Bespoke translation by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
A reader points out to me that the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Criminal Police Office have embarked on a "definition".
Don't get too excited yet.
A reader points out to me that this exists now: "Situation Report on the Crime-Related Safety of LGBTIQ".
Actually, you don't need to even read it, now that you have seen the title, it's immediately obvious that it's off the rails. But it's got 23 pages. 23.
And the introduction on page 3 starts out with
It makes you shake and shiver when insults (the term is defined arbitrarily) and violent acts are put on the same level. Basically, you put "faggot!" and murder at the same level by categorizing it all together as "hate crime".
And all of the marbles are lost in the second paragraph:
What kind of empty blathering is that? "Hate crime can be defined..." - What is that supposed to be? Can be defined that way, but also differently? Is that completely arbitrary? I can do and define strawberry jam as mustard. A car as a rhinoceros. A man as a woman. You can't create a criminal offense or a category in which some random person comes along and blathers "can be defined as...". Culpability must be set in law, and the federal parliament is responsible for criminal laws - and neither the Federal Ministry of the Interior [BMI] nor the Federal Criminal Police Office [BKA].
And this is precisely why "hate crime" cannot "be defined as ..." when the author of this thing is the BMI and the BKA and not the federal parliament and the Federal Law Gazette.
The second mistake is that they create a mixture of the objective facts (a crime committed against a person or thing) and the motive. They are different things.
The third mistake is that they think cyclically because, in the definition, they jump to the description (It needs to be highlighted that...). But you cannot simultaneously define something and describe it, because that means you create a circular definition and commit logical fallacies. I'll put it in simpler terms: With the same faulty reasoning, you could go define that horses hunt and eat giraffes, by defining that a horse is four-legged, and then you highlight that four-legged animals (lions, however) have been observed hunting and eating giraffes. The conclusion is wrong, but to explain the faulty reasoning to you, if you don't clearly differentiate between definition and description, because the description requires that the thing has been sufficiently defined, and you know whether what you want to describe falls within it.
How can anyone write such crap?
The answer is simple, because the phrasing is a telltale sign: "can be defined as ..." is specifically and typically stupid blathering by the social sciences, especially sociology and gender science, who always go on with the ever-same templates, and for years they just love the phrasing "can be understood as ...", which isn't just per se the introduction to arbitrary nonsense, in the sense of "actually I have no idea and cannot argue or explain in an understandable way, but I'll just go ahead and understand x as y, because otherwise I can't write anything, because I don't get any good ideas", but which is also remarkably stupid, because the sociologists and their environment have been intensely using this set phrase and never noticed how dumb this phrasing is.
Already at the second paragraph, I would almost guarantee a bet that it's some sociologists' and genderists' blathering, especially since it's about LGBTQI? And, what a surprise, just on the page after
Bingo. This is such typical pseudoscientific social scientist blathering, just with "BMI" and the black-red-gold eagle on it.
The next nonsense.
First, you can't quote that without explaining what they mean by "hate", because if everybody does "can be defined as", then you don't know what they mean by it. Maybe insults that happen on Tuesdays and Thursdays?
Second, the question of whether such crimes have increased significantly (which would require that you have a strict definition and record and measure it comprehensibly) is a question of fact and cannot be determined by a resolution. Either it's the case or it's not the case.
According to the Google dictionary, a resolution is a
You cannot decide that something has increased. But you can decide to do something about it.
The next nonsense. When political blathering is used in passive language or linguistic constructs without an acting subject. When something is being done or to be done. Formally, the rise is the subject in the sentence, but semantically, there is no statement at all, who, when, how allegedly saw the rise.
Don't get me wrong. Certainly it is increasing. 10 years ago, gays, lesbians, and Jews were able to walk around in all of Berlin. Nowadays, they get beaten up in some districts and some school if they get identified as such.
But, strictly speaking, violence didn't increase, but it has been imported, moved to Germany. Because the BMI itself is working on the importation of classic gay and Jew haters.
Oh, wow. A panel from the community that can go ahead and declare itself to be the victim.
What drivel.
