BS: responding to 'hate speech'

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:43 PM

Look, no one CHOOSES to be homosexual. They are BORN that way. A certain percentage. Even in the 'lower' Animal kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:46 PM

So, the 'entire population' simply isn't possible.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

I think that might go over the heads here Lox....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM

Fuck sake Sorcha!!   Where did you find it?   The gene ...I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM

Admittedly not totally proven yet, but go read this...click. And do some research on your own.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:25 PM

This seems to be update on previous link.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:27 PM

In the animal kingdom

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM

But others have different opinions are their opinions to be dismissed as "claptrap". I know literally dozens of people who have a "belief"
As Joe said they are not all mad or bad.

Opinions are just subjective quirks; no one is born with a predisposed hatred to other human beings, whatever the reason. You can believe in what you want, doesn't make it true for everyone, doesn't even make it true for you, because, chances are, one day, you'll change your mind. So this ephemeral, barely negligible veneer we call belief, especially religious belief, is just a personal indulgence. It does not give one the right to question the right to sexuality of another human being, no matter what it supposedly says in the fucking bible.

Read this - Iris Robinson - Gays Moe Vile Than Child Abusers. This is the sort of evil we condone by saying they are not all mad or bad. Absolutely fucking right they are.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:38 PM

This lady is a Christian and a MP, as such she is entitled to her views. I find her views agreeable.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

From the Irish Times:
How the hate speech virus survives


And, so, the germ spreads and mutates. Did a politician in Northern Ireland last week really say: "There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children." Or: "Child abuse was worse even than homosexuality and sodomy." Does it matter? The germ is already out of the lab: this form of moral cleansing starts by casually mentioning a minority group and rape/child abuse in the same sentence, slyly attaching one to the other.

Hate speech is not always so easily identifiable from words that truly serve the public good. You must read between the lines, look at the timing, examine the intentions, question the sensation it causes for the perpetrator, watch the damage it does and see how it weakens judgement. It is not just deluded politicians or fundamentalists.

You may hear it in your local shop, on the street corner or down the pub.

The germ is always there, lying dormant, patiently awaiting its time.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: GUEST,Essay
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

There seems to have been some concern earlier in this thread regarding the rights of the inaptly named Joy Bringer to post what he / she likes in the name of free speech. Perhaps this is correct - free speech is, after all, important (no matter how abhorrent I may find his / her views). If, however, you believe in the principles of free speech it is inconsistent to demand that others should not reply with their own opinions. Surely this decision should be a matter for the individual (and not a matter of mudcat policy).

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:26 PM

Essay, GOOD thinking there. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:28 PM

Whether people get born with their sexual orientation preprogrammed, or whether its a choice they make isn't that significant really. I suspect that for some people it's the first and for others it's the second. As with other things, such as smoking.

Either way, it's their business, and people who don't feel the urge shouldn't feel entitled to slag them off for it. Roll on the day when that kind of thing won't be seen as an occasion for attacks, and won't be seen as some kind of "cause" either.

Remember when the way people grew their hair was seen as a big deal one way or another, tearing society apart? There probably still are unfortunate places where that still applies, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM

"As with other things, such as smoking"

There may not be a genetic link, however people who's mothers smoked, drank or did drugs while they were pregnant are much more likely to form addictions when they grow up.

It has to do with production of Dopamine and the abnormalities caused in Dompamine production as a result of addictive chemicals affecting the formation of the brain in the womb.

There are thousands of pages to sift through on the web so I'll leave you to it.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM

You know, another question: why would someone like BoK choose hatred as his emotion of choice? AFter all, it is not as though it was some preconditioned response--hating is an act of choice!! Everyone knows that.

Although I am being a bit facetious at the expendse of BoJ's narrow-minded worldview, the question does nag at me. When we are taught that some things are bad (rightly or wrongly) we choose to avoid them -- like swimming too soon after eating, or avoiding black cats. But why choose to foment and maintain bitter hatred against black cats?

Why choose to "rub out" left-handed people or anyone under 5'2. or those with too light a skin, and promote hatred of them as a way to infect others with the idea?

Talk about sick and perverted, it strikes me that there is nothing so sick and perverted as the willing to subscribe to hatred toward persons, things or groups that have done no harm to you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:46 PM

Here's a thing I don't understand, and I'd be grateful if the Mods could explain it: Joybringer started a thread yesterday which was quite offensive to the girth-challenged. That thread was deemed offensive and was closed. But nothing he (or anyone else) said on that thread begins to approach the nauseating language which he has used to describe gay people and their lifestyles on the Gay Marriage thread.

So i'm trying to figure out why sneering at fat people is unacceptable, but repeatedly gloating over people dying of AIDS is considered an acceptible expression of free speech.

It has been said that personal attacks are the thing which will not be tolerated, while "expressing a personal viewpoint" is okay. Well, where is the line between the two? When you take into account that, statistically, there will be a percentage of Mudcatters who are gay (whether they feel comfortable admitting to it here or not), do you think it doesn't feel like a personal attack to them to read the nauseating homophobic attacks which Joybringer has posted?

I have a lot of gay friends, and several of them are high profile folk musicians. I would hate them to read the sort of thing that's being tolerated here.

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

And I have answer that I have no answer to give you, Ruth - which is why we decided to stop the public discussion of Mudcat editing policy.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech'
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:01 PM

???

---

This thread is not going anywhere good, so I'm going to close it. Also, please note that while I have temporarily permitted public forum discussion of Mudcat editing and policy this week, that is now over - any future threads on Mudcat editing and policy will be deleted. There are just too many questions we can't answer publicly. If you have questions, ask me directly by personal message.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-