Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:59 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:35 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:11 pm
Posts: 8479
Location: Fircombe.
Neil wrote:
There's a difference, though - subtle it may be - between having a certain opinion, and abusing somebody either verbally, or physically.

If, for some, that line seems rather thin and tenuous, I'd just like to say this - for all of those suggesting this is really just about free speech, and people having the right to air their "opinion" however unsavoury that is, I'd rather a society where people can walk free with the right not to be abused and harassed, than some malcontent feels repressed because they can't call them a fatty, or a ginge, or whatever term they'd use to insult a goth, or whoever else those with low self-esteem feel the desire to deride / insult / abuse in order to feel better about themselves.

Freedom of speech is one thing - but it's not a blank cheque to go blathering around society being thoroughly uncivilised. For those that want to - rant at your TVs or something. Freedom of speech is not universal now - and hasn't been for quite some time, in most democracies, and certainly in most non-democratic countries.


Subtle? Thin and Tenuous?
Hardly; There's a very big dividing line between thinking something and punching someone because you don't like the cut of their jib.

Bring on the Thought Police...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:47 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
suburbanreuben wrote:
Neil wrote:
There's a difference, though - subtle it may be - between having a certain opinion, and abusing somebody either verbally, or physically.

If, for some, that line seems rather thin and tenuous, I'd just like to say this - for all of those suggesting this is really just about free speech, and people having the right to air their "opinion" however unsavoury that is, I'd rather a society where people can walk free with the right not to be abused and harassed, than some malcontent feels repressed because they can't call them a fatty, or a ginge, or whatever term they'd use to insult a goth, or whoever else those with low self-esteem feel the desire to deride / insult / abuse in order to feel better about themselves.

Freedom of speech is one thing - but it's not a blank cheque to go blathering around society being thoroughly uncivilised. For those that want to - rant at your TVs or something. Freedom of speech is not universal now - and hasn't been for quite some time, in most democracies, and certainly in most non-democratic countries.


Subtle? Thin and Tenuous?
Hardly; There's a very big dividing line between thinking something and punching someone because you don't like the cut of their jib.

Bring on the Thought Police...


My perception / inference from what Sylus had written, was that he was conflating holding an opinion on people - but it unsavoury and unpleasant, or otherwise - and acting on it - presumably verbally.

That's the bit in the middle, I was trying to address - it's not all sneer and say nowt, or thump somebody - there can well be a whole degree of middle ground there, that really serves no purpose, and to my mind, wasn't the basis that many get so het-up about defending as some inalienable right of free speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:11 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
I don't see why anyone thinks it is healthy or desirable to think or speak in the way I hear some do. I get free speech and all that, but being wilfully hateful or ignorant should never be considered acceptable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:17 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:11 pm
Posts: 8479
Location: Fircombe.
highlandsflyer wrote:
I don't see why anyone thinks it is healthy or desirable to think or speak in the way I hear some do. I get free speech and all that, but being wilfully hateful or ignorant should never be considered acceptable.


And if it's got to the stage where legislation is deemed necessary, we've failed somewhere...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:29 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
I don't see it that way.

Legislation is the framework for societal norms.

What is considered the acceptable way by the majority is reflected in our laws.

We have not failed because we choose to protect against the minority who choose to behave wrongly.

It is no more a sign of failure than introducing drink driving laws to discourage the behaviour of a minority impacting on the majority.

It is progress rather, a sign we are evolving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:17 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
there are also conformative norms to take into account

a white person using the n word is accused of being racist a black person is suggested as a welcoming, the other issues and the hardest one is to wipe out anothers view because you personally do not agree

due to social economics, education, cultural differences what maybe said by one as acceptable to one maybe offensive to another

there seems to be however ..i don't want to go down the whole gay vs church argument but use it to explain why it goes wrong...in order for one view to be seen unjust and corrected then the other view needs to be seen as just and corrective. in laymans terms, you just replace one oppression with another.

Most of this shit happens when humans are bored and they think too much

I suggest they get out and ride more as a cure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:34 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
I don't buy the oppression argument, it is an argument for the status quo and there are clear differences between those being oppressed and their oppressors.

It is not oppressive to give the protection of law to those being oppressed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:36 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 4007
Location: uk
To a yob....religious garb or goth clothes just says pacifist and easy target to hate........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:02 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
sylus wrote:
there are also conformative norms to take into account

a white person using the n word is accused of being racist a black person is suggested as a welcoming, the other issues and the hardest one is to wipe out anothers view because you personally do not agree


I've never understood this - it's like a bunch of white folk have got around and said - "This is unfair - if black people can use the N word, why can't white folk, too?" - quite simply because most white folk haven't had to endure centuries of racially predicated prejudice, in a lot of instances using just that very word. I really don't get why white folk feel it's so unjust.

sylus wrote:
there seems to be however ..i don't want to go down the whole gay vs church argument but use it to explain why it goes wrong...in order for one view to be seen unjust and corrected then the other view needs to be seen as just and corrective. in laymans terms, you just replace one oppression with another.


But you don't - that's just the overreaction - who is being oppressed by the suggestion of (as I think you're alluding to) gay marriage? (In the assumption that no religions are being forced to perform ceremonies in opposition to their doctrine).

The problem is, some people are trying to foist them no longer being able to discriminate on certain protected grounds, as oppression - and it's no such thing. That's not oppression, and it's nothing like it. It's just polemic posturing that's really an attempt to distract.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:16 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
Neil wrote:
sylus wrote:
there are also conformative norms to take into account

a white person using the n word is accused of being racist a black person is suggested as a welcoming, the other issues and the hardest one is to wipe out anothers view because you personally do not agree


I've never understood this - it's like a bunch of white folk have got around and said - "This is unfair - if black people can use the N word, why can't white folk, too?" - quite simply because most white folk haven't had to endure centuries of racially predicated prejudice, in a lot of instances using just that very word. I really don't get why white folk feel it's so unjust.


It's unjust for two reasons really..if we are truly to believe say the n word is offensive then it should not be said by all..it you selectively say some can and some can't then you are in effect practicising reverse racism where because you of your colour... you are restricted to what you can and can't do

you can't say because your black your restricted so it must be racist but if you white and restricted thats okay because you should have the guilt of centuries upon you

Neil wrote:
sylus wrote:
there seems to be however ..i don't want to go down the whole gay vs church argument but use it to explain why it goes wrong...in order for one view to be seen unjust and corrected then the other view needs to be seen as just and corrective. in laymans terms, you just replace one oppression with another.


But you don't - that's just the overreaction - who is being oppressed by the suggestion of (as I think you're alluding to) gay marriage? (In the assumption that no religions are being forced to perform ceremonies in opposition to their doctrine).

The problem is, some people are trying to foist them no longer being able to discriminate on certain protected grounds, as oppression - and it's no such thing. That's not oppression, and it's nothing like it. It's just polemic posturing that's really an attempt to distract.


As I said, the opression stands, it's just now who shouts the loudest to be the king of the opressive tree..but the modern world is very much not, o well shit happens lets move on but more..who can I blame today

you can't ask for equality then at the same time say some are more equal than others.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adruzzz, al-onestare, My_Teenage_Self, old_coyote_pedaller and 48 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group