|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hate Speech
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Beeswax:
Your post is written in a somewhat meandering style, and I kinda got lost at several points along the way. But assuming I've got the basic gist of it...
quote:
But, I bet if somebody you agree with satirized somebody you agree with you'll find a reason to say it's OK.
(I'm gonna assume here that you mean someone I agree with satirizes someone I DISAGREE with, 'cuz it seems rather confusing otherwise).
For the record, no, as a left-winger, I absolutely loathe left-wing satire that makes fun of right-wingers, when the satire focusses on stuff like the low socioeconic status of "white trash", hillbilly accents and mannerisms etc.
Though, being honest, I DO think it was funny when H.L. Mencken did it in the 1920s(eg. describing rural white white southerners as "anthropoids", among many examples I could cite). Not sure why, maybe it was Mencken's own marginalized status as a German-American who had lived through the xenophobia of WWI, or perhaps just the fact that he clearly KNEW he was being offensive, and as an outirght elitist was striving for that effect. As opposed to today's chattering-class liberals, who think they're really "speaking truth to power" when they make fun of people who for reasons of economic misfortune have ended up living in a trailer-park.
So, no, I don't automatically applaud any satirical jokes made by people I happen to agree with.
[ 12. July 2015, 17:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
As opposed to today's chattering-class liberals, who think they're really "speaking truth to power" when they make fun of people who for reasons of economic misfortune have ended up living in a trailer-park.
Oh be fair. You can't expect people like that to speak truth to real power. That could have a negative financial impact. Much safer to speak truth to people they know will never in a million years be in a position to decide whether or not they get a job or a contract.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I was trying to multitask. Multitasking isn't one of my talents.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
As opposed to today's chattering-class liberals, who think they're really "speaking truth to power" when they make fun of people who for reasons of economic misfortune have ended up living in a trailer-park.
Oh be fair. You can't expect people like that to speak truth to real power. That could have a negative financial impact. Much safer to speak truth to people they know will never in a million years be in a position to decide whether or not they get a job or a contract.
Speaking truth to power would mean talking to themselves.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I'm not saying nobody is going to call it racist because it uses a style of caricature for everyone which, if seen out of context, is going to seem shocking, especially I'd guess to American eyes,
To more eyes than American.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
and of course it's going to offend those who don't believe in mocking/criticising religion, if the religion has significant overlaps with minorities, but there's a reason why Oliver Tonneau points out in his letter to my British friends that the attack was on
That is the best explanation I've read thus far. Still processing it and still have a problem with the cartoon depictions. ISTM, that the explanation does not fit in every instance. However, my words do appear more hasty than I had thought. Not, quite, moving off the field in defeat, but I am reassessing the battle lines.
quote:
I don't see why secularist cartoonists should be required not to skewer religious concepts.
I've never said that.
This is not about requirements.
It is about what is bigoted vs. what is critical.
It is bigoted to say Islam is evil. It is a criticism to say "x" practice within Islam is wrong.
quote:
use search terms which pre-load your bias into the search.
Here is the "loaded" search I entered.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Well fair enough, the search does throw up some good articles as well as bad/not very good - but it goes to show that language and culture barriers are still tricky.
I honestly don't think from the many cartoons I looked at that anyone was drawn in a more unflattering light than anyone else. Charb, in particular, had a grotesque style whoever he was drawing. It would have been very weird for one ethnicity to be singled out to be made to look beautiful and noble out of political correctness while everyone else was drawn in the same style.
When you mentioned practices/applications - it made me think you were exempting theological concepts which perhaps you don't mean. I do, for clarity, think theology can be mocked. I suspect we're talking at cross purposes - because no-one on that magazine was saying all muslims/all believers in Islam are evil, but people were reserving the right to mock any part of the religion they might find ridiculous and religion in general.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Kaplan - yes, I can see the point you're making and I also think that there's a kind of almost Puritanical form of self-righteousness that is very prevalent on the left ...
I'm not quite sure, though, that I'd want to dichotomise things to the extent that there's 'the left' on one side (first define, 'the left') and a liberal/conservative axis on the other side.
Although I understand that in Australian terms the Liberal Party is actually the Conservative Party ...
But I don't think you're talking about political parties as such, more forms of ideology and ways of looking at the world.
As someone who is a liberal but who was very sceptical of the Liberal Democrat/Tory coalition - and who actually resigned membership of the Liberal Democrats for a while because of it ... you can understand that I don't particularly like being bracketed on the same side as conservatives ...