They're swaying between the different meanings of "conclude", sometimes in the sense of "The subject matter expert found out about the object of research" and "he dryly determined that he is no longer hungry" and the linguistic description of a certain kind and phrasing of sentences.
Sometimes it means that you examine, observe, measure, recognize, and then describe something.
And sometimes it means that you just make some claim and announce it publicly, thus make a resolution.
So did the working group observe it now, or did they publish it as a political statement? How did they want to determine that?
Besides, it's also wrong. In many countries in the world, gays are being executed without ever consulting some digital media or even being able to read.
Speaking of which: They keep talking about "LGBTIQ*" - what's that supposed to be in the first place, if they already can't tell what "hate" is? There's a coy footnote:
And that is this now?
And why such passive sentences again? "The acronym has changed" - an acronym can't go and change itself. It can't do anything. It can't even get up after it falls off the table.
And who is "extending" the acronym? Certainly wasn't me.
What kind of bullshit empty drivel is that?
Oh.
This nonsense about "prejudices".
That's another completely meaningless and undefined canned phrase of social scientists. Never could any one of those blather acrobats explain to me how old you need to get and how much life experience you need to collect before they grant that something is a "verdict" without downplaying it as a "prejudice".
And prejudices are just like the "conspiracy theories": The term is horrible, but an astounding amount of them are true.
And, again, different layers are mixed together Where hate and violence come from and how they are being expressed.
I would have loved to know who "Allport (1954)" is. But I guess I'll never get to learn about it because Allport starts with A and the alphabetically sorted bibliography starts with B.
Maybe they mean Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. American psychologist, died in 1967. How could he have known in 1954 what happens in 2024's Germany? Was he an expert on Islam?
And, by the way, Allport was born in November 1897. So, at the time of his publication, he was roughly 56 or 57 years old.
I'm 58 years old, thus one year older than he was at the time of his publication. And, very important, unlike him, I am still alive in the year 2024 and I haven't been dead for 57 years. So why is he getting cited while people like me are being accused of having "prejudices"?
That is the fundamental problem of the social scientists, these double meanings: What fits in their view gets cited. What doesn't fit is a "prejudice".
I'd find that interesting.
In many Islamic societies, gays are being killed, preferably by throwing them off tall buildings, stoning them, or both together, with the order depending on the region. What kind of "prejudice" are they supposed to be having against gays? What is that supposed to be? That they do it with men? Prejudice! In Islam, they don't need a "prejudice" and no "stereotype" either.
"All gays are thieves" would be a prejudice. Or "gays are kiddy diddlers". Those would be typical "prejudices" - but they don't have anything of the sort. Gays don't get accused of anything. He's gay - so we're throwing him off this building. There's no prejudice, no stereotype playing a part here. (Not to mention that diddling kids has a positive connotation in many of these societies.)
Instead of citing all this sociologist struggle, you should look at the current problems and draw the conclusion that sociologists are windbags and their blatherings are worthless, because, for instance, Islam doesn't need anything like prejudices or stereotypes at all. And I'm not aware of any prejudice that they have against gays. So the sociologists' drivel of prejudices being the cause cannot be true.
And even if it was true: What would you make of the situation when
Or, in other words: Does nobody notice how stupid this drivel about prejudices is?
What an insane sentence. Hate crime against gays is based on a deeply rooted homophobia. And what is homophobia? Well, hate against gays. Empty drivel with circular definitions.
What I keep noticing when they talk about hate so intensely: They do not know what "hate" as a noun and verb are. The term has solidified itself as a blathering trope in social sciences and got into the citation rotation, but nobody notices or minds that they don't even know what "hate" is. Or "incitement". It's sufficient that the sound of these words is so nice for their agenda.
This is so devoid of substance, illogical, superfluous and stupid like almost everything that I have read from the social sciences.
But somebody is getting a pile of money for this and Nancy Faeser and the BKA like it.
And those are the ones who kick in your apartment door.
Ultimately, this is just another example of "functional illiteracy" - people are unable to express themselves in writing and speaking and deliver the quality that is appropriate for their position.
Quality is a myth. And the taxpayer foots the bill. At least the future of the apartment door manufacturers is certain.
