Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

(femanists) Put up against the wall & shot

2»

Comments

  • #52
    donaghs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭donaghs


    mmmcake wrote: »
    I would agree the west is too PC, it has got out of control.
    EU law now says Fat people are disabled! Where will it end?
    In a way the west has gone far,far left, way beyond anything in the soviet system.

    Not sure if I follow this opening statement correctly. Seems at odds slightly with what's in the video? From my own point of view I don't believe "PC" has gone too far (yet ;) )

    I don't believe that mass thought can be controlled by a conspiracy like this. Interesting ideas though, the open-source software guy Eric S. Raymond in 2005 expressed his view of "suicidalism". That the Department V of the KGB had encouraged this current of modern thought to destroy "the west" from within.
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=218

    Certainly from reading the "Mitrokhin Archives", the KGB did engage in "active measures" to insert stories into world media, promote agendas and slander invididuals or movements. But the example given show it was not exactly successful, and no evidence that they could change the dominant mode of thought as with Eric S. Raymond's beliefs.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What do you mean by "destroy" the West?

    Do you realize the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more?

    Watch "Russia Today (RT)" English language news service. Very slick, like CNN or Sky News, but from a Putin-esque perspective. They have now started using the the term "The West" heavily, to describe aspects of North America/Western-Central Europe which they don't like. Their "talking heads" are constantly going on about How "the Wst is trying to impose its ideas on everyone, and how there is so much "Russophobia" around now. "The West" is a strange term for them to use though, modern Russian life is very like most of what they call "The West", even taking into account the democratic deficit Putin has encouraged. Understandable when Al Queda us the term (the Al Queda usage would include Russia surely?).
    the_syco wrote: »
    Yuri Bezmenov seems to believe that idealistic leftists would become disillusioned, bitter, and adversarial when they realized the true nature of Soviet Communism, which is more of a statement against SC than of his own beliefs.
    That's only half the point. The other half is that if they now live in a totalitarian society they helped create, they can no longer dedicate their lives to being dissidents as they would quickly be crushed.


  • #53
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    mmmcake wrote: »
    The liberal PC brigade will destroy the west, russia only has to wait it out.
    True. Anyone who would favour criminalising homophobic or racist speech for example would also favour the criminalising of anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech. The problem with western society is that we have become too sure of what are right beliefs and what are wrong ones, and some would then consider it ok to put what we agree are the right beliefs into law. We are saying we are infallible. It could just as easily be the other way.

    It's no surprise the Islamic fundamentalists are targeting free speech in their quest. They know that by targeting it, we ourselves will take care of the rest through self censorship and extreme attempts to show tolerance. But tolerance of intolerance (i.e. Islam and all Religion) is not tolerance. It's cowardice or compliance. You either support the killing of the dragon, or you don't get to cry when it breathes fire on you. We should poke, We should criticize, We should offend all things Islam and all things Religion. We owe it to ourselves and Muslims to do so, but most importantly to future generations of Muslims. To sit back and ignore it is to do them and humanity a disservice. Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things....one of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority...CH. This is just an example but it's one that shows a clear failing of modern western liberalism. We've come so far and now we are saying we're happy where we are, and by saying that we are in danger of going backwards in an attempt to stay there.

    In the western democracies of the 21st century, the voices and opinions that need protecting the most, are those of the homophobe, the racist, the Islamic fundamentalist, the communist etc. And not by creating laws to protect them from insult or hate, but by making sure their views are out there, loud and proud, in the public sphere, where they can be acknowledged and questioned and reasoned against.