But I can see the point you're making and would agree in general terms. The left does seem to have a proprietary interest in offensive or allegedly offensive speech ...
However, I'm not sure that's entirely absent among liberals (if we're going to distinguish them from 'the left' - I'd suggest they're kind of moderate or mildly left or centrist - at least in UK terms) or conservatives.
Mary Whitehouse, the infamous British campaigner against smut and immorality on the telly was certainly on the right politically - and she was obsessed with things being offensive or allegedly offensive.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Basically, it is wrong for any of lilBuddha's political opponents to use satire because they are punching down. At the same time, all of lilBuddha's political opponents deserve to be satirized mercilessly. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Call it what you will. I challenge you to show an example. Not that I think I can never be blind to my own bias, but I think you are speaking more to impression than observed reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
To give an extreme example to illustrate my point if an Indian billionaire were to exchange insults with a neo-nazi living in a trailer park even you wouldn't think the billionaire was the one 'punching up'.
You need to illustrate your point better.
Let's make this specific. If you walked up to President Obama and called him a nigger, you would still be punching down.
If you attack his actual policies, you are punching up.
If you attack his accomplishments, you are punching up.
If you attack his race, you are punching down.
Clearer?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
But blasphemy laws were originally also about upholding a specific doctrine held by a specific religio-political institution.
Originally perhaps, but the current state of play is towards generic-sounding Defamation of Religion standards. The attempt is to be inclusive of all religions, which immediately runs aground on the problem of various religions being defamatory in each other's eyes. For example, denying the divinity of Christ would seem to defame Christians as worshiping a false god, yet it's a standard feature of Judaism and Islam.
Of course, the most likely as applied result of such laws is the protection of large, popular religions from defamation while using the law to hammer smaller faiths.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you walked up to President Obama and called him a nigger, you would still be punching down.
Wrong.
You seem to suffer from some sort of simplisticism or reductionism when it comes to race.
One size doesn't fit all - it all comes down to specific context.
To call Brack Obama a nigger would be inexcusably offensive,but it would not be punching down, because Obama's influence. wealth. prestige and global support, relative to the position of any one of us whites, completely offsets any racial balance of power.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Let's make this specific. If you walked up to President Obama and called him a nigger, you would still be punching down.
No. If anyone were stupid enough to try that they would be the one getting punched down by the Secret Service, and not metaphorically either! I would agree with what Kaplan Corday has said about why you are wrong on this point
The other issue was if someone satirises a neo-nazi is he punching down? This is a separate question from the question of whether neo-nazis are themselves 'punching' up or down. It is quite possible for someone to both 'punch down' and be 'punched down' upon at the same time.
So lets take the example of someone from an ethnic minority with a prominent platform in the media insulting or satirising a low income white neo-nazi.
If he insults him for his skin colour is he 'punching' up or down. According to your theory he's 'punching up'
If he insults him for his lack of accomplishments is he 'punching' up or down? Well on that one he would be 'punching down'.
What about if he insults him for his ideology? Well is neo-nazism a high status or a low status ideology? In western society today its a very low status ideology. Therefore if the media personality insulted someone based on their ideology and that ideology was a very low status ideology then wouldn't that be another case of 'punching down'?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you walked up to President Obama and called him a nigger, you would still be punching down.
Wrong.
You seem to suffer from some sort of simplisticism or reductionism when it comes to race.
You say this, but the you do this,
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To call Brack Obama a nigger would be inexcusably offensive,but it would not be punching down, because Obama's influence. wealth. prestige and global support, relative to the position of any one of us whites, completely offsets any racial balance of power.
which is exactly what you accuse me of doing. I.E. reducing the situation to a simple equation.
What a racial slur directed to the Obama says is despite achieving the most powerful position in the world, he is nothing but the colour of his skin. It is an insult to every person of colour in the world.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, it's an attack against Barack Obama. Calling any verbal attack on the most powerful man in the world punching down is simply absurd. Racial insults are either acceptable or they aren't. Same goes with satire.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
which is exactly what you accuse me of doing. I.E. reducing the situation to a simple equation.
You are saying that any white person, in any context, who acts negatively toward any black person, is "punching down".
That is reducing the situation to a simple equation.
I am saying that the white person involved, the black person involved, the act or statement itself, and the milieu or situation, all have to be taken into consideration.
That is not.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, it's an attack against Barack Obama. Calling any verbal attack on the most powerful man in the world punching down is simply absurd.
