for merely saying "just sarcasm!"

And sure enough we get the faux outrage.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I was unaware that homophobic slurs got a pass for merely saying "just sarcasm!"

I would love to comment on this, but won't.

 

[glenn1]

I would love to comment on this, but won't.

Yes I'm sure some others who should will probably decline to comment as well.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I don't take "sides" - We cannot have a serious discussion of these stark and genuine differences - with the challenges and opportunities they represent until we first rid ourselves of differences born of partisan imaginations. These partisan differences are merely fantastical; the only reality is the impediments they create toward progress in our national conversation.

 

[woolfe9998]

People like Dylan Roof who was convicted of a hate crime (specifically 12 counts of the The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) would disagree with your analysis of it being just a "sentencing enhancement" instead of its own separate crime. As would it being a standalone item in the U.S. code (18 U.S.C. § 249).

Either way, those statutes still require an act, not just bad thoughts. So too does every other crime. With the exception of infractions like speeding, there is a mens rea component to every crime. We have no statute anywhere which criminalizes bad thoughts alone. You're not being honest when you single out hate crimes as "thoughtcrimes."

 

[Jhhnn]

Either way, those statutes still require an act, not just bad thoughts. So too does every other crime. With the exception of infractions like speeding, there is a mens rea component to every crime. We have no statute anywhere which criminalizes bad thoughts alone. You're not being honest when you single out hate crimes as "thoughtcrimes."

The only time he's honest is when expressing derision for his fellow Americans & delighting in other people's misery.