Not good for minority rights?

Neil":a9ljpuyx said:

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.

Click to expand...

suburbanreuben":2ey7nxl1 said:

Neil":2ey7nxl1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

highlandsflyer":kkgzv93s said:

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.

Click to expand...

sylus":3mmpdnva said:

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

Click to expand...

sylus":3mmpdnva said:

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.

Click to expand...

Neil":14nwruka said:

sylus":14nwruka said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Neil":14nwruka said:

sylus":14nwruka said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...