OK, that is your opinion. It does nothing to address the points I made which suggest this opinion is in error.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Racial insults are either acceptable or they aren't.
I think all racial insults are wrong. It remains they do not all have the same effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Same goes with satire.
Never said satire was wrong at all. I have worked at the point that satire does not excuse racism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
which is exactly what you accuse me of doing. I.E. reducing the situation to a simple equation.
You are saying that any white person, in any context, who acts negatively toward any black person, is "punching down".
This is truly, hilariously, incorrect.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am saying that the white person involved, the black person involved, the act or statement itself, and the milieu or situation, all have to be taken into consideration.
That is not.
Not quite. You said this:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
because Obama's influence. wealth. prestige and global support, relative to the position of any one of us whites, completely offsets any racial balance of power.
Which reduces the equation to a comparison of personal power between the individuals. It does not take into account what target individual has experienced prior to the insult and does not account for the people who identify with the target individual or the fact that a racial insult does not, and cannot, only refer to one person.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Sure, I did. An attack on Barack Obama is an attack on Barack Obama and nobody else. You may claim that the word nigger implies an attack on all black people but the person calling Barack Obama a nigger could simply want to say something really mean to Barack Obama. The whole taboo surrounding the word strikes me as rather contrived. Some African-Americans have decided that white people can't say the word nigger under any circumstances but regularly use the word themselves. More and more this seems like just one way to gain a small amount of power not over racist white people who use the n word interchangeably with a dozen other rascist slurs but any person who isn't black. Furthermore,the whole concept of microagressions is nothing more than a manipulative tactic to gain power over others by controlling what they are allowed to say or do. I could see somebody calling Barack Obama a nigger as a very extreme and very risky way of challenging that tactic. It likely wouldn't be a very effective form of protest but it certainly wouldn't be punching down.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which reduces the equation to a comparison of personal power between the individuals.
Which it can be, and often is.
It is ludicrous to suggest, for example, that an unemployed, semi-literate neo-Nazi would be "punching down" by addressing ant-Semitic insults to an Israeli general.
quote:
It does not take into account what target individual has experienced prior to the insult and does not account for the people who identify with the target individual
Neither is relevant to "punching down" in a transaction such as the above involving a major power differential.
quote:
the fact that a racial insult does not, and cannot, only refer to one person.
It can, and sometimes does, and anyway it is only one of many factors in any confrontation, and not necessarily the most important.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, I did. An attack on Barack Obama is an attack on Barack Obama and nobody else. You may claim that the word nigger implies an attack on all black people but the person calling Barack Obama a nigger could simply want to say something really mean to Barack Obama.
Could be the intent. Isn't the result.
Want to insult just one person? Attack something that is uniquely theirs. Their achievements, personality, etc.
Certain words have baggage. You don't like it? Tough. Reality is a bitch, innit.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The whole taboo surrounding the word strikes me as rather contrived. Some African-Americans have decided that white people can't say the word nigger under any circumstances but regularly use the word themselves.
It is an attempt to lesson its power. As is gay people using using fag.
You want a coherent argument so you can use those words? Find one.
This:
quote:
More and more this seems like just one way to gain a small amount of power not over racist white people who use the n word interchangeably with a dozen other rascist slurs but any person who isn't black. Furthermore,the whole concept of microagressions is nothing more than a manipulative tactic to gain power over others by controlling what they are allowed to say or do.
isn't it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, I'm not sure that's entirely absent among liberals (if we're going to distinguish them from 'the left' - I'd suggest they're kind of moderate or mildly left or centrist - at least in UK terms) or conservatives.
This takes us into the complex area of right/left terminology.
We can talk about a liberal (or Orwellian) left as contrasted with an authoritarian, or communist left.
Or liberal (in the original historical and etymological usage) as emphasising freedom from state control, in contrast with the left which supports it.
Americans confusingly use it both senses, ie liberal as synonymous with left, ie belief in a positive role for the state, and liberal as in neo-liberal to denote opponents of big government.
I am left in that I support a role for government in the welfare state, progressive taxation and a safety net for all citizens, but liberal in opposing the government's interference in areas such as religion, cenorship, sexual morality and political correctness.
The late Richard John Neuhaus described himself as "socially conservative, politically liberal, economically pragmatic and theologically orthodox", which I think has quite a lot going for it.
quote:
Mary Whitehouse, the infamous British campaigner against smut and immorality on the telly was certainly on the right politically - and she was obsessed with things being offensive or allegedly offensive.
