|
28 Jul 08 - 07:52 AM (#2399320) Subject: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Emma B Hate speech - 'is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.' (source: Wikipedia) There's nothing new about hate speech, of course, but the Internet strikes some as an easy and effective way to distribute odious messages. Additionally - 'The line between hate speech and free speech is a thin one, and different countries have different levels of tolerance. The line is even thinner on the Internet, where hateful comments posted lawfully in one country can be read in other countries where they may be deemed unlawful.' This leads to the question posed on the media awareness network 'If anything makes the Internet different from other types of speech it is the relative ease with which the few can reach the many. Should we modify our view of freedom of speech in a world where a Web page published by anyone can be viewed by millions, where an email spam can reach thousands?' It is obvious from some peoples reactions to recent hate speech on threads that they hold sincere and strongly held beliefs about the free flow of discourse and/or discord; however, Cyberspace still remains a part of society with norms and mores. This is particularly true, I believe, for a 'community' such as mudcat There is various advice on how to deal with hate mongers from "One horselaugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms." to "Don't engage in public debate/discussions with hatemongers. This spurs them on and helps to legitimize them." When posting on a thread is the medium, figuring out how and whether to post back can be a challenge as possibly a lack of social/verbal skills by the perpetrators seems to result in nasty personal attacks or escalation of the original repulsive opinions. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:07 AM (#2399329) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,DV I have a tendency to step around a pile of excrement when I see it in my path. But then, there are always those times when you step in it, and don't realize you've done so until after the fact. How I respond to hate speech is something like that. I find censorship to be the worse sin than it's twin, hate speech. As an adult, I have the ability to react however I choose to the hate speech, but censorship? What can any of us do with that, besides feel the jack boot on our necks? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:09 AM (#2399330) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Peace "responding to 'hate speech'" Middle finger, either hand. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:19 AM (#2399335) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Great thread Emma, freedom to express ones views in important. Take me for example, NO ONE shuts me up and I say it as I see it. Look at the thread on same sex perverts for an example. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:38 AM (#2399350) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Richard Bridge Yep, that's hate speech |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:45 AM (#2399355) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,number 6 "NO ONE shuts me up" Geeeeesh. A lot of tension and deep internal strife in that statement. biLL |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:46 AM (#2399356) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee ...NO ONE shuts me up... Until you offend someone to the point that they snap and punch you in the nose or worse. Not everyone responds to insults with patience and kindness. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:00 AM (#2399365) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: artbrooks Right, Joy Bringer...and so you have the right to call somebody a personally offensive name, and they have no right to shut you up? Some joy that brings. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:19 AM (#2399374) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Amos The problem is not that others cannot shut you up, JB, but that you can't either. A |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:23 AM (#2399380) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,DV Looks like some here are easier played by those who use hate speech merely as a means of pushing other peoples' buttons. Way to step in it, fellas. Don't say you weren't warned. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:58 AM (#2399413) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bee Avoid or engage? There's something to be said for both approaches to hate speech on the internet. If you avoid, the subject may wither from lack of feeding. OTOH, stating your disapproval lets others know that hate is not acceptable in your particular corner of the internet. There are, unfortunately, many places on the internet where one can indulge one's personal bigotry with the full approval of like-minded scum. At least while such haters are spewing in their corners, they aren't out inflicting themselves on people face to face. But the internet isn't entirely safe for haters or their associates. A recent internet based theist-atheist kerfuffle led to some theists emailing death threats to a prominent atheist. One emailed threat was traced to a company whose employees often worked from home on company computers. The company was informed, the employee was fired for misuse of the company computer , (even though it turned out another family member had actually sent the threat from her work computer). |
|