What is actually "hate crime"?
A reader points out to me that the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Criminal Police Office have embarked on a "definition".
Don't get too excited yet.
A reader points out to me that this exists now: "Situation Report on the Crime-Related Safety of LGBTIQ".
Actually, you don't need to even read it, now that you have seen the title, it's immediately obvious that it's off the rails. But it's got 23 pages. 23.
And the introduction on page 3 starts out with
Hate crime against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, intersexuals and (other) queer people (LGBTIQ*) constitutes a specific variant of hate crime. Hate crime is an umbrella term for a variety of criminal offenses that are motivated by prejudice or hatred towards certain social groups. Among the most common crimes that are committed against LGBTIQ* are insults, violent acts, incitement of masses, as well as coercion and threats.
It makes you shake and shiver when insults (the term is defined arbitrarily) and violent acts are put on the same level. Basically, you put "faggot!" and murder at the same level by categorizing it all together as "hate crime".
And all of the marbles are lost in the second paragraph:
Hate crime can be defined as crimes that are targeted against a person or a thing exclusively or predominantly because of race, religion, ethnic category, gender, political or sexual orientation, age, or the mental or physical handicap of this person or the owner or possessor of the thing (based on Banneberg, 2006, p. 4). It needs to be highlighted that the goal of such criminal offenses isn't harming the individual; rather the culprit intends to reach the entire group that they think the harmed person is representing (Schneider, 2003, 2006). Closely related with hate crime is the concept of group-related misanthropy (Heitmeyer, 2005), whose core element consists of an alleged difference in value of a minority or a group that is perceived as weak. Thus, hate crime against LGBTIQ* is a term for criminal offenses that, because of prejudice and hostile stances, are committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex persons or persons whose sexual orientation or gender identity deviates from heteronormativity.
What kind of empty blathering is that? "Hate crime can be defined..." - What is that supposed to be? Can be defined that way, but also differently? Is that completely arbitrary? I can do and define strawberry jam as mustard. A car as a rhinoceros. A man as a woman. You can't create a criminal offense or a category in which some random person comes along and blathers "can be defined as...". Culpability must be set in law, and the federal parliament is responsible for criminal laws - and neither the Federal Ministry of the Interior [BMI] nor the Federal Criminal Police Office [BKA].
And this is precisely why "hate crime" cannot "be defined as ..." when the author of this thing is the BMI and the BKA and not the federal parliament and the Federal Law Gazette.
The second mistake is that they create a mixture of the objective facts (a crime committed against a person or thing) and the motive. They are different things.
The third mistake is that they think cyclically because, in the definition, they jump to the description (It needs to be highlighted that...). But you cannot simultaneously define something and describe it, because that means you create a circular definition and commit logical fallacies. I'll put it in simpler terms: With the same faulty reasoning, you could go define that horses hunt and eat giraffes, by defining that a horse is four-legged, and then you highlight that four-legged animals (lions, however) have been observed hunting and eating giraffes. The conclusion is wrong, but to explain the faulty reasoning to you, if you don't clearly differentiate between definition and description, because the description requires that the thing has been sufficiently defined, and you know whether what you want to describe falls within it.
How can anyone write such crap?
The answer is simple, because the phrasing is a telltale sign: "can be defined as ..." is specifically and typically stupid blathering by the social sciences, especially sociology and gender science, who always go on with the ever-same templates, and for years they just love the phrasing "can be understood as ...", which isn't just per se the introduction to arbitrary nonsense, in the sense of "actually I have no idea and cannot argue or explain in an understandable way, but I'll just go ahead and understand x as y, because otherwise I can't write anything, because I don't get any good ideas", but which is also remarkably stupid, because the sociologists and their environment have been intensely using this set phrase and never noticed how dumb this phrasing is.
Already at the second paragraph, I would almost guarantee a bet that it's some sociologists' and genderists' blathering, especially since it's about LGBTQI? And, what a surprise, just on the page after
The origins of hate crime against LGBTIQ*
2.1 Sociological and psychological approaches
Bingo. This is such typical pseudoscientific social scientist blathering, just with "BMI" and the black-red-gold eagle on it.