Not sure about this analogy.
Whitehouse seemed to claim on the basis of a timeless morality (tao?) to which she had access that some things were inherently and objectively offensive, and should be banned, whether or not they were perceived as such.
The current anti-offensive speech campaign is based far more on subjective notions of hurt feelings and the massive sense of entitlement which accompanies them.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which reduces the equation to a comparison of personal power between the individuals.
Which it can be, and often is.
It is ludicrous to suggest, for example, that an unemployed, semi-literate neo-Nazi would be "punching down" by addressing ant-Semitic insults to an Israeli general.
Hang on, why it would be ludicrous? That's exactly what they are TRYING to do. They are trying to set up a power dynamic whereby they are above the person being insulted.
It is in the very act of punching that they're trying to prove that they are in power.
Now, I understand your point that, in actual fact, the person being insulted has quite a lot of power and prestige (as does Barack Obama in the other example given). But the insult is expressly calculated to deny that that power and prestige has any validity: you might be President of the United States, but you're still a nigger; you might be a general, but you're still a Jew and even though I'm unemployed etc. I'm still worth more than any Jew.
Basically what we have here is you appealing to concrete objective facts, but these kinds of insults aren't about objective facts, they're about setting up and asserting a particular perception.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically what we have here is you appealing to concrete objective facts, but these kinds of insults aren't about objective facts, they're about setting up and asserting a particular perception.
Which, in both the cases I have adduced (and countless others), the recipients are more than capable of despising, ignoring and dismissing.
Sorry, but to suggest that they are the victims of being "punched down" to, merely on the basis of the subjective delusions of those making the derogatory comments, IS ludicrous.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, I'm not sure that's entirely absent among liberals (if we're going to distinguish them from 'the left' - I'd suggest they're kind of moderate or mildly left or centrist - at least in UK terms) or conservatives.
This takes us into the complex area of right/left terminology.
We can talk about a liberal (or Orwellian) left as contrasted with an authoritarian, or communist left.
Or liberal (in the original historical and etymological usage) as emphasising freedom from state control, in contrast with the left which supports it.
Americans confusingly use it both senses, ie liberal as synonymous with left, ie belief in a positive role for the state, and liberal as in neo-liberal to denote opponents of big government.
I am left in that I support a role for government in the welfare state, progressive taxation and a safety net for all citizens, but liberal in opposing the government's interference in areas such as religion, cenorship, sexual morality and political correctness.
The late Richard John Neuhaus described himself as "socially conservative, politically liberal, economically pragmatic and theologically orthodox", which I think has quite a lot going for it.
quote:
Mary Whitehouse, the infamous British campaigner against smut and immorality on the telly was certainly on the right politically - and she was obsessed with things being offensive or allegedly offensive.
Not sure about this analogy.
Whitehouse seemed to claim on the basis of a timeless morality (tao?) to which she had access that some things were inherently and objectively offensive, and should be banned, whether or not they were perceived as such.
The current anti-offensive speech campaign is based far more on subjective notions of hurt feelings and the massive sense of entitlement which accompanies them.
No, it's based on the idea that hate speech encourages, facilitates and renders more acceptable abuse, violence and persecution towards the targets of it. Standing at the street corner saying all Queers should be locked up isn't hate speech because gay people may be offended; it may be hate speech because queer bashing is a real thing and behaviour like that encourages it.
[ 13. July 2015, 09:49: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, I did. An attack on Barack Obama is an attack on Barack Obama and nobody else. You may claim that the word nigger implies an attack on all black people but the person calling Barack Obama a nigger could simply want to say something really mean to Barack Obama.
In a sense, it wouldn't be punching down because Barack Obama is, after all, the most powerful man in the western world, and insulting him would have ... consequences.
But a person prepared to use the 'n-word' to the POTUS is the kind of person who likely has that degree of contempt for black people in general. So I don't agree that it wouldn't be an attack on all black people ... indirectly, it is. If that person feels they can say that word to the most powerful man in the world, just to prove a point, then they would likely regard it as a perfectly acceptable insult to apply to someone else less powerful than he.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A lot of this stuff boils down to intention - and it's not always easy to discern what that might be.
For instance, if someone where to claim that the majority of young black males who get shot in the US are shot by other young black males - that would be an accurate comment on the state of affairs. It demonstrably is the case.
However, it was said in such a way to imply that nobody should pay any attention to the apparently unprovoked shooting of black males by white police officers because this is no big deal in the overall scheme of things - then clearly that would be wrong.
