🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov15.213453.12369@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
>In article <1803@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>As I do yours, especially when you 'forget' certain parts of the post
>>you are responding to, and bring in situations other than what was being
>>discussed (assault, etc) to obscure the issue.
>Sorry, but I respectfully submit that intimidation and attempts to terrorize
>are very much part of the issue.

Response doesn't cut it.  You are still advocating laws that benefit
one class.  Intimidation is OK, I take it, if the STATE does it?  Bad
is bad as far as I am concerned.

>>There is nothing wrong with strengthening ALL laws relating to damaging
>>other persons property, or placing unwanted material on it (burning a
>>cross certainly leaves a less-than-wanted mess on the person's lawn).
>I would say leaving a less-than-wanted mess is much less of an issue
>than intimidation and terror.

Remark does not address the comment I made.  Existing laws should be
enforced and/or strengthened before adding yet another law.  Especially
broad, vague laws where violation is a matter of subjective opinion, or
written to put burden of proof of innocence on the accused.

>>One treads on very dangerous ground when laws are written to outlaw
>>uttering of certain unapproved phrases ESPECIALLY when that law
>>is not applied to certain persons (when was the last time you heard
>>of a black being sanctioned for uttering a racial slur, for example),
>>or uses 'incorrect' symbols.
>I had asked in my post for specific instances where hate laws were
>used to sanction someone for making a racial slur.  I haven't seen'
>anything but assertions, so far.  I eagerly await specific instances
>where this has happened, preferably in the PNW, since that is the
>region this group addresses.  In the absence of said instances, I'd
>label this a straw-man.

You deny that dropping racial slurs on a black will get one in legal
hot water?  Especially if there are witnesses?  C'mon.

You can label it whatever you want - you seem to want to label anything
you disagree with or want to pretend that doesn't exist straw-men.
Doesn't make it so.  Instances I have in mind are from personal knowlege,
and I don't think I want to discuss experiences of businessmen
acquaintances or personal experiences with you or publicly, especially
in the climate that exists.  Call it 'intimidation' that you love -
muzzling that is done by the STATE or litigation-happy lawyers to
silence opposition.  It still doesn't alter the fact.

>>But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
>Would you deny that you are against the existance of hate laws?
>If you oppose them, it is completely legitimate for me to address the
>situations those laws were meant to address.

You are trying very hard to stick a label on me, I notice.  And you
wonder why one is reluctant to bare personal experiences!  I note that
you also like to declare the 'rules'.  I am not surprised.

I am against the injustice of giving one group preference over another
(for the 4823482304823084th time).  The hate laws I have seen I am
against, because they tend to be broad, vague, and do NOT grant equal
protection under the law.  Especially the kind where one finds oneself
in court for saying 'incorrect' things.

>>On that point, you seem to support making certain acts illegal if done
>>to person A, but not if done to person B.  I support making the given
>Sorry, but its not like that at all.  As I said before, those groups

Then tell me what it is like.  Everything you support gives preferential
treatment to one group over another.

>which have been the special target of intimidation deserve special
>protection.  I haven't yet seen this addressed.  I presume you're a white

Uh - intimidation is allready against the law.  What is wrong with
enforcing existing laws?  Or strengthening them in a way that they
are UNIFORMLY effective - not just applying to a group deemed to be
in fashion?  Other than, perhaps for an opportunity for a politician
to BS the people into how wonderful they are?

>male.  Have you or any friends who are white males been intimidated because
>of your race, sex, etc.?  Why does special protection threaten your rights
>in any way?

Because it establishes a precident that one group is 'better' than another,
and I think you allready realize that, but wish to 'forget' it.

>>acts UNIFORMLY illegal, or not illegal.  Not writing laws to benefit
>>certain people exclusively.  I hope you see the difference, without
>>conjuring up some sort of red herring.
>How is protection against intimidation a special benefit?  I don't see

See above regarding special treatment.  You are arguing in circles.  

>this as a red herring, but as a central issue, and a very important one.
>Seems like a life free of fear and intimidation is a constitional right.
>Hate laws were enacted because existing laws simply weren't providing
>that protection.

... free of fear and intimidation as long as you are in a PC group...

