Here it is again:
Quotes:
Webpage:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/35/text
____________
The New York Times article that I read yesterday seemed to be discussing an argument about scope, so that was the perspective that I brought to the bill when I read it today; I read it for information about the basis of the argument.
I thought that "lynching" meant to kill someone. I know that the word "interfere" has legal implications other than its use in regular speech, so I can understand the use of that word to describe killing someone for trying to exercise rights.
I wasn't trying to be convoluted when I wrote about this bill earlier today. Taken together, these paragraphs seem to me to be conflating the act of lynching with lesser forms of discrimination. Am I wrong? Did I read it wrong?
I do understand that less severe forms of discrimination, if they're allowed to proliferate, almost invariably lead to collective desensitization toward more severe forms; that's what I've been saying about the conglomerate since it started promoting the sexual harassment of women in 2010. I said "It's not funny" as soon as it started, and as the abuses have worsened to grotesque violations that have gone for so long that they seem normal to many of the people perpetrating them, they think it's all funnier than ever. After a few weeks of the harassment in 2010, I said "This is going to end up getting me killed." An eventual death from a multiple-perpetrator-rape/murder, precipitated by the conglomerate branding me a slut, was my expectation after only a few weeks. If, by a year of harassment later and for several subsequent years, I sometimes overreacted to innocuous situations, I think that people who choose to understand can.
However, I don't confuse a lesser form of gender discrimination, such as sexual harassment, with actual murder. It could be my lack of formal legal education that is preventing me from understanding why so many lesser forms of racial discrimination are listed under a section called "Lynching."
I don't think of murder as being a tool of interference; I think of it as being an endpoint. The threat of murder, stated or understood implicitly, is a tool of interference, but that's not what 22 says.
Online mobbing is a major tool of interference. Death threats and other threats of violence and incitement to violence are routine. For people to talk about someone that way online can be a barrier to housing, employment and even medical care; when you are mobbed online, opportunities are often denied to you either because people who have never heard of you before think you must deserve it or they don't know if you "deserve" it but they don't want to be jeopardized by renting to you, hiring you or giving you medical care. Even so, online mobbing isn't equivalent to murder. I don't minimize it, the way that the conglomerate does, but I know it's not the same thing as murder.