28 Jul 08 - 10:59 AM (#2399440) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bryn Pugh At risk of thread drift, I wasn't going to look at the "same sex marriages" or whatever that thread's title is. However : curious as to what Joy Bringer [sic] had to say, I did. And I'm sorry I did. Whatever makes him/her want to vomit, reading what he/she wrote made me want to vomit. The only bedroom antics I'm interested in are those which go on in my own bed room (or not, as the case might be). Those who use a book full of 'folk tales', which IMO wouldn't convince the naivest, to justify hatred of a fellow human, and then cite the said book as divine revelation, forsooth ! are, again IMO doubly disadvantaged. IMO more to be pitied than scorned. Two paracetamol and a lie down in a darkened room, is Doctor Bryn's prescription. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 11:15 AM (#2399449) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Volgadon Did you know that there are some people who do not love their fellow man? I HATE POEPLE LIKE THAT. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 11:25 AM (#2399457) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Emma B Thanks Bee you defined the point I was trying to make whether to engage or avoid. Guest DV, you have a valid argument about the problem of censorship and the adult option to 'step around the crap'. If, however, I may extend you analogy a little further..... Imagine a much loved location where you, your friends and even, from time to time, their children enjoy meeting up to chat about music and the things that interest and concern them. On arriving one day you discover that someone has left a pile of excrement there. Now there are a couple of options; you can of course ignore it by carefully stepping around it, as you suggest, or you can bring it to the attention of the custodians and hope that they will clean it up. However, if the offending stuff is just left there the stink is not simply going to go away and there is a further possibility The culprit (and people of the same inclinations) will return time and time again as it is becomes obvious that NO ONE is willing or able to stop the fouling until such time that even those dear friends who are preoccupied with the beauty of the stars will be unable to ignore the dirt accumulated beneath their feet. oh, and thanks for the advice Peace LOL! |
|
28 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM (#2399509) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: CarolC This is the product of hate speech (I'm guessing mostly coming from FOX News and right wing talk radio) against Liberals and Gays... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080728/ts_nm/tennessee_shooting_dc_1 NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - A man who opened fire inside a church, killing two people with a shotgun hidden in a guitar case, was frustrated at being unable to find a job and blamed liberals and gays, police said on Monday... ...The church outside Knoxville, Tennessee, where some 200 people were watching a children's play at the time, had been in the news recently for its "liberal stance," Owen said. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 12:24 PM (#2399511) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: CarolC Sorry, bad link... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080728/ts_nm/tennessee_shooting_dc_1 |
|
28 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM (#2399518) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Hate speech is a silly term used by this person when she couldn't win her argument. Free speech on the other hand is my right and yours. Accept that Emma. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 12:51 PM (#2399532) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: John on the Sunset Coast CarolC, I've read the story you linked, and one at Breitbart. Neither story indicates he got his ideas from Fox News, etc. Have you other information to corroborate for your statement, or is this how you want it to be? I'm not saying that he didn't, only that we don't have the information to know if he did. JotSC |
|
28 Jul 08 - 12:55 PM (#2399538) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Volgadon Free speech means that you can say what you want, yes, that includes hate speech, joybringer, but on the flipside, the other person can say that what you said is complete CRAP. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 12:59 PM (#2399542) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee Free speech is free only until it impinges upon the rights of others. You cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire -- see the decision by the US Supreme Court back in the 19th Century. I think Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr. wrote the decision. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM (#2399545) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee You also must take responsibility for the results of what you say. So if someone pops you in the snoot, accept some personal responsibility. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM (#2399569) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer I wish people would stop using the term GAY (Good As You). Gay means happy, gay means nice. Some guy playing the flute on another man is not happy, it's sick. Some guy dealing with another man's piles isn't happy, it's revolting. I continue my right to exercise my opinion. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM (#2399579) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Richard Bridge My my what a foolish little bigot. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM (#2399583) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer My my why a foolish little sentence. Does this guy ever do more than six words ? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM (#2399589) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: McGrath of Harlow That definition seems to imply that "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people" is not "hate speech" if the person or group involved doesn't occur in that list. Or does that peculiar term "any other distinction-liability" mean that the list is infinitely extensible, and that Morris Dancers, smokers and buskers are covered. In which case why not just define "hate speech" as "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people"? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:03 PM (#2399613) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bee Trollery Beneath a very antique bridge Too dank for a self respecting midge A lonely troll did glumly dwell Or that's the story some did tell. No one walked the planks o'erhead Troll had no reason to rise from bed And sinking deeply into gloom It hardly ever left its room. But where life is, hope is yet The creature found the internet And now takes joy in bringing poo To fling as trolls are meant to do. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM (#2399617) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Donuel Carol C, you beat me to it. But George Carlin beat us both. He predicted 6 years ago ... "I fully expect disgruntled worshippers are going to start shooting up their church". I listen to almost an hour of hate speech a week courtesy of WMAL radio. I think you would be amazed at the insipid hateful vile damnable lies they repeat to incite people to violence. I've told you I have a neighbor who believes it all and feels the need to murder gays before they murder his family. If you saw him you would think he is perfectly normal but if you looked more carefully he displays a tremor in his hands that appears to be the result of inner personal angst. There are people on a short fuse and respond to the hypnotic repeatition of actual orders to kill the sick liberal unhuman and ungodly traitors to America by radio shock jocks like Limbaugh and his wannabes. After another violent murder by a right wing true believer that actually quoted Rush Limbaugh as an authority, Rush made a semi retraction of his standing order to attack liberals and asked his aucience to settle down a bit. Some of the Clear Channel propoganda seemed to me to be an experiment to see what works best in support of a social uprising and coup. The question was how far can we go and secondly how far would we need to go. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM (#2399625) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Emma B Unique among courts in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended broad protection in the area of hate speech—abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing - - - 'Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence… The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path. Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech.' …..saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.' NYT . Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech' June 12, 2008 However the article goes on…. 'Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech. "It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack." Joel Feinberg, the American political and social philosopher,. suggested we also need an 'offense principle' that can act as a guide to public censure Perhaps public censure is the only way to respond in this kind of forum as rational argument and discussion is fruitless against name calling and insults. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:33 PM (#2399637) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Joe Offer Most often, the very best way to respond to "hate speech" is with absolute silence. Treat the person as if he/she were invisible. Mudcatters never seem to learn this. -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:40 PM (#2399646) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Good Advice Joe, thanks. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:40 PM (#2399647) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Emma B unfortunately Joe they are far too visible and vocal. I have quoted from this daughter of a Holocaust survivor before but its message is as true for me as ever 'For my mother and father, Judaism meant bearing witness, raging against injustice and foregoing silence. It meant compassion, tolerance and rescue..... These were the ultimate (Jewish) values. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM (#2399664) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Joe Offer OK, Emma, and so the solution is to simply shout louder and more angrily, and use more words? I don't think so. Why not try a quiet, rational, dispassionate response? -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Jul 08 - 03:14 PM (#2399672) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bee Joe, quiet, rational and dispassionate is not always appropriate: when one's friends, neighbours, loved ones are being called vile things, denied a fair and equitable place in society, legally prevented from pursuing harmless activities, subject to violence because of their very existence; this is not the time to pretend those in opposition are capable of hearing quiet reasoning. Sometimes it is right to be loud and angry when opposing bigotry. I do agree that shunning can be effective, if the haters are small in number, and certainly within a Mudcat thread, shunning could work well. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM (#2399674) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Big Mick Actually, Joy Bringer, it would be fairly easy to shut you up. And should your attacks go from the general to the personal, that is exactly what will happen. But as long as you are just expressing an opinion on a subject, representing a point of view, no matter that I find it odious, you are entitled to that. Perhaps it is a cultural difference between Brits and Yanks that makes it hard for some to understand. But I would caution you to not cross the line on attack, nor will you be allowed to be vulgar. Stay in those lines, everything is fine. To those so incensed about this person's views, can you not see that by allowing these types of views, properly expressed, simply shows the bigot for what they are? Joe's last post is good sauce. Simply respond in a dispassionate, well thought out way. Have some faith that yours is the right way and that folks are plenty smart enough to figure out who expresses bigotry and sound thought, and who does not. All the best, Mick |
|