In Resolution 2417 (2022) of the Council of Europe, it is stated that "hate speech, violence, and hate crimes against LGBTI persons, communities, and organizations have increased significantly in many member state of the Council of Europe (in the past years). (...) The congregation is sorry for these phenomena which can be seen in all of Europe, no matter to the extent in which the human rights of LGBTI persons are already being safeguarded in a particular country. In addition, it harshly condemns the comprehensive and often brutal attacks against the rights of LGBTI persons which can be seen for several years in, among others, Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and the United Kingdom."
The next nonsense.
First, you can't quote that without explaining what they mean by "hate", because if everybody does "can be defined as", then you don't know what they mean by it. Maybe insults that happen on Tuesdays and Thursdays?
Second, the question of whether such crimes have increased significantly (which would require that you have a strict definition and record and measure it comprehensibly) is a question of fact and cannot be determined by a resolution. Either it's the case or it's not the case.
According to the Google dictionary, a resolution is a
written statement based on a corresponding decision by a political, unionistic congregation or similar in which certain demands are made [and reasoned for]
You cannot decide that something has increased. But you can decide to do something about it.
Even in Germany, a continuing increase in violence against LGBTIQ* has been seen for years.
The next nonsense. When political blathering is used in passive language or linguistic constructs without an acting subject. When something is being done or to be done. Formally, the rise is the subject in the sentence, but semantically, there is no statement at all, who, when, how allegedly saw the rise.
Don't get me wrong. Certainly it is increasing. 10 years ago, gays, lesbians, and Jews were able to walk around in all of Berlin. Nowadays, they get beaten up in some districts and some school if they get identified as such.
But, strictly speaking, violence didn't increase, but it has been imported, moved to Germany. Because the BMI itself is working on the importation of classic gay and Jew haters.
For this occasion, within the 215th session of the Interior Ministers' Conference in Fall of 2021, the order has been placed to make use of an expert panel from science and practitioners as well as subject experts from the LGBTIQ* Community to develop recommendations for action.
Oh, wow. A panel from the community that can go ahead and declare itself to be the victim.
The tasked "Working group for the fight against homophobic and anti-trans violence" concludes: "Violence against LGBTIQ* begins with insults, hostilities, and threats in the real or digital realm, these often turn towards physical violence. However, hate crime does not just happen in public areas among people who don't know each other. In all social and personal areas, such as in schools, clubs, families, in contact with government agencies or at the workplace, LGBTIQ* can be susceptible to hate crime (Meyer, 2003). Anti-LGBTIQ* hate crime is also a threat for the inner security and for our society. It is important that every person can live in a safe environment." (Working group for the fight against homophobic and anti-trans violence, 2023).
What drivel.
They're swaying between the different meanings of "conclude", sometimes in the sense of "The subject matter expert found out about the object of research" and "he dryly determined that he is no longer hungry" and the linguistic description of a certain kind and phrasing of sentences.
Sometimes it means that you examine, observe, measure, recognize, and then describe something.
And sometimes it means that you just make some claim and announce it publicly, thus make a resolution.
So did the working group observe it now, or did they publish it as a political statement? How did they want to determine that?
Besides, it's also wrong. In many countries in the world, gays are being executed without ever consulting some digital media or even being able to read.
Speaking of which: They keep talking about "LGBTIQ*" - what's that supposed to be in the first place, if they already can't tell what "hate" is? There's a coy footnote:
The acronym for the labeling of sexual and gender diversity has changed within the years (some groups only got added later) and there are also linguistic differences. [next sentence is irrelevant because of my translation] Meanwhile, the acronym sometimes gets extended with an "A" for "asexual".
And that is this now?
And why such passive sentences again? "The acronym has changed" - an acronym can't go and change itself. It can't do anything. It can't even get up after it falls off the table.
And who is "extending" the acronym? Certainly wasn't me.
What kind of bullshit empty drivel is that?
Hate and violence against LGBTIQ* is rooted in social prejudices and discriminatory structures and manifests itself on the physical, mental, and structural level.
