Malayalam wrote: » That is some incredible cognitive acrobatics. Do you reckon people in general should get away with being racist publicly or even public incitement to racial and gender hatred unless it could be proven that there was ''some kind of effect on the target''?
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » I think your words have to at least do some kind of harm for there to be consequences. That's a fairly basic prerequisite, tbh. Nobody on here has even admitted to being genuinely hurt or offended by Sarah Jeong's words.
Malayalam wrote: » It's not up to me to be personally offended by Sarah jeong's words, just like it's not up to me to be genuinely offended if someone refuses to serve a gay person, or evicts a black person from a flat, or creates a conspiarcy theory about Jews - it's up to a civil society to decide what is the acceptable public behaviour to enable people to live free from hatred REGARDLESS of the personal idiosyncratic hatreds and phobias of random people. I thought you would know that.
DavidLyons_ wrote: » Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Some of us have gone very thin-skinned, constantly looking for things to be offended by. I take then that if the word white were replaced by black or Syrian or traveller and the comments posted here you'd react in the same way should anyone take issue with it?
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Some of us have gone very thin-skinned, constantly looking for things to be offended by.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » There must be somebody out there who genuinely finds her words offensive though. I'd love to hear from such a person.
Malayalam wrote: » Hapax Legomenon wrote: » I'm not arguing that her words weren't racist or sexist, btw - just that for racism and sexism to be effective, they need to have some kind of effect on the target, beyond the idea of some perceived double-standard. That is some incredible cognitive acrobatics. Do you reckon people in general should get away with being racist publicly or even public incitement to racial and gender hatred unless it could be proven that there was ''some kind of effect on the target''?
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » I'm not arguing that her words weren't racist or sexist, btw - just that for racism and sexism to be effective, they need to have some kind of effect on the target, beyond the idea of some perceived double-standard.
suicide_circus wrote: » I don't think people should be fired for expressing off colour opinions
Lash Into The Pints wrote: » He actually cannot bring himseIf to admit you can be hateful to whites. How can someone be this brainwashed?
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Nobody on here has even admitted to being genuinely hurt or offended by Sarah Jeong's words.
Taytoland wrote: » If white people are fired for racist tweets against black people etc, then so should this woman. What she said was just racist, plain and simple. If you want to live in an equal society shouldn't people be treated equally?
Malayalam wrote: » Oh Yawn I'll leave you to it... I hope the NY times follows up by hiring a clutch of white nationalists and rabid homophobes who have all been equally vocal for a long time about their pet hatreds on social media. Fair's fair and at least I know you would not find it genuinely offensive in the least.
Wibbs wrote: » So if I called a Black lad a buck nigger and he actually wasn't offended by it that would be nothing much to be concerned about in your world? I doubt it.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Wibbs wrote: » So if I called a Black lad a buck nigger and he actually wasn't offended by it that would be nothing much to be concerned about in your world? I doubt it. Edgy. Go and call someone that, see what happens.
Lash Into The Pints wrote: » Why can't you answer his question?
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Edgy. Go and call someone that, see what happens.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Lash Into The Pints wrote: » Why can't you answer his question? Because it's a really stupid question.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Because it's a really stupid question.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » To give those guys some credit, they're so much better at offending and inciting hatred. Sarah Jeong's tweets were, at worst, tiresome.
Wibbs wrote: » Only because your "progressive liberal" Oppressed/Oppressor simply can't compute any problem, can't compute that racism and sexism can go the other direction.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Wibbs wrote: » Only because your "progressive liberal" Oppressed/Oppressor simply can't compute any problem, can't compute that racism and sexism can go the other direction. Yeah, except I've already acknowledged that Sarah Jeong's words were both racist and sexist.
Lash Into The Pints wrote: » A minute ago you were saying they were, at worst, 'tiresome. So she was being racist and sexist but no one was sufficiently offended for her to be racist and sexist?
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » I described her words as tiresome, rather than offensive. Nobody, even on here, appears to have been terribly offended by them anyway. People (probably the kind of people she was trolling and generalising about in the first place) appear to be more offended that she's 'allowed' to be racist, but they aren't (or at least not without being more subtle about it). Although Wibbs got to post the n-word, so yay, at least someone got a naughty little thrill.
Will I Am Not wrote: » Please tell me you’re a parody account.
suicide_circus wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » If white people are fired for racist tweets against black people etc, then so should this woman. What she said was just racist, plain and simple. If you want to live in an equal society shouldn't people be treated equally? I'm suggesting that we should move past the flaming torches and pitchforks for stupid racist comments. it's all gotten a little spanish inquisition for my liking.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » TSarah Jeong's tweets were, at worst, tiresome.