  • #54
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    True. Anyone who would favour criminalising homophobic or racist speech for example would also favour the criminalising of anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.
    I think that's untrue. If you're in favour of limiting homophobic or racist speech, you'd only be in favour of limiting anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech because you also favour levelling the field of discussion or are in favour of limiting speech generally. If you are solely opposed to homophobic or racist speech (say on the basis of being opposed to homophobia or racism) you'll have no problem with speech that advances your position; to wit, anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.
    K4t wrote: »
    The problem with western society is that we have become too sure of what are right beliefs and what are wrong ones, and some would then consider it ok to put what we agree are the right beliefs into law. We are saying we are infallible. It could just as easily be the other way.
    What society has ever not been sure of what are right beliefs and what are wrong ones? Arguably, Western society is more tolerant of 'wrong' beliefs now than it has ever been historically. And who exactly is saying we are infallible?
    K4t wrote: »
    It's no surprise the Islamic fundamentalists are targeting free speech in their quest. They know that by targeting it, we ourselves will take care of the rest through self censorship and extreme attempts to show tolerance. But tolerance of intolerance (i.e. Islam and all Religion) is not tolerance. It's cowardice or compliance.
    I'd suggest it's tolerance, cowardice or compliance depending on how you approach it. If you tolerate Islam without fear, that's tolerance. If you fear Islam and cannot face it with the courage of your own convictions, that's cowardice. If you yield to Islam when you would rather do otherwise, that's compliance.
    K4t wrote: »
    We've come so far and now we are saying we're happy where we are, and by saying that we are in danger of going backwards in an attempt to stay there.
    But if we do stay where we are happy then we won't go backwards.
    K4t wrote: »
    IIn the western democracies of the 21st century, the voices and opinions that need protecting the most, are those of the homophobe, the racist, the Islamic fundamentalist, the communist etc. And not by creating laws to protect them from insult or hate, but by making sure their views are out there, loud and proud, in the public sphere, where they can be acknowledged and questioned and reasoned against.
    Surely in a democracy all voices and opinions should be protected equally? Don't you think that giving special protection to the opinions of the homophobe, the racist, the Islamic fundamentalist, the communist etc is a form of cowardice or compliance?


  • #55
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think that's untrue. If you're in favour of limiting homophobic or racist speech, you'd only be in favour of limiting anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech because you also favour levelling the field of discussion or are in favour of limiting speech generally. If you are solely opposed to homophobic or racist speech (say on the basis of being opposed to homophobia or racism) you'll have no problem with speech that advances your position; to wit, anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.
    It's not about levelling the discussion, it's about how society could just as easily be the other way. The video was a an ex Russian kgb guy speaking so, take Russia for example: The Russian government more than frowns upon homosexuality, in 2013 Putin signed the bill banning the 'propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors' into law, aimed at limiting the rights of gays and lgbt people. There are bans on gay rights parades, fines to gays rights groups, and banning of propaganda of homosexuality to minors. They even equate same-sex relations with paedophilia. And physical attacks are occurring on gays and those suspected of being gay. So there's quite an anti-gay atmosphere in the country, spearheaded by the government, who are attempting to suppress homosexuality and views in support of it. Now comes my point; if this continues in Russia for years and years, with more silencing of homosexual views, and more and more people becoming accustomed to this way of thinking about homosexuality, and it becomes the norm to be opposed to homosexuality and to think it is immoral and unnatural and wrong, and not enough people are questioning and attempting to counter this view out of fear of being shunned and due to suppression by the government, then there is a serious problem. Now I'm not saying the following WILL happen, I'm simply saying it would be possible: The Russian government decides to bring in a law making homosexual relations equal to paedohphilia, criminalising homosexuality, and demanding all known homosexuals are arrested and put on trial. And while there might be still some semblance of free speech left in the country for gays and supporters of homosexuality to speak out against this law, the problem now is that the law is democratic and backed vehemently by the majority of the people, who see it as obviously right and correct. It's now considered normal and right to arrest people for expressing pro gay rights and pro homosexual sentiments; the government and the people refer to such views as hate speech and incitement to hatred and there's rightfully laws against such views being expressed. And all of it is justified by the people, by way of democracy. It's simply right, their beliefs are clearly right and thus deserve to be made into these laws, and anyone opposing them ough to be arrested as they are clearly anti-homophobes and obviously inciting hatred towards normal, homophobic people/victims. There is still free speech but some beliefs are clearly wrong and people acknowledged it was right and correct to make laws to reflect this certainty. Through limiting and restricting speech and views that were clearly wrong and intolerant and incited hatred towards homophobes, they have rid the country of evil and dangerous gays and lgbts, or at least ensured they will not have to endure them or hear from them the ones who live in hiding. The rest will be arrested and anyone who supports them rightfully arrested for hate speech and incitement to hatred.
    But if we do stay where we are happy then we won't go backwards.
    I was referring specifically to Muslims and future generations of Muslims. We are doing them a massive disservice by saying we're alright where we are, and at the same time removing liberty from ourselves through self censorship of Islam and all religion. Stupid western believers in Christianity might not have a problem with that for obvious reasons.
    Surely in a democracy all voices and opinions should be protected equally?
    Yes. But the voice of minorities is more important and should be especially monitored so as to make sure they are never silenced or suppressed, and that their right isn't being slowly taken away as is usually the case, like is happening in Russia with gays and lgbt.
    Don't you think that giving special protection to the opinions of the homophobe, the racist, the Islamic fundamentalist, the communist etc is a form of cowardice or compliance?
    That's explicitly what I said we should NOT do; in the same we should not protect the feelings of minorities such as blacks and gays and muslims by silencing speech in criticism of them; but instead protect theirs and everyone's right to free speech, and to allow people to point out the stupidity of racism and homophobia and blaming all muslims for the acts of mad men. It is crucial that those opinions are expressed though, openly, so they can be acknowledged and countered and reasoned with. Not hidden away deep into a person's mind, and perhaps passed on to generation after generation.