Oh.
This nonsense about "prejudices".
That's another completely meaningless and undefined canned phrase of social scientists. Never could any one of those blather acrobats explain to me how old you need to get and how much life experience you need to collect before they grant that something is a "verdict" without downplaying it as a "prejudice".
And prejudices are just like the "conspiracy theories": The term is horrible, but an astounding amount of them are true.
And, again, different layers are mixed together Where hate and violence come from and how they are being expressed.
According to Allport (1954), sociopsychological factors play a crucial role in the creation of hate and violence against certain groups.
I would have loved to know who "Allport (1954)" is. But I guess I'll never get to learn about it because Allport starts with A and the alphabetically sorted bibliography starts with B.
Maybe they mean Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. American psychologist, died in 1967. How could he have known in 1954 what happens in 2024's Germany? Was he an expert on Islam?
And, by the way, Allport was born in November 1897. So, at the time of his publication, he was roughly 56 or 57 years old.
I'm 58 years old, thus one year older than he was at the time of his publication. And, very important, unlike him, I am still alive in the year 2024 and I haven't been dead for 57 years. So why is he getting cited while people like me are being accused of having "prejudices"?
That is the fundamental problem of the social scientists, these double meanings: What fits in their view gets cited. What doesn't fit is a "prejudice".
Sometimes, prejudices and stereotypes lead to hostile attitudes, which can go far enough for people to use them to justify violent acs against minorities or groups that are marginalized or perceived as weak. Group-related misanthropy describes the rejection and devaluation of certain groups because of prejudices and discrimination (Heitmeyer, 2002) and consists of different dimensions, such as racism, antisemitism, sexism, and also homo- and transphobia.
I'd find that interesting.
In many Islamic societies, gays are being killed, preferably by throwing them off tall buildings, stoning them, or both together, with the order depending on the region. What kind of "prejudice" are they supposed to be having against gays? What is that supposed to be? That they do it with men? Prejudice! In Islam, they don't need a "prejudice" and no "stereotype" either.
"All gays are thieves" would be a prejudice. Or "gays are kiddy diddlers". Those would be typical "prejudices" - but they don't have anything of the sort. Gays don't get accused of anything. He's gay - so we're throwing him off this building. There's no prejudice, no stereotype playing a part here. (Not to mention that diddling kids has a positive connotation in many of these societies.)
Instead of citing all this sociologist struggle, you should look at the current problems and draw the conclusion that sociologists are windbags and their blatherings are worthless, because, for instance, Islam doesn't need anything like prejudices or stereotypes at all. And I'm not aware of any prejudice that they have against gays. So the sociologists' drivel of prejudices being the cause cannot be true.
And even if it was true: What would you make of the situation when
- somebody commits violence because of some prejudice
- and the prejudice then turns out to be vindicated, turns out to be true?
Or, in other words: Does nobody notice how stupid this drivel about prejudices is?
Explanatory approaches from psychology and social sciences show that the motivation of hate crime against LGBTIQ* has an origin in deeply rooted homophobia and transphobia which is being nourished by cultural, religious, and familial values and norms (Heitmeyer, 200).
What an insane sentence. Hate crime against gays is based on a deeply rooted homophobia. And what is homophobia? Well, hate against gays. Empty drivel with circular definitions.
No idea what hate is
What I keep noticing when they talk about hate so intensely: They do not know what "hate" as a noun and verb are. The term has solidified itself as a blathering trope in social sciences and got into the citation rotation, but nobody notices or minds that they don't even know what "hate" is. Or "incitement". It's sufficient that the sound of these words is so nice for their agenda.
Incredible junk
This is so devoid of substance, illogical, superfluous and stupid like almost everything that I have read from the social sciences.
But somebody is getting a pile of money for this and Nancy Faeser and the BKA like it.
And those are the ones who kick in your apartment door.
Ultimately, this is just another example of "functional illiteracy" - people are unable to express themselves in writing and speaking and deliver the quality that is appropriate for their position.
Quality is a myth. And the taxpayer foots the bill. At least the future of the apartment door manufacturers is certain.