On the 'n' word thing - yes, I've noticed that some black activists and so on reserve the right to use this word themselves - but deny its use to anyone else. I'm not quite sure their motive in this is entirely what Beeswax Altar claims it to be ...
But I'd need to investigate that more.
It depends, I suppose, on the intention in the use of the word. If it's being used 'ironically' in some way or in a way that 'reclaims' it and uses it to counter the kind of racism and oppression with which it's been associated then I'd argue this would be fair enough.
I suppose the concern that Beeswax Altar has is that this can then spill over into the repression of those who were previously responsible for such repression -- or their descendants.
I'm picking up a bit of this kind of rhetoric from the US at the moment - 'Obama's making it so that black folks can oppress white folks,' type of thing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, I did. An attack on Barack Obama is an attack on Barack Obama and nobody else. You may claim that the word nigger implies an attack on all black people but the person calling Barack Obama a nigger could simply want to say something really mean to Barack Obama.
Could be the intent. Isn't the result.
Want to insult just one person? Attack something that is uniquely theirs. Their achievements, personality, etc.
Certain words have baggage. You don't like it? Tough. Reality is a bitch, innit.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The whole taboo surrounding the word strikes me as rather contrived. Some African-Americans have decided that white people can't say the word nigger under any circumstances but regularly use the word themselves.
It is an attempt to lesson its power. As is gay people using using fag.
You want a coherent argument so you can use those words? Find one.
This:
quote:
More and more this seems like just one way to gain a small amount of power not over racist white people who use the n word interchangeably with a dozen other rascist slurs but any person who isn't black. Furthermore,the whole concept of microagressions is nothing more than a manipulative tactic to gain power over others by controlling what they are allowed to say or do.
isn't it.
Oh...but it is a coherent argument and your first paragraph proves it. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Besides, your argument is incoherent. See, two can play that game. The reality is you are not the commissary of allowable speech and argumentation.
Conversation and debate means actually addressing what the other person says. But, this isn't about having a conversation, is it? No, the point is to acquire power over the Other through manipulation. The fact the tactic works at all makes the punching down claim laughable.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, I did. An attack on Barack Obama is an attack on Barack Obama and nobody else. You may claim that the word nigger implies an attack on all black people but the person calling Barack Obama a nigger could simply want to say something really mean to Barack Obama.
In a sense, it wouldn't be punching down because Barack Obama is, after all, the most powerful man in the western world, and insulting him would have ... consequences.
But a person prepared to use the 'n-word' to the POTUS is the kind of person who likely has that degree of contempt for black people in general. So I don't agree that it wouldn't be an attack on all black people ... indirectly, it is. If that person feels they can say that word to the most powerful man in the world, just to prove a point, then they would likely regard it as a perfectly acceptable insult to apply to someone else less powerful than he.
No, the person hurling the insult might just really hate being manipulated by others regardless of the race, gender, class, or any other identity invoked by the manipulator.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the person hurling the insult might just really hate being manipulated by others regardless of the race, gender, class, or any other identity invoked by the manipulator.
That's one of the most disingenuous statements I've seen in some time. Anyone using the term "nigger" as an epithet towards a person in power is going to be someone who keeps the word at the ready. Further, using it knowingly is bringing in all the racist hate-filled baggage that comes with the word.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, I did. An attack on Barack Obama is an attack on Barack Obama and nobody else. You may claim that the word nigger implies an attack on all black people but the person calling Barack Obama a nigger could simply want to say something really mean to Barack Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the person hurling the insult might just really hate being manipulated by others regardless of the race, gender, class, or any other identity invoked by the manipulator.
That's one of the most disingenuous statements I've seen in some time. Anyone using the term "nigger" as an epithet towards a person in power is going to be someone who keeps the word at the ready. Further, using it knowingly is bringing in all the racist hate-filled baggage that comes with the word.
Indeed. Plus there's the content of the supposed insult. I'm not sure how an insult that boils down to "you are a member of an inferior race" doesn't "impl[y] an attack on all black people", since the whole premise of the insult is racial inferiority.
[ 13. July 2015, 13:43: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To call Brack Obama a nigger would be inexcusably offensive,but it would not be punching down, because Obama's influence. wealth. prestige and global support, relative to the position of any one of us whites, completely offsets any racial balance of power.
If someone calls Barack Obama that then they are counting him as a member of a group, and the slur applies to the whole group of people, not just to the single individual Obama.
