Lewis Suffers In Spain.

[dribbler 6]

"Well, just think if a noo-clee-yerr bom went orf - all that glaaassss......"

Well i don't find something that dangerous funny. There would be a lot of glass.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well i don't find something that dangerous funny. There would be a lot of glass.

It was *you* being interviewed wasn't it???!!!!

[dribbler 6]

[Oli 1]

I wondered where this topic had gone......seems I've missed quite a bit. I like the way every post begins "I'll say no more on the subject, BUT"........

So are you saying if an individual can change then it must be their problem or more of their problem?

Very much so. That's just cold logic- if somebody is able to change a situation they do not like, then they have to bear some responsibility if they leave it be. In the case of, let's say, race, there's no reason why anyone should have to or should WANT to change. It is the views of others who believe one race is effectively better than others who are the cause of the problem. However, there is a range of weights in which it is healthy to be, thus certain weights are objectively better than others. This is not the same for different races/sexual orientations, and depending on your viewpoint may or may not be for certain religions.

I disagree. If someone can't accept the way another individual is, even if they can change, as long as they are not hurting themselves or being offensive to others then it is still the others problem.

Well, that's human nature unfortunately. If you are significantly different than the rest of the population you will get noticed and you will often get treated differently. The human mind looks for patterns and order in everything it does, and when it encounters something which doesn't fit a pattern the results are unpredictable. I'm not defending it, but that's the way it is.

What I don't like is how you react one way about racism and another way about everything else. It's hypocrisy and almost everyone else is guilty of it too.

My argument is that you can't group everything together. People's reactions to racism, fattism, religionism etc are all different because the causes and issues surrounding them are so different. See the example above; even if you disagree with it you'd have to accept that weight can be altered, race cannot (Michael Jackson aside). It's unfair for you to label everyone who doesn't agree with your subjective view of things as a hypocrite- that's not what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is professing a belief or virtue you do not have. I am expressing my beliefs about several different subjects, and the fact that those beliefs do not match is a reflection of my view that those subjects are very different.

You say that one has to live through an experience to talk sensibly about it.

I think he means you have to live through an experience to understand it. You are free to talk about it, but you will not completely understand an experience until you have lived through it. I will freely discuss my views on (to take an extreme example) rape, but I would never dismiss somebody else's opinions who had experienced it as readily as you have dismissed FedUp's views on racial abuse, because I am aware of my own inability to understand the complete picture. Now admittedly sometimes the analysis of a subject (for example in law enforcement) calls for a cold, objective approach, which is why we don't let rape victims decide their attackers punishments. But we do consider how much pain the experience has caused them, rather than telling them that we know better.

[Oli 1]

Well, what right did everyone have to say that jokes about fatties, fuglies, disabled people, anorexics, people with other medical conditions, women, gays etc were OK on here? Why don't you object to those too? If you do object to those, why didn't you take other people in this thread to task as well? You wax lyrical about racism and gloss over everyone else's problems, and you're far from the only one.

Society has to draw lines in the sand to say what is acceptable and what is not. Most societies view homosexuality as morally acceptable, whilst others do not. Do you think pedophilia is acceptable? In some cultures it is, or at least our definition of it is. More pertinently, jokes about ugly people are treated less seriously than those about race. That is only natural when you consider the amount of violence certain people have suffered as a result of racial discrimination. Were it the case that jokes against ugly people made them frightened for their safety, it would no doubt increase people's sensitivity to it.

In addition, there's a difference between targeted racism (e.g. yelling "you ****ing black" etc) and a casual comment made in a non-threatening way. I believe this is the case with racism and homophobia alike. It seems to me your initial posts excusing the behaviour of those fans in Barcelona compared their behaviour (which was reported to include yelling at Hamilton as above, though I'm aware we now know that probably wasn't true) to casual non-targeted comments on a forum. I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn the former and excuse the latter. If I tell a mildly racist joke in a bar and somebody hears it, I don't give a crap what they think- that's their problem and really doesn't mean the same thing as if I yell abuse at them in the street.

I'm a bit confused. I was branded a bigot, vile, obscene, offensive, disappointing - yet Mike gets a far more measured response.

That's 1) because his arguments are more succinct and 2) because of these:

- I do agree with the "racist" fans in some ways

- black people can't claim racism is particularly hurtful.

- .....but black people can't cope with Apartheid - something that no longer exists, and happened on the other side of the world...

