Colorado Springs LGBT Nightclub Shooting; At Least 5 Dead, 18 Injured

[Ronson]

I wouldn't trust Rachel any further than I can throw a bull by the tail.

The best way to enjoy Maddow is cancellation.

[oxmixmudd]

I know that, originally, it was intended as a force multiplier, just like "aggravated" was. But, primarily, I believe it was more of a "look at us - we're doing something important" in adding the "hate crime" descriptor.

I understand the "aggravated" factor --- breaking into an unoccupied is "breaking and entering" or "burglary", but if the home is occupied, there's a greater chance of injury or death, so that's "aggravated burglary".

To me, the "hate crime" thing just appears to make something that's already illegal more illegallererer.

As I understand it, hate crimes themselves are crimes that are not themselves self-limited, but rather which amplify historical and / or societal prejudices and hatreds, meaning they inordinately encourage others to do the same. Theoretically, amplifying the punishments for such crimes will make populations that might be tempted to follow suit to think again, just as playing down or excusing such crimes tends to encourage their repetition.

Hate crimes thus defined are those crimes that do not only represent individual corruption or vice, but rather societal corruption and vice. And so making the distinction does in fact have both meaning and utility.

[rogue06]

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the broad context of Maddow’s show makes it more likely that her audiences will “expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.”

Because Maddow discloses all relevant facts and employs colorful, hyperbolic language, we conclude that the specific context of the statement does not render it an assertion of fact.

Therefore, the medium through which the contested statement was made supports Maddow’s argument that a reasonable viewer would not conclude the statement implies an assertion of fact.

A reasonable viewer would be able to differentiate between Maddow’s commentary and the actual news she is reporting.

The audience could “accept or reject [Maddow’s] opinion based on their own independent evaluation of the facts” specifically because the undisputed news story is readily distinguishable from Maddow’s commentary.

A reasonable person would understand Maddow’s contested statement as an “obvious exaggeration,” Gardner, 563 F.3d at 989, that is, as Maddow explains, “sandwiched between precise factual recitations” of The Daily Beast article.

You really shouldn't cite someone who tanked her own credibility in the OANN defamation lawsuit. Source

Rachel Maddow.jpg
And now she doesn't even have what limited oversight that MSNBC provided.

[rogue06]

As I understand it, hate crimes themselves are crimes that are not themselves self-limited, but rather which amplify historical and / or societal prejudices and hatreds, meaning they inordinately encourage others to do the same. Theoretically, amplifying the punishments for such crimes will make populations that might be tempted to follow suit to think again, just as playing down or excusing such crimes tends to encourage their repetition.

Hate crimes thus defined are those crimes that do not only represent individual corruption or vice, but rather societal corruption and vice. And so making the distinction does in fact have both meaning and utility.

Generally, it is pretty safe to conclude that when someone murders another person that a certain level of hatred was involved already. What these are in effect are "bias crimes" -- crimes committed in part due to a specific bias against certain specific government designated groups. So what you end up with are preferred groups that committing a crime against can be considered worse than committing the exact same crime against a member of a non-preferred group, resulting in the establishment of a two-tiered justice system.

[oxmixmudd]

Generally, it is pretty safe to conclude that when someone murders another person that a certain level of hatred was involved already. What these are in effect are "bias crimes" -- crimes committed in part due to a specific bias against certain specific government designated groups. So what you end up with are preferred groups that committing a crime against can be considered worse than committing the exact same crime against a member of a non-preferred group, resulting in the establishment of a two-tiered justice system.

That line of reasoning strikes me as misguided at best. If society had no general prejudice, what you say might be a just assessment. But unfortunately, our society does have certain groups it hates, and certain people are willing to commit crime on that basis. One could perhaps debate the utility of such a designation - is it effective at reducing the problem. But that the problem exists or that some corrective action needs to be taken is not, as I see it, a subject that can be debated.