The power balance between Obama and the racist might be one direction, but the power balance between the racist and the entire group is in the other. And unless the exchange is entirely personal and private the relation to the entire group is important. The significance is that if they can even call Obama that, what can they get away with with regards to people who don't have that level of power.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Americans confusingly use it both senses, ie liberal as synonymous with left, ie belief in a positive role for the state, and liberal as in neo-liberal to denote opponents of big government.
While many on the left see a positive role for the state, there are left-wing anarchists as well, and there are a good many on the left who are suspicious of the state and think that at best you might as well make use of it while it's around. (The late ken being an obvious example from that tradition.)
The right tends to be far more positive about the role of the police than the left is. When a policeman in the US shoots a black man, it's generally the left who are suspicious of the state employee.
The left is only in favour of large government as a means to an end, the end being general freedom from economic worries. In our present society it is best defined as that group that thinks it is possible in the name of equality to improve upon market distributions.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the person hurling the insult might just really hate being manipulated by others regardless of the race, gender, class, or any other identity invoked by the manipulator.
That's one of the most disingenuous statements I've seen in some time. Anyone using the term "nigger" as an epithet towards a person in power is going to be someone who keeps the word at the ready. Further, using it knowingly is bringing in all the racist hate-filled baggage that comes with the word.
Actually, the term nigger to the extent still used by white people is used to refer to black people they really don't like. As to the baggage associated with the word, see my above post. If the word is that bad, everybody should stop using the word. Yes, in my opinion, the reclaiming the word so it loses its power argument is asinine. If the word loses its power, then it doesn't matter who says it or what they mean by it when they say it.
[ 13. July 2015, 14:26: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically what we have here is you appealing to concrete objective facts, but these kinds of insults aren't about objective facts, they're about setting up and asserting a particular perception.
Which, in both the cases I have adduced (and countless others), the recipients are more than capable of despising, ignoring and dismissing.
Sorry, but to suggest that they are the victims of being "punched down" to, merely on the basis of the subjective delusions of those making the derogatory comments, IS ludicrous.
No, that's not what I'm saying (whether anyone else is saying it, I don't know). I'm saying that that's the intent of the person delivering the insult. Whether it actually WORKS or not is a different question.
I suppose I can applaud you for having such faith in the capabilities of the people being targeted, although I'm slightly less convinced than you that it's that simple. I would say that not only is giving an insult a subjective thing, but receiving can it be, as well.
Having said that, you probably don't get to a position of that much power unless you're able to handle insults, because they're bound to come.
[ 13. July 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Standing at the street corner saying all Queers should be locked up isn't hate speech because gay people may be offended; it may be hate speech because queer bashing is a real thing and behaviour like that encourages it.
There are a number of distinctions to be made here.
Condemning homosexual behaviour, or the practice of Christianity, because you think it is wrong, is not hate speech, but commonly and unfortunately gets labelled as such by its targets because of their negative subjective responses to it.
Secondly, actually vilifying the members of a particular group, or saying they should be locked up, could be called hate speech, but in practice only gets applied to fashionable victims of it, and not others, eg homosexuals rather than Christians, so use of the term should be discouraged on the grounds that it is merely ideological rather than helpfully descriptive.
It can conceivably encourage violence against its targets, but it is preferable to uphold free speech and punish those who commit such violence rather than stifle free expression.
Thirdly, there is definitely a case for labelling as hate speech threats of violence against specific individuals on the basis of the group to which they belong, but specific threats of violence are already covered by existing legislation without any need to have recourse to concepts such as hate speech.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But a person prepared to use the 'n-word' to the POTUS is the kind of person who likely has that degree of contempt for black people in general. So I don't agree that it wouldn't be an attack on all black people ... indirectly, it is. If that person feels they can say that word to the most powerful man in the world, just to prove a point, then they would likely regard it as a perfectly acceptable insult to apply to someone else less powerful than he.
On the contrary, anyone who committed such an act would be far more likely to be a pathetic and confused individual with little capacity to grasp the wider ramifications of what they said, and probably in need of some sort of help.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But a person prepared to use the 'n-word' to the POTUS is the kind of person who likely has that degree of contempt for black people in general. So I don't agree that it wouldn't be an attack on all black people ... indirectly, it is. If that person feels they can say that word to the most powerful man in the world, just to prove a point, then they would likely regard it as a perfectly acceptable insult to apply to someone else less powerful than he.