Call it free speech, but if it is your right to offend, then it is ours to be offended. From then on I wasn't particularly offended by anything you said, I just disagreed with it.

Mike's posts as far as I can see barely had anything to do with yours- if you did mention the self-segregation of ethnic minorities in your posts then I must have missed it, but it certainly wasn't a prominent feature. I happen to agree completely with Mike, but then that argument is hardly a new one- indeed it is one that has raged in the UK for years with regards to the Pakistani communities, arranged marriages, language problems etc.

Also, it's very hard to be sympathetic to your cause when you post stuff like this:

OK, I'll give up too now. But everyone's attitudes make me a little sad and frustrated. PC-ness stops people looking objectively at the issues - it's just indoctrination imho. I think homophobia and racism are quite comparable problems, and it's very wrong that society understands and respects one problem so much more than the other.

EDIT: At least I've learned a few things about society in this discussion, even if they do make me a little sad.

Hopefully I'm wrong here, but that posts paints an image of somebody who doesn't want to try and understand why his views are seen as disagreeable. It sounds like somebody closing their ears and dismissing all contrasting opinions as "indoctrination". In addition I've never been a fan of the term "PC" since it began to be misused by the Daily Mail and other such rags. "PC-ness" in its purest form should imply people holding an opinion just because they are expected to. It shouldn't be used as a way to paint any majority viewpoint as being ill-considered just because you don't happen to agree with it.

In summary....erm.....it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it.

[Max Mosley 2]

Your posts are very poor ones. You repeatedly quote me out of context to give a misleading impression. For example, when I said "racism isn't particularly hurtful", it was clearly in comparison to other forms of suffering that are also very hurtful. That is the formal use of the word "particularly", not the colloquial one. You repeatedly assume everything I've said in this thread was a reply to you, even when it was a reply to someone with contradictory views to yourself. The standard of argument is also very low, but in that respect, you don't stand out in this thread.

Very much so. That's just cold logic- if somebody is able to change a situation they do not like, then they have to bear some responsibility if they leave it be. In the case of, let's say, race, there's no reason why anyone should have to or should WANT to change. It is the views of others who believe one race is effectively better than others who are the cause of the problem. However, there is a range of weights in which it is healthy to be, thus certain weights are objectively better than others. This is not the same for different races/sexual orientations, and depending on your viewpoint may or may not be for certain religions.

There is nothing logical about it. For example, there are millions of women who simply want to look different to the norm in some way, for various reasons. What they don't like is how they are then subjected to often vicious abuse, when they are causing absolutely no harm (other than the bullying) to themselves or anyone else. Your example of bullying people for their own good (to make them lose weight, for example) is extremely debatable, and I think very unpleasant.

Well, that's human nature unfortunately. If you are significantly different than the rest of the population you will get noticed and you will often get treated differently. The human mind looks for patterns and order in everything it does, and when it encounters something which doesn't fit a pattern the results are unpredictable. I'm not defending it, but that's the way it is.

Yes, but that applies to racism too. It's just part of human nature, but hey, who's defending it...

My argument is that you can't group everything together. People's reactions to racism, fattism, religionism etc are all different because the causes and issues surrounding them are so different. See the example above; even if you disagree with it you'd have to accept that weight can be altered, race cannot (Michael Jackson aside). It's unfair for you to label everyone who doesn't agree with your subjective view of things as a hypocrite- that's not what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is professing a belief or virtue you do not have. I am expressing my beliefs about several different subjects, and the fact that those beliefs do not match is a reflection of my view that those subjects are very different.

The irony is, "grouping everything together" is exactly what you are doing here. The post of mine you quoted was directed at FedUp, who has a totally different position to you, so your "argument" is not really relevant. Society, and many posters here (though not all of those who disagree with me, like Kay or Cav for example), are hypocritical precisely because they do profess beliefs and virtues that their actions demonstrate they lack.

I think he means you have to live through an experience to understand it. You are free to talk about it, but you will not completely understand an experience until you have lived through it. I will freely discuss my views on (to take an extreme example) rape, but I would never dismiss somebody else's opinions who had experienced it as readily as you have dismissed FedUp's views on racial abuse, because I am aware of my own inability to understand the complete picture. Now admittedly sometimes the analysis of a subject (for example in law enforcement) calls for a cold, objective approach, which is why we don't let rape victims decide their attackers punishments. But we do consider how much pain the experience has caused them, rather than telling them that we know better.

