UK: Hostility to men and the elderly could become hate crimes - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45870948

but men and the elderly are actually to blame

i dont understand the importance of defining hate crime, if you're physically or verbally abusive it should be illegal regardless of the discrimination.

I think verbal abuse has its place: https://splinternews.com/tucker-carlson-is-tired-of-people-yelling-fuck-you-at-1829769468

Hate crimes are generally recognised to be committed by those with power against those without, and this abuse of power usually exacerbates the crime.

Can someone explain to me why are people so very keen on redefining words and their meanings? From Merriam-Webster: Hate crime - Any of various crimes (such as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (such as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation). Nowhere does power specifically come into the equation. Same with sexism and racism. It's just discrimination, not some prejudice+power lunacy. Stop twisting meanings - doing so invites chaos. A poor person committing a hate crime is the same as a rich old fart committing a hate crime. Hate crime = hate crime. There's no "Hate Crime+" or "Hate Crime Lite".

That's a bullshit definition You could have situations where the woman has all the power in a relationship and abuses her man. That WOULD be a hate crime, but I bet you wouldn't see it as such because it goes against your second hand idea that "men r evul n da patriarki"

A hate crime is when you commit a crime against someone specifically because they are part of a group that you don't like. It has nothing to do with power difference and it shouldn't be treated differently depending on the groups involved.

there is absolutely utility in recognising power's relationship to things like this, something people would understand if they realised sociology is a thing that exists. it may not be relevant to the word of the dictionary definition but that doesn't mean it has no effect in the real world. 'invites chaos' haha

Agreed. Frankly, I don't care if people want to do some mental gymnastics about why their prejudices and hate don't count "because power". Hate crime is a prejudiced attack on someone purely because of their perceived group. "Colour, Creed, Gender, Sexual Orientation" work fine as categories. -- It MUST be blind to "power dynamics" because the purpose of hate crime legislation is to attempt to bring society closer together by punishing senseless, random and illogical attacks on people that would otherwise damage the fabric of society. If the law starts debating which colours, creeds, genders and sexual orientation sub-classes are protected and which are not - it starts to create protected subclasses which only serve to drive society further apart due to entitlement and resentment.

not sure why you're assuming my stance on that situation but whatever helps u sleep better at night man

absolutely. taking those to task who are actually responsible is necessary for future progress.

Damn I am not looking forward to getting older when this is how people consider them

Your posts don't exist in a vacuum. We all know your actual stance.

Because certain crimes as well as their impact are worsened by certain circumstances in the exact same way some crimes and their impact are lessened by other circumstances. Crimes don't exist in a vacuum.

fancy you of all people saying that

This. How is it hard to understand that even if power is not necessarily a part of the actual definition, in actuality they really are generally committed by those with relatively more power against those with relatively less power. How is this even remotely controversial as an explanation of the general (with much clear statistical backing) nature of it? Most hate crimes are committed by those belonging to a majority group against a minority group relative to the area in which they happen.

it's easier to feel and sound right when you let yourself get caught up over petty shit like dictionary definitions of words rather than think about actual social issues and their root causes

can this prejudice + power meme fucking die

I don't see anyone defining it as such. There's a difference between saying that in the majority of cases hate crimes involve prejudice acted upon by those with more power in relation to the one against which the crime is committed vis-a-vis the social context in which the action happens, and saying that all hate crime is prejudice + power and that's that (which nobody is saying here).

Actually yes, Headhumpy mentioned it if you scroll up. He is geralizing that hate crime is "generally" is prejudice + power, when in reality you/him have brought no stats proving it to the table. Also, who the hell said it must be all hate crimes? I sure as shit didnt.

I mean to be fair there is a difference overall in the affect of bigotry from a position of power than from a position of no/less power

You got two things wrong here and one of them is misrepresenting my point entirely, please re-read my post. Here I'll even make it easy for you and quote it: Hate crimes are generally recognised to be committed by those with power against those without, and this abuse of power usually exacerbates the crime. Do point out where I used the word "prejudice".

No, actually, you are misinterpreting a post to fit a certain view heard a lot on the internet, the "prejudice + power" meme, when the poster hasn't even mentioned the word prejudice. As for statistics, I do not currently have the time to find the statistics for other regions, but here is a resource I coincidentally had on hand to illustrate my point. It is easy to see that most of these are against minorities, and with enough effort you will find, unsurprisingly, that this is the same for other regions around the globe.

Beating a man because he is a man is what I would consider a hatecrime. Verbally abusing someone because they are a man, or anyone else, should be verbal abuse. Having stupid opinions as to why you are verbally abusing someone shouldn't be a crime in itself in my honest opinion, but that's just me.

How is a hate crime not prejudice? Its implied lmao, he just added the power part and memed it perfectly.

Except Headhumpy doesn't seem to be implying that all hate crimes are merely power and prejudice, only that in many of them an imbalance of power plays a great part. This is demonstrably true, as per the statistics I posted. Consequently, as said earlier, nobody is implying, as you seem to say, that hate crimes are necessarily power + prejudice.

The severity of it doesn't have any merit on whether elderly abuse is tolerable or not.

No one said it's tolerable though. The question is whether it's a hate crime

It's a chain of bad logic that's really the problem, not just one point. The problem is when people combine the "bigotry from a position of power" idea with "but also certain groups have more power". This is actually a non-sequiter which makes a few assertions that arent true, like "certain groups having more power" does not equate to individuals in a group having more power, or equate to an individual in a minority group not having power. It's obviously incorrect because the idea that "certain groups have more power" is only true on a statistical level and you cannot apply statistics to individual situations. Basically anyone using this argument to say racism against white people or sexism against men aren't real are themselves being sexist and racist, and are relying on identical logic to "well statistically black people are dumber, so we should discriminate against black people!", both are using statistics to justify bad treatment on an individual level. This isn't really directed at you anymore and i'm going on a bit of an inspired rant but basically, it's as simple as "prejudice is wrong". It's dumbfounding how many people in the relevant faux academic fields don't seem to understand this.