28 Jul 08 - 03:18 PM (#2399676) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: CarolC I said "I'm guessting" he got it partly from FOX News. If there are any questions about what the word "guess" means, I suggest looking it up in a dictionary. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 03:28 PM (#2399680) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: CarolC That wasn't a disgruntled worshiper shooting up his own church. It was a man who was unemployed and having difficulty finding a new job, using his bigotry against liberals and gays as an outlet for his bitterness and frustration. He shot up that particular church because he felt confident he would find liberals and gays there because of some coverage about that church in the news media. Carlin may have had it right, but he wasn't talking about this kind of situation when he said what he did about disgruntled worshipers. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 03:43 PM (#2399700) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: John on the Sunset Coast 'If there are any questions about what the word "guess" means,I suggest looking it up in a dictionary.' -- CarolC I just happen to have a dictionary in my office, so let's see-- From the 'American Heritage Dictionary", Third Edition, p. 604: GUESS "b. To assume or assert (a fact) without sufficient information." So, using the dictionary definition, do you have information, or do you just want your assertion to be what happened? From your response to my original question, it would seem to be the latter. John |
|
28 Jul 08 - 03:51 PM (#2399705) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee I have long wished for a revival of the duel. If you believe the things you say about another you should be willing to lay down your life for them. It needn't be to "third blood" -- just a prick with a blade would do (firearms are so vulgar, you know). |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM (#2399716) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: John on the Sunset Coast Is your name Rapaire or Rapier. (Take away an A, anagram a little and voila--en garde!) |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM (#2399720) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Mick, no need to make threats, if you disagree with me and feel I am in a minority of one and have no entitlement to an opinion or causing insult, then block me. As you said there, I am entitled to express an opinion. So if someone such as myself expresses that they find two men openly kissing and groping disguising how can this be called a hate speech ? What is the title given to a speech by someone promoting perversion and attempting to make right thinking God fearing people turn their back on their Christian teaching and accept something they find morally wrong and repulsive ? Again Mick, you said it would be fairly easy to shut me up. And should my attacks go from the general to the personal, that is exactly what you will do. Mick there was no call for that. I insulted no one. As you're a person of Irish ancestry I was surprised you above all people here making a threat over someone in a verbally threatening forceful manner when all they were doing was expressing their religious moral beliefs. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:07 PM (#2399723) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: CarolC Here's another definition, from Websters... 3 : to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition That is closer to my meaning, although I won't claim that I am right, because I don't know. I'm only suggesting what I consider to be a likely probability. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:10 PM (#2399726) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton Some examples of "hate" speech "Some guy playing the flute on another man is not happy, it's sick. Some guy dealing with another man's piles isn't happy, it's revolting" "There are, unfortunately, many places on the internet where one can indulge one's personal bigotry with the full approval of like-minded scum. At least while such haters are spewing in their corners, they aren't out inflicting themselves on people face to face." From the beginning of the "Same sex" thread, I have been subjected to "hate" speech for trying to discuss the rights of minorities. No attacks on homosexuals, no wish to deprive them of their civil rights, just a discussion about rights from the viewpoint of one section of society. Why don't you all take Joe's advice and calm down, put forward your argument rationally and try to remember we are all bigotted about something or other. No one is perfect....Ake |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:12 PM (#2399729) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha My my, what Joy this thread is bringing. Not. I'm getting awfully sick and tired of trolling and troll baiting Guests. Is it TIME yet to deal with them? This used to be a pretty nice place. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:16 PM (#2399734) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Yes Ake, I agree there are many sites were one can visit and enjoy like minded conversations regarding all sorts of sexually charged perversions with like minded scum. Good point |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:19 PM (#2399736) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bee Believe it or not, akenaten, and despite the fact that I thoroughly disagree with you on many subjects, I was NOT including you in that statement, and in fact have this very day defended you privately as a sincere individual. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:33 PM (#2399755) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton Thank you Bee I appreciate your actions. However, that does not affect the point that what you have written is in itself a type of "hate" speech. I agree with Joe, there are millions of people who disagree with homosexual "marriage" for all sorts of reasons and many millions more who dislike the practice of homosexuality......They can't all be "hate spewing scum"...can they? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 04:47 PM (#2399765) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: John on the Sunset Coast Thank you, CarolC, for answering honestly, since we don't yet know if your conjecture is correct. I appreciate that. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM (#2399787) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bee Ake, homosexuals are not the one and only group which attracts bigotry and hate. There are a myriad of websites specifically devoted to the hatred of (and often proposing violence towards) Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians and others, and that is the phenomenon I was referring to. I don't think it is 'hate speech' to refer to such sites as attracting 'scum'. My point above was in answer to Joe's belief that, on Mudcat, anyway, one could/should either be polite and reasonable or be silent in the face of bigoted statements. The point being, why should we allow people who are simply hateful and trollish to go unchecked in our own corner of the internet? Why should we not let such people know that we disagree strongly and with righteous indignation, not just academically? I'm well aware that you don't persecute homosexuals; you just have a bee in your bonnet about ss marriage. You are not promoting hatred, IMO. (Yer just wrong. ;-)) |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM (#2399791) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha I STRONGLY AGREE with what Bee just said! |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM (#2399796) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton I'm afraid you dodge the question Bee. What about the millions who's opinions differ from your own regarding homosexuality or homosexual "marriage", are they indeed "scum"? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM (#2399806) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: artbrooks Ake, what Bee said is that there are, unfortunately, many places on the internet where one can indulge one's personal bigotry with the full approval of like-minded scum. At least while such haters are spewing in their corners, they aren't out inflicting themselves on people face to face." She expressed no judgment of any kind regarding individuals whose opinions of homosexuality differed from her own, but rather very clearly expressed an opinion on bigots. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:44 PM (#2399821) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton "She expressed no judgment of any kind regarding individuals whose opinions of homosexuality differ from her own" Is that so Art? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:45 PM (#2399822) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Richard Bridge So bigotry is OK so long as it is popular? Ake, with that point of view we would still have bear baiting and slavery. Dear Joy. Yes, I write quite a lot on worthwhile things. You are not. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 05:56 PM (#2399833) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: artbrooks Yes, Ake, that is so. If you disagree, please refer me to the specific comment, by date and time, in this thread, where she has said otherwise. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:15 PM (#2399849) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bee Akenaten, are you determined to wring an insult that is not there out of my post? You personally are not, in my experience, hateful or trollish. I believe, and I have stated frequently and strongly, that people who object to ss marriage - which this thread is not about - are wrong, are imposing their religious views on others, are failing to understand innate human behaviour, are failing to be kind, are failing to learn, are failing to be good observers, are categorizing unfairly, etc. I have not said they were expressing hate unless they were doing just that. There is hateful speech, about various defineable groups of humans. It spans from namecalling or snide remarks to blatant lies and out and out expression of violent thoughts. Sometimes it shows up on Mudcat. This discussion is about what we should/could do about it. If you are not saying hateful things, you have nothing to be bothered about. If I think something you have said is hateful, be assured I will let you know. What is your own definition of hateful speech/writing? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:17 PM (#2399853) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Emma, your thread seems to be causing some disharmony among members. Possibly time you wrapped it up or maybe do a request to a moderator or Joe to delete it. Regarding the responses you had hoped for, maybe next time you will be more successful. Blessings. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:22 PM (#2399857) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha Joy, that has to be THE MOST OTT post I've seen from you yet. If you don't like Mudcat 'attitudes' why not just find another forum where you feel more at home? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:28 PM (#2399862) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha I'm sure you are well aware that MOST of us here are pretty liberal, left wing, etc...so, why in the HELL did you show up here just to spew your filth? We don't NEED it, we don't WANT it, and you, nasty troll baiter can just go far far away. Find yourself a Right Wing, CHRISTIAN form to post on...but IMO, that crap is hardly 'Christian'. There is the Turn the Other cheek directive, In my fathers house there are many mansions....Just do us all a HUGE favour and go the F away. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:36 PM (#2399868) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha Mods, clones, can something be DONE about the attacks on Emma in this thread? Please? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:36 PM (#2399869) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Sorcha, if and when I require advice from you, be assured you will be the first to know. I haven't conversed with you on mudcat and have no desire to do so. Regarding your choice of handle, I think titling yourself intelligent and wise is a little OTT. Sorcha Oíche mhaith, codladh sámh |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:36 PM (#2399870) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: McGrath of Harlow Every now and again you get a poster, normally coming in as a GUEST in respect of which the only sensible thing is to just scroll past their posts as if they just were not there. I think we've got one of these in this thread, and I suggest that scrolling past and ignoring the posts is the right thing to do. I know it can be tempting to reply, but it just serves to encourage the person to stick around. It's always possible to make any point that we might feel we have to make without overtly addressing such posters or directly commenting in what they might have written. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM (#2399871) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha Hey, JB...I never ASKED YOU to show up on the Cat either....go away. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 06:43 PM (#2399874) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha And you seem to have got your Oirish wrong...means bright (light) or freedom. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 07:21 PM (#2399898) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Riginslinger There's always the problem of making some kind of a statement, and trying to be honest and sincere about it, and having somebody call it "hate speech" for the sole purpose of shutting you up. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 07:29 PM (#2399907) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Good point Riginslinger thank you. Sorcha An ea ? Dear dear and there is silly me spelling "Freedom" Saoirse for all those years ! Cad é sin? I suggest you check it out intelligent one. Apologise in your own time. tuigim. Is mise, le meas |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:09 PM (#2399932) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: folk1e I for one do not think it is the thread causing disharmony but one or two of the posts on it. With the right of free speach comes the responsibillity to use it wisely! I think we have a concensus here! |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:18 PM (#2399938) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Essay Disharmony here seems pretty much limited to a minority of just one ... but I `guess` he / she is the Daily Mail reader. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 08:54 PM (#2399962) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Don Firth Unfortunately, hate speech doesn't always stop with speech. In today's news. Don Firth |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:00 PM (#2399967) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Alice I didn't see any shouting on Emma's part in this thread. I think what she has written has been very reasonable. I don't think Emma B should be chastised about what she has written. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:21 PM (#2399980) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee Rapaire (should have an accent acute over the first a): m.: raipear (accents acute over the first a and the e): m: Rapier. Rapaire (without the accents): m.: ropaire: m. 1. Thruster, stabber; violent person...2. Cut-purse, robber; scoundrel...3. Hist.: Rapparee. Niall O Donaill, et al. Focloir Gaeilge-Bearla (Baile Atha Cliath: Oifig an tSolathair, 1977) "Rapparee", "highwayman" and "Tory" are names that ring with romance and danger. Place the "bold" or "Captain" before them and the image of the swashbuckling outlaw-adventurer is complete. He is handsome, dashing, brave, and willingly risks his life to help penniless widows facing eviction at the hands of tyrannical landlords. Stephen Dunford. The Irish Highwaymen. (Dublin: Wolfhound Press ed., 2005). I have both a rapier AND a small sword. Both are good steel and could be used in combat. Yes, I know how to use each effectively. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:27 PM (#2399986) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Riginslinger We're in trouble now! |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:29 PM (#2399990) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee Well, I kinda like the "handsome, dashing and brave" part...it fits me like a glove. A catcher's mitt, but hey! |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:31 PM (#2399991) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Peace They are three of Santa's reindeer aren't they? |
|
28 Jul 08 - 09:43 PM (#2399998) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee Nah, they're 0.43 of the Seven Dwarfs. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 10:06 PM (#2400006) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Don Firth The other four are Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and Fred. Don Firth P. S. But I always thought Cyranose de Burgersnack was in there somewhere. . . . |
|
28 Jul 08 - 10:28 PM (#2400017) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Rapparee Cyrano served as their coathook. |
|
28 Jul 08 - 10:41 PM (#2400020) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joe Offer, at the Women's Center Bee says:
Now do you understand? Next time you respond to trolls, think what they're doing alone at home while they're reading your indignant response. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Jul 08 - 03:39 AM (#2400107) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Richard Bridge I feel it is important to tell bigots that they are unwelcome, and to convey the message to those against whom the bigotry is expressed that that bigotry is rejected. I think that that is more important than worrying that a troll is amused that he/she has caused annoyance. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 03:46 AM (#2400108) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer If that is true Joe, then it is sad and sinful. Have you evidence of such behaviour ? if so that is dreadful. Yes indeed Richard I agree. Anyone here to promote filth should be told in no uncertain terms they are not welcome. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 06:05 AM (#2400145) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Bryn Pugh That which Richard said, at 03.39 AM ; which post I endorse in its entirety. Moreover : that which Joe said, 28th July, at 10.41 PM, which post I endorse likewise in its entirety. With greatest respect to my Jewish friends on the 'Cat, and those Christian friends who abide by their prophet's injunction 'judge not lest ye be judged', I wonder if the likes of Joy Bringer (that's a corker, isn't it ?) live by the single commandment (Dylan Thomas, "Under Milk Wood") - THOU SHALT NOT ! I try and live by the adage of my Faith - "An it harm none, do what you will". |
|
29 Jul 08 - 08:13 AM (#2400201) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Riginslinger "Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech.'" I think people need to be very careful with this. Remember that guy--can't remember his name--who they threw in jail in Austria for denying the Holocaust? It seems very unwise to me for government to be punishing somebody for what they think, or even what they say they think. It's a case of one side becoming as repugnant as the other. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 08:28 AM (#2400210) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Donuel If you responded to the hate speech of Monica Goodling incorrectly, you were out of a job. Then whe made sure you couldn't get any other job. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 10:18 AM (#2400290) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Riginslinger I looked her up. She was a Conservative Christian and got her law degree from a university founded by Pat Roberson. That's hate speech just on the face of it. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 10:19 AM (#2400292) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Donuel Those who play the hate game best often use hate as judo uses gravity. They will lie and attribute the very hate you work to overcome by whispering that you are the; racist, sexist, evil doer, unpatriotic, god hater... Then what do you do, if you defend yourself you are obviously being defensive and now you are suspiciously guilty. As Joe says, you must ignore. It is best to speak in terms so clear that the true nature of the issue ascends to cover everyone in the world with a deep sky blue clarity of truth. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 10:32 AM (#2400303) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Riginslinger Yeah, I agree with Joe. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM (#2400438) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Don Firth I do believe that hate speech should be challenged on the basis that silence can be construed as agreement. But one's response needs to stick to facts and reason, and not give in to the natural urge spawned by moral indignation to respond emotionally. A good rational argument against a piece of hate speech will often draw a string of personal attacks and insults, which will, more often than not, reveal the bigot's true colors for everyone to see. But don't get sucked into a slagging match. If you wrestle with pigs, you come up dirty. Let the bigot commit suicide with the same weapon that Samson used on the Philistines. Don Firth |
|
29 Jul 08 - 02:34 PM (#2400518) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Jack Blandiver there are millions of people who disagree with homosexual "marriage" for all sorts of reasons and many millions more who dislike the practice of homosexuality......They can't all be "hate spewing scum"...can they? Oh yes they can - and furthermore, they are. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM (#2400529) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Don Firth I do not think there are that many millions of people who obsess on the matter. Don Firth |
|
29 Jul 08 - 02:56 PM (#2400531) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton I rest my case! |
|
29 Jul 08 - 03:14 PM (#2400547) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Don Firth My post just above was in answer to what you said, Ake. I don't think there are that many people who even give it much thought. But those who obsess about the sexual practices of other people and get all "disgusted," like some folks on this and the other thread--well, they are the ones with the problem. Don Firth |
|
29 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM (#2400570) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton Sorry Don I cross posted. I was responding to Insane B. In response to your post, I would say that worldwide there are many many millions who think deeply about homosexual marriage, certainly within the Catholic Church and the Scottish Presbyterian Church. Discussions on Homosexuality itself used to be commonplace but since the practice became "politicised" people tend to keep their thoughts to themselves.. The rights issue is of course nothing to do with whether the practice is disgusting or not. Although I think most heterosexual people do feel disgust viewing or even discussing the homosexual act. Are people who call others "hate spewing scum" for holding a different opinion, not as bad as those who are indeed "homophobic"? |
|
29 Jul 08 - 03:40 PM (#2400573) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: John on the Sunset Coast "They can't all be "hate spewing scum"...can they?" "Oh yes they can - and furthermore, they are." Insane Beard, it is good to know that a new definition of 'disagree' is 'hate-spewing scum'. I'm writing to Websters, et. al to make sure they know it, too. What a maroon!!! |
|