On the contrary, anyone who committed such an act would be far more likely to be a pathetic and confused individual with little capacity to grasp the wider ramifications of what they said, and probably in need of some sort of help.
This knee-jerk minimization of racism, even hypothetical racism, has always interested and confused me. Why the automatic assumption that racists don't really understand what they're saying, or don't really mean it, or any kind of excuse at all to minimize the idea that racism exists and is taken seriously by some people? Given the number of historical notables, even in recent history, who've held racist views and not held back from a slur or two (e.g. George Wallace famously expressed a determination that "I will never be out-niggered again"), why the insistence that such views are restricted to the realm of the mentally incompetent?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Standing at the street corner saying all Queers should be locked up isn't hate speech because gay people may be offended; it may be hate speech because queer bashing is a real thing and behaviour like that encourages it.
There are a number of distinctions to be made here.
Condemning homosexual behaviour, or the practice of Christianity, because you think it is wrong, is not hate speech, but commonly and unfortunately gets labelled as such by its targets because of their negative subjective responses to it.
Well, and it contributes to a culture that leads to its targets being beat up and killed. If everyone who condemned homosexual behaviour instead talked about how to love people even if you disagree with them, and that treating others well is far more important than who sticks tab A into slot B, then a lot fewer people would die from suicide, for starters, because the world is so nastily hostile to young homosexuals. Christians who condemn homosexual behaviour are complicit in murder by suicide. Call that Hate Speech if you want, or not. What does that matter to some poor teenage gay schuck whose religiously-correct parents kick him to the curb? Not a fucking bit, that's what.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, actually vilifying the members of a particular group, or saying they should be locked up, could be called hate speech, but in practice only gets applied to fashionable victims of it, and not others, eg homosexuals rather than Christians,
OK, hang on. Location is important here. If you are talking US, UK, Australia, etc., there are no Christian victims in the same sense there are Homosexual victims.
Hate speech is bad, no matter the target. But the consequences are not the same. So it is a bit harder to get worked up.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
mousethief.
How terrified the powerful are.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why the automatic assumption that racists don't really understand what they're saying, or don't really mean it,
The discussion was not about racists in general, but about a hypothetical individual who would call Barack Obama a nigger to his face, in the context of "punching up" versus "punching down".
Hardly representative.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Christians who condemn homosexual behaviour are complicit in murder by suicide.
In that case, so is God.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Standing at the street corner saying all Queers should be locked up isn't hate speech because gay people may be offended; it may be hate speech because queer bashing is a real thing and behaviour like that encourages it.
There are a number of distinctions to be made here.
Condemning homosexual behaviour, or the practice of Christianity, because you think it is wrong, is not hate speech, but commonly and unfortunately gets labelled as such by its targets because of their negative subjective responses to it.
Secondly, actually vilifying the members of a particular group, or saying they should be locked up, could be called hate speech, but in practice only gets applied to fashionable victims of it, and not others, eg homosexuals rather than Christians, so use of the term should be discouraged on the grounds that it is merely ideological rather than helpfully descriptive.
Bullshit. Until such time as your "unfashionable victims" are actually being victimised; until there's such a thing as "Christian bashing", on a par with queer bashing and Paki bashing, you are talking bollocks.
When I was at school, there were certain unpleasant little turds who thought it was great to shout various things at me to make me feel threatened. Do you think the teachers were wrong to curb this behaviour? Do you think they should have had the right their free speech upheld no matter how much it made my life hell? No? Then why should adults who behave in the same manner, albeit more subtly, be coddled in the name of "free speech", no matter what environment their behaviour is creating for the people they despise?
quote:
It can conceivably encourage violence against its targets, but it is preferable to uphold free speech and punish those who commit such violence rather than stifle free expression.
Says you. I disagree. I think it's more important that gay people, and black people for that matter, can walk the streets in an environment when they're not in danger of having the shit beaten out of them. I value that more than I value the right to talk hateful shite.
quote:
Thirdly, there is definitely a case for labelling as hate speech threats of violence against specific individuals on the basis of the group to which they belong, but specific threats of violence are already covered by existing legislation without any need to have recourse to concepts such as hate speech.
Treating the symptoms. You'll be mole-whacking until Domesday that way. Treat the problem at root.
[ 14. July 2015, 10:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, hang on. Location is important here. If you are talking US, UK, Australia, etc., there are no Christian victims in the same sense there are Homosexual victims.
I know of a number of cases here in Australia of Christian objectors to same sex marriage legislation - not vilifying homosexuals, simply stating their beliefs - becoming the targets of mass online abuse, of both themselves and their faith, of a particularly loathsome nature.