[rogue06]

That line of reasoning strikes me as misguided at best. If society had no general prejudice, what you say might be a just assessment. But unfortunately, our society does have certain groups it hates, and certain people are willing to commit crime on that basis. One could perhaps debate the utility of such a designation - is it effective at reducing the problem. But that the problem exists or that some corrective action needs to be taken is not, as I see it, a subject that can be debated.

What is misguided is the concept of "hate crimes" in general as they naturally result in exactly what I mentioned.

[firstfloor]

Rachel Maddow.jpg
And now she doesn't even have what limited oversight that MSNBC provided.

Do you have a ‘condition’ that we ought to know about? I suppose you know that OAN lost their defamation lawsuit?

Anyway, ULTRA is well documented history, and the lovely Rachel is one of the best.

[rogue06]

Do you have a ‘condition’ that we ought to know about? I suppose you know that OAN lost their defamation lawsuit?

Anyway, ULTRA is well documented history, and the lovely Rachel is one of the best.

OAN lost because Maddow said she can't be expected to convey accurate, truthful information and the court agreed.

[Diogenes]

Do you have a ‘condition’ that we ought to know about? I suppose you know that OAN lost their defamation lawsuit?

Anyway, ULTRA is well documented history, and the lovely Rachel is one of the best.

I literally sourced and quoted the OANN judgement.

[Cow Poke]

I literally sourced and quoted the OANN judgement.

Rachel told him not to believe any of that silly stuff.

[rogue06]

Rachel told him not to believe any of that silly stuff.

I think she expected to be grabbed by one of the networks when she announced she was leaving MSNBC and is probably surprised that she is now reduced to doing a podcast. It's likely she immediately checks her email after waking up looking for that offer from ABC, CBS or NBC.

[oxmixmudd]

What is misguided is the concept of "hate crimes" in general as they naturally result in exactly what I mentioned.

I don't think so. Justice should be blind - yes. The same crime should merit the same punishment regardless of who commits it. But different crimes sometimes deserve different punishments. The murder of a man because he is black is not the same as the murder of a man because you want his tennis shoes. Both reflect depraved indifference by a specific individual for human life. but the former is sourced in and amplifies societal prejudices and fear, and is in fact a type of terrorism. And just as we give different punishments for premeditated murder over a murder that occurs in a fit of passion, or manslaughter, we also choose to punish a hate crime differently from a non hate crime. And I believe that makes sense, because for the most part what we call hate crimes are in fact measurably worse for us all, for our culture, for our way of life, than non hate crimes. No one should have to live in fear of violence because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.


Note that in all cases above we are talking about killing an innocent person. So we must also recognize that two crimes being 'the same' is not as simple as whether or not they can be classified by the same verb.

[Diogenes]

I don't think so. Justice should be blind - yes. The same crime should merit the same punishment regardless of who commits it. But different crimes sometimes deserve different punishments. The murder of a man because he is black is not the same as the murder of a man because you want his tennis shoes.

Murder is murder is murder. Murder is the same crime no matter the reason for the murder.

[rogue06]

I don't think so. Justice should be blind - yes. The same crime should merit the same punishment regardless of who commits it. But different crimes sometimes deserve different punishments. The murder of a man because he is black is not the same as the murder of a man because you want his tennis shoes. Both reflect depraved indifference by a specific individual for human life. but the former is sourced in and amplifies societal prejudices and fear, and is in fact a type of terrorism. And just as we give different punishments for premeditated murder over a murder that occurs in a fit of passion, or manslaughter, we also choose to punish a hate crime differently from a non hate crime. And I believe that makes sense, because for the most part what we call hate crimes are in fact measurably worse for us all, for our culture, for our way of life, than non hate crimes. No one should have to live in fear of violence because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.


Note that in all cases above we are talking about killing an innocent person. So we must also recognize that two crimes being 'the same' is not as simple as whether or not they can be classified by the same verb.

Knowingly or not, you just made a case for why hate crime laws are wrong.

[Cow Poke]

Knowingly or not, you just made a case for why hate crime laws are wrong.

Yeah, I had to re-read that several times.