  • #56
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    It's not about levelling the discussion, it's about how society could just as easily be the other way.
    But it doesn't matter what way society could be; it doesn't mean anyone who would favour criminalising homophobic or racist speech would also favour the criminalising of anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech. It just doesn't follow.
    K4t wrote: »
    So there's quite an anti-gay atmosphere in the country, spearheaded by the government, who are attempting to suppress homosexuality and views in support of it. Now comes my point; if this continues in Russia for years and years, with more silencing of homosexual views, and more and more people becoming accustomed to this way of thinking about homosexuality, and it becomes the norm to be opposed to homosexuality and to think it is immoral and unnatural and wrong, and not enough people are questioning and attempting to counter this view out of fear of being shunned and due to suppression by the government, then there is a serious problem.
    So if Russia becomes the way it used to be here, there are people who will perceive this as a problem, though obviously not the Russians (or at least, not the gay ones).
    K4t wrote: »
    The Russian government decides to bring in a law making homosexual relations equal to paedohphilia, criminalising homosexuality, and demanding all known homosexuals are arrested and put on trial. And while there might be still some semblance of free speech left in the country for gays and supporters of homosexuality to speak out against this law, the problem now is that the law is democratic and backed vehemently by the majority of the people, who see it as obviously right and correct.
    Right...
    K4t wrote: »
    It's now considered normal and right to arrest people for expressing pro gay rights and pro homosexual sentiments; the government and the people refer to such views as hate speech and incitement to hatred and there's rightfully laws against such views being expressed. And all of it is justified by the people, by way of democracy.
    But this doesn't automatically follow? Remember when homosexuality was illegal here, it wasn't illegal to express pro gay rights sentiments, nor was there an overwhelming desire to arrest people who expressed it, or any notion that it was hate speech. I think you're making a huge and unjustifiable leap from criminalising homosexuality to criminalising free speech that concerns homosexuality. Still less justifiable to leap to criminalising free speech that is anti-homosexuality.
    K4t wrote: »
    I was referring specifically to Muslims and future generations of Muslims. We are doing them a massive disservice by saying we're alright where we are, and at the same time removing liberty from ourselves through self censorship of Islam and all religion. Stupid western believers in Christianity might not have a problem with that for obvious reasons.
    That would not be us going backwards then, that would be Muslims and future generations of Muslims. Something which they seem to be achieving without any input from us at all in any case...
    K4t wrote: »
    Yes. But the voice of minorities is more important and should be especially monitored so as to make sure they are never silenced or suppressed, and that their right isn't being slowly taken away as is usually the case, like is happening in Russia with gays and lgbt.
    I don't think so. How can the voices of minorities be more important if all voices are protected equally? That doesn't make sense.
    K4t wrote: »
    That's explicitly what I said we should NOT do; in the same we should not protect the feelings of minorities such as blacks and gays and muslims by silencing speech in criticism of them; but instead protect theirs and everyone's right to free speech, and to allow people to point out the stupidity of racism and homophobia and blaming all muslims for the acts of mad men.
    But you said they're more important; that's giving them special protection right there.


Advertisement