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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

(femanists) Put up against the wall & shot

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually you said:

    Tell me, does the above imply somehow you were discussing some in any way or in fact that you were demanding that I convince people as to why rights in general should be conditional?
    In the same post, I said:
    KomradeBishop wrote:
    Sure, but again, you have to justify making rights conditional, on a case-by-case basis; saying that rights or entitlements should be paired with responsibilities, requires a justification/reason, it's not morally true all by itself, it requires a reason.
    I've explained several times that I am not talking about all rights, so the implication you take from my quote, is one that I have already corrected as not being what I was saying.

    The implication in your post here:
    The Corinthian wrote:
    This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
    This implies that you think rights without responsibilities are a bad thing - are you going to explain what you really meant here (as I have done with the implication you take from my post: I've explained I'm talking on a case-by-case basis), or are you going to leave that interpretation unchallenged?
    The Corinthian wrote:
    Sorry, I must have ignored it because you're the only one who's ever discussed 'added responsibilities'. Why did you introduce this into the discussion?
    You introduced responsibilities:
    The Corinthian wrote:
    This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
    The Corinthian wrote:
    And indeed they can be a bad thing. Given the example given only a post or so ago, do you wish to deny this?
    The example given shows a person who actually does have legal responsibilities - but where the judicial system left those responsibilities unenforced.

    Your issue doesn't seem to be about 'responsibilities', it seems to just be with poor enforcement of existing laws.
    The Corinthian wrote:
    KomradeBishop wrote:
    if you want to portray any rights without responsibilities as being a bad thing, you need to justify that on a case by case basis.

    Your original quote just seems to imply that, without any justification added:
    Outside of your head, where does my quote imply anything of the sort?
    :
    The Corinthian wrote:
    This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
    In the above, you present as a counterpoint to an individual or group demanding new rights, the idea that there are "never any associated responsibilities".

    Besides this being inaccurate: If you're not implying that that is a bad thing, when exactly were you trying to say?
    The Corinthian wrote:
    As I've demonstrated above, you're the one weaseling their way through their own words, so I'd get off that high horse before I fall off were I you.
    You haven't demonstrating anything, you directly admitted you were ignoring my clarifications:
    The Corinthian wrote:
    Sorry, I must have ignored it because you're the only one who's ever discussed 'added responsibilities'
    When you take mistaken implications from my posts, I clarify them - you try to weasel your way out of explaining what you mean by this quote (since you seem to disagree with my interpretation), which I've presented close to a dozen times now:
    The Corinthian wrote:
    This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
    The Corinthian wrote:
    Actually the judgments are a reflection of this moral trend towards rights without responsibility - what I discussed earlier. She's entitled to her rights, but not not accountable for her actions as she's a victim. Increasingly we''ve seen a complete disconnect between rights and responsibilities, like you, implying that the two should not be associated.

    Well, be careful what you wish for.
    You seem to want the impossible: A perfect judicial system and judges, who never make bad judgments - and when you don't have this (because it's impossible), you try to spin it into whatever you want to see.

    She actually does have responsibilities, and it's an imperfect judicial system that has let her escape those responsibilities - you're never going to have a judicial system which does not allow some amount of abuse/exploitation.

    There are no rights without responsibilities there, only an imperfect judicial system that lets a tiny amount of people escape some responsibilities.


  • Options
    #33
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    So, people simply following the law, means they are fulfilling their responsibilities? That would imply that nobody has rights without responsibilities, as everyone is held to the law.
    Broadly speaking, I think so, yes. It's up to society to decide what responsibilities are required of it's citizens in order to enjoy whatever rights it bestows.
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Simply following the law is meeting your responsibilities, no? Can you give a real world example of what you mention here, and how it should be remedied? It's not clear.
    Sure. Respecting your elders was once a responsibility of childen required in order to be out and about in public. Failure to live up to your responsibilities earned you a clip around the ear. That would be a non legal example, but obviously you have legal ones like national service, conscription, a requirement to vote or pay taxes; these are all responsibilities societies levy on citizens in return for membership. Say you have a right to own property; that right may carry a responsibility to ensure no one is injured on your property. Not all rights neccasarily have correlating responsibilities, but again that's something a society can decide.


  • Options
    #34
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Absolam wrote: »
    Broadly speaking, I think so, yes. It's up to society to decide what responsibilities are required of it's citizens in order to enjoy whatever rights it bestows.
    Okey, well by that definition, any statement about people having 'rights without associated responsibilities' is pretty much wrong - and it's not 'responsibilities' that people would have an issue with (everyone would have those), it's poor enforcement of law (completely different to responsibilities).
    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure. Respecting your elders was once a responsibility of childen required in order to be out and about in public. Failure to live up to your responsibilities earned you a clip around the ear. That would be a non legal example, but obviously you have legal ones like national service, conscription, a requirement to vote or pay taxes; these are all responsibilities societies levy on citizens in return for membership. Say you have a right to own property; that right may carry a responsibility to ensure no one is injured on your property. Not all rights neccasarily have correlating responsibilities, but again that's something a society can decide.
    Okey - well, I guess then others should clarify what they mean by responsibilites; your definition here is pretty reasonable, but if that definition is applied to other posters here, then a lot of their statements seems to be contradictory.