29 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM (#2400578) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM (#2400598) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Jack Blandiver Whatever the reason (or excuse) for such feelings, the result is the same old moronic self-serving disgust. Hatred is hatred, whatever sort of face you want to put on it; hide it behind the face of religion and it becomes something worse - justified hatred. Whatever theological clap-trap is served up by the Roman Catholic Church or the Scottish Britney Spears remains exactly that, theological clap-trap, with no bearing on reality other than to perpetuate what is, at best, a quaint superstition with about as much bearing on reality as Harry Potter. To disagree with the right of another human being to be what they are goes way beyond simply expressing an opinion, it's challenging the most fundamental right of human existence. Challenge that, for whatever reason, and you challenge everything. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:25 PM (#2400613) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton Your opinion of religion is very cloce to my own Insane B. 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. "To disagree with the right of another human being to be what they are goes way beyond simply expressing an opinion, it's challenging the most fundamental right of human existence. Challenge that, for whatever reason, and you challenge everything" Dont forget Insane B, that if we all embraced homosexuality, humanity would CEASE to exist....Ake |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:28 PM (#2400619) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: beardedbruce "that if we all embraced homosexuality, humanity would CEASE to exist....Ake " And if we all truely embraced RC, and became celibate priests, the same would occur as well. So? |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:30 PM (#2400623) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton Come on BB The last thing the Catholic Church wants is its flock to become celibate :0) Thanks for the laugh on the other thread BTW...Ake |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:37 PM (#2400633) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: beardedbruce And the last thing that homosexuals want is for the entire world to become homosexual. Like MOST minorities, they want to be allowed to pursue their own interests and NOT tell others what to do. It is usually the majority that insists on imposing a single viewpoint on everything. There are various SF books that explore the function ( and continued reproduction) of envisioned "homosexual ( single sex) worlds- both male and female. You should read them- most are thoughtful, detailed looks at a societal structured as none are today. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:39 PM (#2400636) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,lox "And the last thing that homosexuals want is for the entire world to become homosexual." ... the only gay in the village ... |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM (#2400638) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,lox the only gay in the village |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:43 PM (#2400642) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha Look, no one CHOOSES to be homosexual. They are BORN that way. A certain percentage. Even in the 'lower' Animal kingdom. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 04:46 PM (#2400647) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha So, the 'entire population' simply isn't possible. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM (#2400665) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton I think that might go over the heads here Lox....:0) |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM (#2400674) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: akenaton Fuck sake Sorcha!! Where did you find it? The gene ...I mean. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:21 PM (#2400683) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha Admittedly not totally proven yet, but go read this...click. And do some research on your own. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:25 PM (#2400694) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha This seems to be update on previous link. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:27 PM (#2400696) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha In the animal kingdom |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM (#2400706) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Jack Blandiver 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. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:38 PM (#2400712) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Joy Bringer This lady is a Christian and a MP, as such she is entitled to her views. I find her views agreeable. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM (#2400728) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha 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. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM (#2400746) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,Essay 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). |
|
29 Jul 08 - 06:26 PM (#2400759) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Sorcha Essay, GOOD thinking there. Thank you. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 06:28 PM (#2400760) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM (#2400770) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: GUEST,lox "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. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM (#2400771) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Jul 08 - 07:46 PM (#2400823) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Ruth Archer 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. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM (#2400833) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
29 Jul 08 - 08:01 PM (#2400836) Subject: RE: BS: responding to 'hate speech' From: Ruth Archer ???
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
