|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 13, 2013 13:37:27 GMT
I would like to answer properly to Snipergirl questions, but I'm poorly documented on the reality of my own country, and my english is very limited to talk about those things. :/
What I can just say is, where I live in France (for 3 years now), people are globally racists, sexists and homophobic, and it goes along with religion in most of the case, wether it's catholic or islamic religion.
There are three big categories for me, in France : the extremists that opened their mouths since all the story of the Femen AND the same-sex wedding thing, confusing the two events ; the "normal" people who aren't anti-islamic but..., who aren't homophobic but..., who aren't racist but... (you get the point) ; and people like me (I would say, guessing, 25% to 35% of the population ? Less ? Certainly not more...) that are open-minded, and try to not be racist, not be sexist, not be... Well, be human.
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 13, 2013 13:47:05 GMT
I would like to answer properly to Snipergirl questions, but I'm poorly documented on the reality of my own country, and my english is very limited to talk about those things. :/ What I can just say is, where I live in France (for 3 years now), people are globally racists, sexists and homophobic, and it goes along with religion in most of the case, wether it's catholic or islamic religion. There are three big categories for me, in France : the extremists that opened their mouths since all the story of the Femen AND the same-sex wedding thing, confusing the two events ; the "normal" people who aren't anti-islamic but..., who aren't homophobic but..., who aren't racist but... (you get the point) ; and people like me (I would say, guessing, 25% to 35% of the population ? Less ? Certainly not more...) that are open-minded, and try to not be racist, not be sexist, not be... Well, be human.  Ugh. That is the worst. It sounds like we are in the same boat, just in different languages and different continents. |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 13, 2013 14:11:50 GMT
Oh no, nothing comparable to what you wrote before : at least, it is still punishable by law, even if in fact, nothing is really done. And physical agressions are still punished, no matter for what reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 13, 2013 14:15:38 GMT
The french example I brought up was hardly publicised much, outside France as far asI was aware, I only knew about it as my girlfriend is french and so showed it to me when she was reading the news from home. So I don't think it's always a case of 'foreigners are racist but we're fine' and all the irony that phrase brings... Sweden is progressive, but it still has it's own problems, remarkably it is apparently one of the european countries with the highest immigration rate at around 14% of people born outside the country. I agree with Snipergirl that multiculturalism has been around for a long time, but it is the speed and more obviousness of it now that is causing tensions between people who like things to stay the same. In France's case, I like the idea of purely secular socioty, but they way they seem to be going about it recently has been a little rankling. And for a more Europe-wide example of casual racism, look at all the furore around those blond Roma girls taken from their families in Greece and Ireland. And the papers basically calling all Roma child abductors. Both girls turned out to be Roma, the Greek one turned out to be from a different family who had given the child to be looked after, and the Irish one was taken from her own parents for the sole reason of "She is blond, and her parents look brown". That Roma thing was totally stupid and so obviously racist. And you're right, total pan-European racism. Interpol-racism even. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 13, 2013 14:33:14 GMT
confusing the two events ; the "normal" people who aren't anti-islamic but..., who aren't homophobic but..., who aren't racist but... (you get the point) ; and people like me (I would say, guessing, 25% to 35% of the population ? Less ? Certainly not more...) that are open-minded And under "open-minded", as usual, means "aren't wannabe-American socialists but...", right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 13, 2013 14:40:46 GMT
Sorry, I don't understand that ! é__è Do you mean that being a socialist in America is a bad thing ?... Or that I would think so ? Or else ? :S
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 13, 2013 14:56:21 GMT
The french example I brought up was hardly publicised much, outside France as far asI was aware, I only knew about it as my girlfriend is french and so showed it to me when she was reading the news from home. So I don't think it's always a case of 'foreigners are racist but we're fine' and all the irony that phrase brings... It definitely did go through the news here. To be fair I'm in a neighboring country. I'm in UK (does that count as a neighbour?) and we heard about all the homophobic protests, but not the racism involved against the minister. Our media is quite insular though so maybe that's why I didn't hear about it from our end. Sorry, I don't understand that ! é__è Do you mean that being a socialist in America is a bad thing ?... Or that I would think so ? Or else ? :S I think he's saying that the rest of europe are socialists who want to be american? Or something? which doesn't make a huge amount of sense given how socialism is equated with the devil in the US for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 13, 2013 15:43:56 GMT