>>I was addressing the situation where one is assumed guilty until proven
>>innocent, typified by where an employer chooses person B over A because
>>B turns out to be better qualified for the task in question, and A
>>squacks "DESCRIMINATION", and happens to be one of the 'special' categories
>>of persons.  I take it you favor this state of affairs, where one must
>>hire a lesser qualified person based on non job-related attributes,
>No, I don't.  I favor laws that prevent arbitrary firing of someone
>because of some aspect entirely unrelated to job performance.  Yes, there

But such laws always assume the employer guilty until proven innocent.

>will be abuses of such laws - but I feel creating an atmosphere free of
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Understatement of the year!

>fear is worth a few (IMO) minor abuses.  I also believe in the case you

It is hardly an atmosphere free of fear if an employer cannot fire a
bad employee until they do things WAY in excess of what another would
be fired for, simply because they are in a special group.  Like the
case of a female black cashier, who was a poor performer.  She was
finally fired when she was caught tapping the till.  She turns around
and screams DISCRIMINATION, and because he didnt PHOTOGRAPH her stealing,
but it was his word vs hers, NATURALLY he was assumed to be lying,
it HAD to be discrimination.  He had to either spend megabucks fighting
the suit financed by an organized pressure group, or pay her wages
till she got another job.  BTW, said employer is not about to hire
another black because of that incident, realizing that it exposed him
to liability he didn't have the bucks to support.  Yup, blacks, in this
case REALLY benefitted from the special treatment you advocate.  Just
that one ... all the way to the bank (not to mention the cash she stole).
You will understand why I wish to not name the person involved.  (If
you don't, I don't really care).

>mention that the better qualified person should also have redress.  Again,
>as I mentioned above, some kind of specific data showing widespread abuse
>would be helpful. 

Abuse is much more widespread than you care to admit, but if ANY is
possible, one can be assured that some power-hungry bureaucrat will milk
it for all its worth.  I suspect you will have a different opinion when
YOU are the target of that abuse, and it damn near bankrupts you.

>>simply to avoid the hassle and non-trivial expense of a frivolous suit.
>>When was the last time you heard of a black owned business, for example,
>>getting penalized when they discriminate against hiring whites?  Seems

Still waiting for answer to above question...

>>we have two standards of behavior here, no?  And you think this is
>>wonderful?!  I think it promotes animosity and worsens the problems that
>>one claims they are addressing.  Course, if the problems were addressed,
>Actually, no, I don't think its wonderful.  But I think it would be even
>less wonderful if all the civil rights laws were repealled, as you seem

*sigh*  When did I say ALL civil rights laws be repealed, please?

>
> ... more of same deleted ...
>
>>THEM, rather than someone else.  Get passed by for a few desired
>>promotions, or jobs one desires because they are not a Politically
>>Correct race, sexual preference, or whatever other attribute or excuse
>>someone dreams up.
>Examples, please?  I've seen this brought up mant times on the net, but

Perhaps people choose to not give personal details of their life to you?
You advocate special laws giving special protection because a few people
get a cross burned, etc?  Such incidents hardly are an everyday occurance
that I can see.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH EQUAL PROTECTION? Its a basis for
our type of government (what little remains, that is).  For the dense,
I am just turning the previous logic around...

>its very rare to find someone who's willing to back it up with facts.
>I will readily admit that isolated injustices occur, but I submit that
>they are isolated, and not indicative of a widespread phenomenon.

I can say the same for the situations you claim 'special' laws are 
needed for.  Please give evidence of WIDESPREAD incidents.  Perhaps
the papers just don't print them?  I submit that abuses of the laws
you love are as rampant as the events they are supposed to prevent.
PROVE ME WRONG.  PROVE THE NEED FOR LAWS SETTING GROUPS APART.  All
I see such laws doing is setting one group against another.

>>surrounding neighborhood) but unfortunately they were not the CORRECT
>>minority.... never mind that the correct minority was a tiny part of
>>the surrounding area.  I remember the ultra liberal 60 Minutes did a
>>piece on this one 'outstanding' case....  All they could get out of
>>the bureaucrats was 'not enough minorites', and in response to how
>>mahy is enough the reply 'there are no quotas'... finally degrading
>>to 'no comment'.  I have real difficulty supporting this state of
>>affairs!!
>Finally, a specific example, thank you very much :-).  I also have a real

I'm glad you are so happy...

>difficulty supporting this state of affairs.  I have never been in favor
>of quotas, and think that they're counter productive.  One can have laws
>that protect minorites without requiring quotas of any sort.  Badly worded
>or improperly enforced law doesn't invalidate the concept, IMO.