  • Options
    #35
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Okey, well by that definition, any statement about people having 'rights without associated responsibilities' is pretty much wrong - and it's not 'responsibilities' that people would have an issue with (everyone would have those), it's poor enforcement of law (completely different to responsibilities).
    Not really; we can decide that when rights are awarded that they have associated responsibilities. Like for instance, you have a right to receive social welfare payments for up to two years, subject to the responsibility of paying PRSI for four years. I think Corinthians point is that we are increasingly conferring rights, like the right to an education, or the right to Internet access, without demanding responsibilities of our citizens at the same rate. Which I think is fair enough; the more a sciety provides its citizens, the more it should ask of them, otherwise we value our freedoms too cheaply.


  • Options
    #36
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    If we value our freedoms highly, surely we would minimize governments ability to curtail these rights, by imposing added responsibilities - not the other way around?

    The idea of valuing freedoms too cheaply, seems to be a moral argument without a whole lot backing it - I think there are good practical reasons for restricting some rights, in certain circumstances, but I don't think rights should automatically be counterbalanced with added responsibilities - just to provide a balance (i.e. just so people don't value them too cheaply).

    There are lots of practical arguments in favour of the result you argue for though - I just think those practical arguments should be used, instead of the moral arguments that get presented (because often the moral arguments don't hold up, and can actually be used rather bluntly, to argue against practical policies that hold up better).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You don't see the difference between a physical condition which doesn't affect your ability to work and one which does?
    It depends how others see them. If someone is too fat for the job, are they disabled, and thus if you sack someone for being too fat to do the job, are you therefore sacking someone for being disabled?

    =-=

    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.


  • Options
    #38
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I've explained several times that I am not talking about all rights, so the implication you take from my quote, is one that I have already corrected as not being what I was saying.
    Oh, so are you are the only one who's allowed to claim that someone is implying a generalization? I'm afraid you lost your right to hide behind that defense the moment you did that to what I was saying.
    This implies that you think rights without responsibilities are a bad thing
    Have I not repeatedly said that this was not the case? - oh, wait, you can claim implications, no one else can.

    As I said, you're wasting my time.


  • Options
    #39
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Absolam wrote: »
    Not really; we can decide that when rights are awarded that they have associated responsibilities. Like for instance, you have a right to receive social welfare payments for up to two years, subject to the responsibility of paying PRSI for four years. I think Corinthians point is that we are increasingly conferring rights, like the right to an education, or the right to Internet access, without demanding responsibilities of our citizens at the same rate. Which I think is fair enough; the more a sciety provides its citizens, the more it should ask of them, otherwise we value our freedoms too cheaply.

    Do you not think these additional rights, education and Internet, already have responsibilities impliedly attached? I fully agree with your view that as citizens we have a responsibility to follow the laws and/or rules and in many cases this is where our rights come from. I would suggest that when we get these new rights then these responsibility also attach, or at least should. If you don't fulfil your obligations then you run the risk, or should run the risk, of losing them.

    But then there are a class of rights that, perhaps, should simply apply, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression etc.

    MrP


  • Options
    #40
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Oh, so are you are the only one who's allowed to claim that someone is implying a generalization? I'm afraid you lost your right to hide behind that defense the moment you did that to what I was saying.

    Have I not repeatedly said that this was not the case? - oh, wait, you can claim implications, no one else can.

    As I said, you're wasting my time.
    I've explained what I meant, you haven't - so, please, explain what you were saying here then:
    The Corinthian wrote:
    This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
    If that isn't implying that rights without responsibilities (and obviously I'm not talking about all rights, as I've already explained that several times...) are a bad thing, then why exactly are you counterpointing the first two sentences, with the bolded part?


  • Options
    #41
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Do you not think these additional rights, education and Internet, already have responsibilities impliedly attached? I fully agree with your view that as citizens we have a responsibility to follow the laws and/or rules and in many cases this is where our rights come from. I would suggest that when we get these new rights then these responsibility also attach, or at least should. If you don't fulfil your obligations then you run the risk, or should run the risk, of losing them.

    But then there are a class of rights that, perhaps, should simply apply, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression etc.

    MrP
    If people define 'responsibilities' as simply 'following the law', then no new rights need any new responsibilities, do they? That's redundant, as everyone already has a responsibility to follow the law.

    If that is the definition of responsibility, then any statement about rights without responsibilities is meaningless and inaccurate, since everyone has to follow the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    If that isn't implying that rights without responsibilities (and obviously I'm not talking about all rights, as I've already explained that several times...) are a bad thing, then why exactly are you counterpointing the first two sentences, with the bolded part?
    That's clearly saying that always or only seeking rights without responsibilities is a bad thing. How on Earth could you misunderstand that?