The point is that while this is immoral and despicable, it is not, and should not become, a "hate crime", or any other sort of crime, because freedom of speech means freedom to say things which the recipients don't like, or it means nothing.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Treating the symptoms. You'll be mole-whacking until Domesday that way. Treat the problem at root.
Does specific hate speech legislation do any better at addressing the problem? ISTM that it's largely another form of mole-whacking. Which, don't get me wrong, is good - if a racist/sexist/homophobic/other mole pokes his head up from the sewer and utters vile nonsense then he deserved to be whacked. But, is it addressing the underlying social attitudes?
To take an analogy (imperfect though it is). Over the last few decades it has become increasingly unacceptable to drive after a pint down the pub. How has this change in social attitudes come about? Part of it has been increased policing and enforecement (the mole-whacking approach), but much more important (IMO) has been the associated advertising campaigns, the news reports of people killing and injuring others while driving after a drink, etc.
Likewise, in addressing the bigotry in society there is a place for hate speech legislation and enforcement, for mole-whacking. But, it's not going to be very effective without the education, media coverage of the impact of bigotry etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Treating the symptoms. You'll be mole-whacking until Domesday that way. Treat the problem at root.
Does specific hate speech legislation do any better at addressing the problem? ISTM that it's largely another form of mole-whacking. Which, don't get me wrong, is good - if a racist/sexist/homophobic/other mole pokes his head up from the sewer and utters vile nonsense then he deserved to be whacked. But, is it addressing the underlying social attitudes?
To take an analogy (imperfect though it is). Over the last few decades it has become increasingly unacceptable to drive after a pint down the pub. How has this change in social attitudes come about? Part of it has been increased policing and enforecement (the mole-whacking approach), but much more important (IMO) has been the associated advertising campaigns, the news reports of people killing and injuring others while driving after a drink, etc.
Likewise, in addressing the bigotry in society there is a place for hate speech legislation and enforcement, for mole-whacking. But, it's not going to be very effective without the education, media coverage of the impact of bigotry etc.
Yeah. I thought that. I do think, however, that you send out a mixed message whilst on the one hand trying to educate and address bigotry, and on the other regarding the right to be bigoted and to feed others' bigotry as sacrosanct. So yes, it is molewhacking, but it's attempting to whack the moles earlier before they breed.
[ 14. July 2015, 10:34: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Christians who condemn homosexual behaviour are complicit in murder by suicide.
In that case, so is God.
Well assuming that God exists, and that what's written in the bible reflects his will, and that your interpretation of what the bible says about homosexuality is correct... then yes, I agree. That was the main reason I stopped identifying as a Christian. I didn't feel I could accept a label identifying me with active evil.
quote:
I know of a number of cases here in Australia of Christian objectors to same sex marriage legislation - not vilifying homosexuals, simply stating their beliefs - becoming the targets of mass online abuse, of both themselves and their faith, of a particularly loathsome nature.
The key phrase in the quote you're replying to was that Christians aren't victims "in the same sense" that gay people are. If Christians start being driven to suicide by the thousands due to prejudice they suffer, and are legally banned from marrying, then I'll agree that they are suffering discrimination that's as bad. Your example of supposedly equivalent suffering is ridiculous.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
The only type of hate speech that is banned here in New Zealand is racial hate-speech.
I was actually wondering today if this has had the somewhat negative side-effect of limiting what the media is willing to say about issues of race in this country. I guess the relevant parallel in the UK would be: To what extent to the hate-speech laws there limit the amount that the media is willing to dig into issues of immigration and multiculturalism, or make them willing to only present the positive side of those issues?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It comes even closer when supporters of a religion claim for it underdog status when in reality it has no such status e.g. the Muslim religion in the West.
Indeed - the religious right in the US is quite adept at beating the "persecuted Christians" drum.
Of course, they fail to grasp that "not being allowed to persecute/impose your religious beliefs on others" != "persecution" - but that's another issue.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The point is that while this is immoral and despicable, it is not, and should not become, a "hate crime", or any other sort of crime, because freedom of speech means freedom to say things which the recipients don't like, or it means nothing.
You're mixing up terms. A "hate crime" is a criminal act (vandalism, assault, etc.) motivated by hatred of a certain class of person. "Hate speech" is an expression of dislike or hatred directed at someone (or a group of someones) motivated by hatred of a certain class of person.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
