In Michigan, Improper Pronoun Use Could Land You in Jail

You think the government in Michigan is smarter than the government in Canada, Sweden and Australia?



have you read the comments from the Michigan mensas?

 

yNothing you just posted resembles what I am trying to teach you. Go back and read my example about the crime against the black lesbian teacher. That is not a hate crime under this bill! Answer why correctly and you will achieve enlightenment. Admit that you finally get it and will no longer parrot CNN talking points and you will learn what it’s like to be admired.

 

Whether one supports or opposes this specific bill (I haven't read it), it's fair to debate the distinctions between pure speech as opposed to stalking, harassment, making threats, etc. But the aspect of having protected classes/categories obviously isn't new. I think the same criticisms you're making here could be made about the Florida Civil Rights Act, for example. Do you think the FCRA is wrong and unfair because it applies to some categories of discrimination but not others?

 

it's not an IQ test.

 

Yes. I would use the word, unjust, not unfair. Next question.

 

I didn’t say it was an IQ test. But the suggestion that the end result can’t happen here is beyond naivety. Wacky wokeness is a virus, just like Covid. It spreads across boarders like locusts.

 

So for that reason, you support repeal of the Federal and Florida Civil Rights Acts?

 

Well, you were the one saying that you could give 1000s of examples people excluded from this hate crime bill ... then went on to name exactly zero... the closest you've come is giving examples of things that are not hate crimes, then asking why they are not covered. You just keep going around in that circle.

 

Ok ... so it's not a hate crime by the definition of this bill, therefore not covered by this hate crime bill. What is your point?

 

No. Not repeal. Maybe tweaked with more clear instructions for the court. The majority of problems from these laws comes through judicial interpretation. I agree 99% with the rationalization from SCOTUS in ending affirmative action. All discrimination is bad. Period. You don’t need identified groups. All discrimination is bad.

 

Good job. So now let’s change just two facts. Instead of belonging to your local chapter of Teachers Suck, you belong to a group called Gays Suck, and you attack a white, gay male teacher who was a former member of Seal Team Six.

Hate Crime? Yes or no?

 

Did you miss my post where I identified a dozen or so groups/people not covered? Come on man!

 

Yup ... that fits the definition of hate crime under this law. Congratulations. You finally figured out how laws work.

And I know where you are going with this ... so I'll just preemptively point out that your pro-violence "teachers suck" group doesn't actually exist, and therefore there is currently no law needed to stop them. On the other hand, anti-gay groups and anti-gay violence are a real thing and do need laws to stop those people.

 

You named a dozen or so groups, sure. And Every single person who is a member of those groups would be covered by this hate crime law if a hate crime were committed against them -- not a single person would be excluded, as you falsely claimed.

 

you are on the path to enlightenment. A few more questions.

In the two hypotheticals I gave, you had two identical perpetrators who committed a crime because they hate a characteristic of the victim. The first hated teachers, so he battered a black trans lesbian teacher. The second hated gays, so he battered a white gay navy seal. The Navy seal gets the protection of your bill, the black trans lesbian does not. Is that how you want our American Justice system to work? Yes or no?

 

Absolutely. I think violent hate crimes should have a higher penalty over random acts of similar violence, especially as a deterrent to right wing groups that recruit and groom people based on their violent ideology.

Let me give you two hypotheticals. A guy steals a ream of blank paper from a office supply store. Another guy steals a stack of classified documents from his former job as president. The guy who steals the classified docs may get a stiffer penalty, even though the both just “stole paper”. Seems bigly unfair, huh?

 

If I looked up the definition of circular on Webster’s…tell me…what color shirt are you wearing in your portrait? Your are engaging in what Abraham Lincoln used to refer to as mental masterbation. Telling me that people who violate a hate crime law have committed a hate crime is like telling me Tim Tebow was a running QB.

 

so….,you are the only telling me certain people are excluded from the law, then when I point out that the law excludes no one, you tell me I’m stating the obvious. Ok… I’ll take that as win. thanks.