Sorry, I don't understand that ! é__è Do you mean that being a socialist in America is a bad thing ?... Or that I would think so ? Or else ? :S That musts be because everyone who doesn't belong to the vocal minority you so delicately praise is not only certainly a hypocritical and hates everything, but also stupid, you see. Do you have a MacBook? |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 13, 2013 16:04:41 GMT
The new scary PM in Australia wants to make it legal again to racially vilify people in public Are you able to find anything on the internet corroborating this? Not to doubt you, I just wanted to know more. |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Nov 13, 2013 16:44:01 GMT
The new scary PM in Australia wants to make it legal again to racially vilify people in public Are you able to find anything on the internet corroborating this? Not to doubt you, I just wanted to know more. That is scary... Is he publicly announcing this? |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 13, 2013 16:50:20 GMT
That musts be because everyone who doesn't belong to the vocal minority you so delicately praise is not only certainly a hypocritical and hates everything, but also stupid, you see. Do you have a MacBook? Err, no I don't have one, and I don't see what is your point. oO Are you saying that I'm hypocritical and I hate everything ? Darn, I must certainly be stupid, sure, because I really don't understand what you're saying. Writing, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 13, 2013 17:06:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 13, 2013 17:13:22 GMT
Are you able to find anything on the internet corroborating this? Not to doubt you, I just wanted to know more. That is scary... Is he publicly announcing this? I assume she is referring to this: www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/george-brandis-moves-to-repeal-section-racial-vilification-actRepealing a law which makes it illegal to use racially insulting speech. I'm sure it's more complicated than it sounds, and both sides are pushing forward the worst aspects of either way, but I'm sure it's no coincidence that a News Corps journalist was fined over questioning the ethnicity of some light skinned aborigines. Similar-ish to the case of the Roma discussed earlier I suppose. edit: Snipergirl beat me to it while I Was trying to find a link that wasn't behind a paywall! |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 13, 2013 17:20:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 13, 2013 19:33:30 GMT
There are people who are sufficiently offensive and threatening in their words to incite extreme reactions from more-or-less-sensible people.
There are also gangs of gunpowder-kegs who go out in search of a spark.
The second description is more commonly appropriate, but I don't know enough about the specific case at hand to determine which is most applicable. (And I lack the interest needed to learn more.)
(World War I started because of rival gangs of gunpowder-kegs throwing lit matches at each other.)
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 13, 2013 21:59:49 GMT
That musts be because everyone who doesn't belong to the vocal minority you so delicately praise is not only certainly a hypocritical and hates everything, but also stupid, you see. Do you have a MacBook? Err, no I don't have one, and I don't see what is your point. oO Are you saying that I'm hypocritical and I hate everything ? Darn, I must certainly be stupid, sure, because I really don't understand what you're saying. Writing, sorry. Why would I? Or anyone? You - according to yourself (and you presumable should know) - raise like a shining beacon over all those nameless formless masses of 'the "normal" people who...' and even give numbers. I only propose to add "aren't idiots but..." to the properties of those unwashed beastly masses. Here's a bonus: this would allow you to ignore most of the humanity without any pointless doubts. As simple as this. |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 13, 2013 22:09:17 GMT
If you say so. I'm disappointed in how you interpret my message, but, well, that's okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 13, 2013 22:19:35 GMT
Sorry, I don't understand that ! é__è Do you mean that being a socialist in America is a bad thing ?... Or that I would think so ? Or else ? :S Oh my god, us Americans HATE Socialism. We don't really know what it is, but we all hate the shit out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 13, 2013 22:25:37 GMT
Oh my god, us Americans HATE Socialism. We don't really know what it is, but we all hate the shit out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 14, 2013 1:02:00 GMT
Personally, I think anyone who defends bigots claiming that a minority who disagrees with them is being 'elitist' is either a bigot themselves, or a moron.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 14, 2013 2:09:42 GMT
You do not have to approve of what someone else says, to think that they have a right to say it.