  • Options
    #43
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's clearly saying that always or only seeking rights without responsibilities is a bad thing. How on Earth could you misunderstand that?
    What's your idea of seeking a responsibility, alongside a right then? The only definition of responsibility that seems to have come up in this thread, is simply 'following the law', which - if this were your definition (not assuming it is) means its pretty much a meaningless statement since all rights are automatically paired with the responsibility to follow the law.


  • Options
    #44
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    What's your idea of seeking a responsibility, alongside a right then?
    I've already given examples earlier. As to your presumption that they are defined by law, that is your, flawed, presumption.

    And how did you manage that passage you quoted? Please address that before expecting any further responses to your own questions.


  • Options
    #45
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I've already given examples earlier. As to your presumption that they are defined by law, that is your, flawed, presumption.
    That definition seems to be the only coherent definition provided (by others) in the thread - your own definition is very unclear (even given previous examples).
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And how did you manage that passage you quoted? Please address that before expecting any further responses to your own questions.
    I'm not sure what you're referring to here - you mean this quote?
    The Corinthian wrote:
    This is where an individual, or group, will identify as victims and correspondingly demand an entitlement to rights, often with popular support. There's nothing wrong with this if those rights are merited. However, what we have seen is that there are never any associated responsibilities.
    If so: You didn't specify always/only here, so until you clarified that in your previous post above, it was open to interpretation (and, before you clarified it, my interpretation seemed reasonable) - the main thing left open to interpretation/clarification now, is your definition of 'responsibility' here.

    Most people on the thread so far, seem to agree with 'following the law' as being a good definition of responsibility, but since you disagree with that, it's not clear if your statement "that there are never any associated responsibilities" is accurate at all, or how the idea that there may be rights without responsibilities, is accurate.


  • Options
    #46
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    That definition seems to be the only coherent definition provided (by others) in the thread - your own definition is very unclear (even given previous examples).
    It is not unclear.
    I'm not sure what you're referring to here - you mean this quote?
    Maybe the one you cited a post ago?
    If so: You didn't specify always/only here, so until you clarified that in your previous post above, it was open to interpretation (and, before you clarified it, my interpretation seemed reasonable) - the main thing left open to interpretation/clarification now, is your definition of 'responsibility' here.
    It was only open to interpretation if you can't read, TBH. It's perfectly clear English.

    Honestly, I don't know if you're now taking the piss or genuinely challenged. Rather than continue with this time-sink I'm just going to leave you to it and wish you a happy new year.


  • Options
    #47
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It is not unclear.

    Maybe the one you cited a post ago?

    It was only open to interpretation if you can't read, TBH. It's perfectly clear English.

    Honestly, I don't know if you're now taking the piss or genuinely challenged. Rather than continue with this time-sink I'm just going to leave you to it and wish you a happy new year.
    It is very unclear, you haven't even provided a concise definition for your idea of 'responsibility', you've just pointed to previous examples in posts - which don't help to make your own definition any more clear.

    If your definition of responsibility is so clear, can you summarize your definition? Or are you just going to cop-out/balk again by insulting posters and pointing again, to 'examples' that don't make your definition any more clear? (thus wasting time/posts, when you could just provide your definition...)


    I'd be interested from other posters as well: What do other posters think Corinthian's definition of 'responsibility' is? I'd not be surprised if nobody has a clear idea (especially since many other posters seem to include 'following the law' as fitting that definition, which Corinthian has stated, does not fit his definition)

    Are all posters who are unclear on your definition 'challenged'?


  • Options
    #48
    Cant Handle The Banter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7 ✭Cant Handle The Banter


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

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

    I'm sick of people saying our society is too PC, the PC culture has been a very good thing. In the West we have eliminated, or are in the process of eliminating racism, homophobia, gender inequality amongst others.

    But sure that just makes us weak right. :rolleyes:

    On the surface maybe. In real life people are as racist, homopobic and sexist as ever.


  • Options
    #49
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cant Handle The Banter wrote: »
    On the surface maybe. In real life people are as racist, homopobic and sexist as ever.
    On what basis do you make your claim?


  • Options
    #50
    Cant Handle The Banter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7 ✭Cant Handle The Banter


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    On what basis do you make your claim?

    When people feel free to really express themselves. On the surface we live in a very pc age where you're expected to be very careful not to offend anyone but dig deeper and people haven't changed.


  • Options
    #51
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Cant Handle The Banter wrote: »
    When people feel free to really express themselves. On the surface we live in a very pc age where you're expected to be very careful not to offend anyone but dig deeper and people haven't changed.
    That just means that racist, homophobic and sexist exist today; to support your claim that "people are as racist, homophobic and sexist as ever", which is different, you'd have to compare people today to those in the past. All before one considers that you've supported your claim with nothing more than an opinion - no evidence, even anecdotal, whatsoever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,691 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #54
    Absolam
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #56
    Absolam
    Registered Users 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