BUT THAT IS THE WAY THEY ARE WRITTEN!  AND ENFORCED!  The incident described
was NOT a fluke, it was portrayed as rather commonplace.  From talks with
business owners (small businesses) I have had, I am inclined to believe
that is the case.  I am NOT just taking the Yellow Journalism show's (what
I generally regard 60 Minutes as) word for it.

>>Comparison with the situation in Nazi Germany is a bogus comparison,
>>and you know it (a red herring?):  The jews were NOT given any semblence
>>of equal protection under any law - it was a situation where they were
>>turned against by the STATE, and portrayed as a scapegoat for all the
>>nation's problems.  The STATE santioned venting all of one's hostility
>>toward them, and finally decided to pass SPECIAL laws that affected ONLY
>>that group and provided for the STATE to 'punish' them for existing -

>Getting back to Measure 9 (this seems to have started the whole debate,
>after all) the propaganda used by the OCA and that used by the NAZI's

... insert abrubt change of subject here ...

>are indeed similar, I have some examples if you'd like to see them.

Well, shit - POST THEM!!!

>Even the text of the measure bears a striking resemblence to some of
>the early NAZI anti-Semitic measures.  I have copies of that as well.
>That is why I brought up this issue - if you feel that Measure 9 is
>bad legislation, then I would happily withdraw this reference.

POST IT!!  BTW - I never said anything pro or con regarding that
Oregon proposition.  What I addressed is a general opposition of
ANY law that makes one group 'better' than the other in the eyes
of the law.  But you seem to keep 'forgetting' that ...

>I agree that it has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws, but it
>does have a bearing on the opposition to enforced discrimination.
>BTW, in Oregon, there were enforced discrimination laws on the books
>only a few decades ago.

I would most likely oppose ENFORCED discrimination, but I wonder how
REMOVAL of a law ENFORCES anything... (I couch it guardedly because
I have not seen what YOU regard as 'enforced' discrimation).

>>The minute the STATE supports the idea of subordinating the rights of
>>one group in relation to another, the difference between this situation
>>and the Nazi treatment of Jews example is only a matter of degree and
>>the sense of the special provisions (not the comparison you wanted, I
>>know, but you brought in the Nazi thing with the Niemoeller quites).

>I agree, which is why I am in such strong opposition to the OCA and
>their tactics.

I am not going to discuss OCA or their tactics, till I see them.  You
say you have it, POST IT.  Otherwise, I will address it if/when it
hits WA.

>>Where does one draw the line?  When is enough enough? When group A has
>>no rights, and group B reigns supreme?   Sounds a lot like the situation
>>your ancestors fled from, except that perhaps you or those you support
>>are on the other side of the fence now.  Perhaps you would support this
>>going to its logical conclusion, eliminating all who are not a member
>>of the 'special' group or who express any opposition?  Only difference
>>I can see is a matter of degree.
>Again, I'd like to see some kind of indication that significant reverse
>discrimination is occuring.  Especially I would like to see _any_ 

I think you are using this as a ploy to deny the existance of something
you known damn well exists (AKA smokescreen).  I recall numberous court
cases, the specific cites I don't recall (reverse discrimination).  ALl
uniformly judged OK because we 'had to make up for events 100 years
ago'.  A skewed legal climate.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  If you
want to see the cases that bad, go dig in the newspaper morgues yourself.
A search over 10 years ought to bring up at least as many as there are
cross burnings on lawns around here.

>indication of the threat you allude to in that last comment.

Re-read the previous old paragraph, and try to separate an extrapolation
from existing present-day situations, please.

>>I think the idea of EQUAL protection, and MEANING it, is much better.
>So do I, but it doesn't seem to work here in America.  If you can come
>up with a better solution, that truly does offer equal protection,
>then I urge to have it turned into law - I for one would strongly support
>it.

That is what we have legislators for.  I can guarantee that making
certain groups 'special' won't achieve that end.  Legally sanctioning
UNEQUAL protection under the law is a very dangerous precident - the
only difference between it and horrors of past history is WHICH group
and the sense and degree of the special treatment.  It gets the foot in
the door that one class is better than another (or inferior to another,
depending on how one views it.  I have no doubts that you realize this,
but that you wish to ignore it.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"