You might even regard them saying it as helpful because you can then easily and positively identify them as idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 14, 2013 2:44:45 GMT
You do not have to approve of what someone else says, to think that they have a right to say it. You might even regard them saying it as helpful because you can then easily and positively identify them as idiots. Well, yes. But this is for those who can positively identify idiots. Those who identify as idiots anyone not appreciating their genius enough to agree with everything they say obviously don't need this. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 14, 2013 7:45:34 GMT
You do not have to approve of what someone else says, to think that they have a right to say it. You might even regard them saying it as helpful because you can then easily and positively identify them as idiots. Oh absolutely! I personally draw the line at vilification, hate speech and inciting crimes, which allows a lot of scope for people still being themselves  |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 14, 2013 8:45:55 GMT
Sorry, I don't understand that ! é__è Do you mean that being a socialist in America is a bad thing ?... Or that I would think so ? Or else ? :S Oh my god, us Americans HATE Socialism. We don't really know what it is, but we all hate the shit out of it. BETTER DEAD THAN RED GODDAM COMMIES GONNA FREE EVERY LAST OF 'EM FILTHY REDS ARGHBLGHBHBHHHH ['murrica intensifies] |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 14, 2013 9:04:25 GMT
personally draw the line at vilification, hate speech and inciting crimes, which allows a lot of scope for people still being themselves I draw it at libel/slander of specific individuals or organized groups, and inciting crimes - with a pretty narrow definition for the latter. "Vilification" and "hate speech" are too vaguely defined, and sometimes the definitions seem to be dependent on what one actual listener imagines some other hypothetical listener might find offensive. Even if that were resolved, though, I probably would still object to making such speech generally subject to legal penalties. (Leaving open the possibility that it would be subject to legal penalties under certain to-be-defined circumstances.) |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 14, 2013 13:25:39 GMT
personally draw the line at vilification, hate speech and inciting crimes, which allows a lot of scope for people still being themselves I draw it at libel/slander of specific individuals or organized groups, and inciting crimes - with a pretty narrow definition for the latter. "Vilification" and "hate speech" are too vaguely defined, and sometimes the definitions seem to be dependent on what one actual listener imagines some other hypothetical listener might find offensive. Even if that were resolved, though, I probably would still object to making such speech generally subject to legal penalties. (Leaving open the possibility that it would be subject to legal penalties under certain to-be-defined circumstances.) Oh yeah sorry forgot to include things like libel & slander! I think things like vilification and inciting violence need to be very very carefully and rigidly defined legally so that they're neither too lax nor totalitarian. There is a lot of potential for abuse but I think that can be avoided by appropriate law-making. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 14, 2013 17:20:13 GMT
personally draw the line at vilification, hate speech and inciting crimes, which allows a lot of scope for people still being themselves I draw it at libel/slander of specific individuals or organized groups, and inciting crimes - with a pretty narrow definition for the latter. "Vilification" and "hate speech" are too vaguely defined, But the very nebulous meaninglessness allows it to be hung onto whatever the party entitled to glue these stickers around wants. It's not a bug, it's a feature. "By the power invested in me by prurient wishful thinking..." and sometimes the definitions seem to be dependent on what one actual listener imagines some other hypothetical listener might find offensive. In other words: the very term "hate speech" directly invokes the power invested in our dear Listener Who Really Matters by some amusing (for us amateur biologists, anyway) strain of Freudism known as "internet mindreading". Why not to place the dunce cap where it - beyond reasonable doubt - belongs? It's just tidiness. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 14, 2013 17:42:21 GMT
I'm still not entirely sure what TBeholder is trying to say...
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 14, 2013 17:47:40 GMT
Sorry I should clarify also that I think 'hate speech', 'vilification', 'inciting crimes' really should be reserved for things on the extreme side of the spectrum- burning down churches/mosques, persistent gaybashing, telling people publicly that they will or that others should assault/murder/rape/torture people due to belonging to a particular group... many of which are illegal anyway but probably could attract an additional sentencing penalty if found to be due to bigotry.
|
|
|
|
Post by hargharg on Nov 14, 2013 18:07:58 GMT
I'm still not entirely sure what TBeholder is trying to say... That's completely normal. Edit: now that I think about it, maybe that's what TBeholder wants - keep us confused. : D |
|
Ugh. That is the worst. It sounds like we are in the same boat, just in different languages and different continents.