Could you show me where I "dismissed FedUp's views on racial abuse"? I did not mean to do so, as I think the man himself understands perfectly well already.

The rest of your paragraph doesn't make much sense. Of course we "tell rape victims we know better", otherwise we'd do what they want. And of course you dismiss other people's views on forms of abuse that you haven't suffered. We've seen you do it in this thread where you've argued it's OK to make jokes about some people who are suffering, but not others, despite those people (and even you yourself!) saying it was hurtful.

Society has to draw lines in the sand to say what is acceptable and what is not. Most societies view homosexuality as morally acceptable, whilst others do not. Do you think pedophilia is acceptable? In some cultures it is, or at least our definition of it is. More pertinently, jokes about ugly people are treated less seriously than those about race. That is only natural when you consider the amount of violence certain people have suffered as a result of racial discrimination. Were it the case that jokes against ugly people made them frightened for their safety, it would no doubt increase people's sensitivity to it.

How does society decide what is acceptable and what is not? Did we vote on it? Does the average person do research on it to find out just how serious the issues are, and to find out the best ways to tackle these things? Can the average American even spell "misogyny"? When we discuss it in society, are we free to do so openly, or does the moral majority try to silence everyone with a different view? Is society right about everything, or does it benefit from being asked critical questions?

I don't think you have any idea how many people die as a result of homophobic violence, or racist violence, or violence against women, or bullying based on appearance (including suicide), or pressure from society to look a certain way. If you think making fun of people by joking about some of those things, but not others, is OK then I'd like to know why. You and everyone else have so far failed to justify why racism gets singled out of all that lot.

According to UK police, as many people die from homophobia as racism, and levels of other abuse are similar in every way. According to the FBI, the fraction of murders that are racially- (or sexuality-) motivated is tiny. The vast majority of black murder victims are killed by black people, so they really ought to worry about that far more than racism. In fact, according to police figures in the UK and the USA, more people die from anorexia than racism, despite your earlier denial of this. Of course the police figures are certainly underestimates of the true figures, but equally far more people die from social pressures surrounding their appearance than I have included in that figure.

[Max Mosley 2]

In addition, there's a difference between targeted racism (e.g. yelling "you ****ing black" etc) and a casual comment made in a non-threatening way. I believe this is the case with racism and homophobia alike. It seems to me your initial posts excusing the behaviour of those fans in Barcelona compared their behaviour (which was reported to include yelling at Hamilton as above, though I'm aware we now know that probably wasn't true) to casual non-targeted comments on a forum. I think it's perfectly acceptable to condemn the former and excuse the latter. If I tell a mildly racist joke in a bar and somebody hears it, I don't give a crap what they think- that's their problem and really doesn't mean the same thing as if I yell abuse at them in the street.

Well you should re-read my initial posts then. I asked why it is deemed acceptable to "make fun of", not "threaten", some people but not others. Anyway, I'm interested to hear you think it's OK to tell racist jokes.

That's 1) because his arguments are more succinct

Ah yes. "(Vile, obscene) Bigot": noun, someone who is not succinct. With reasoning like that, having a point (2) seems overkill.

Mike's posts as far as I can see barely had anything to do with yours [...] I happen to agree completely with Mike

Murray, I am perhaps the only one here who understands what you're saying. It's truth, but it wont be accepted from you because you're caucasian.

The Spaniards were demonstrating the concept of 'free speech' and physically hurt no-one.

Great! We all agree then. (PS Mike, don't feel the need to get dragged into this again. )

Hopefully I'm wrong here, but that posts paints an image of somebody who doesn't want to try and understand why his views are seen as disagreeable. It sounds like somebody closing their ears and dismissing all contrasting opinions as "indoctrination". In addition I've never been a fan of the term "PC" since it began to be misused by the Daily Mail and other such rags. "PC-ness" in its purest form should imply people holding an opinion just because they are expected to. It shouldn't be used as a way to paint any majority viewpoint as being ill-considered just because you don't happen to agree with it.

No, you're right. I don't really want to understand why my views are seen as disagreeable. On the basis of the ridiculous and contradictory arguments being put forth, I think I already know why: there is a moral majority of indoctrinated people who are incapable of thinking rationally about this issue. And as a result, many people will be treated badly.

My views about the negative impact of PC-ness have actually already been expressed, it turns out, by the current UK Government Minister for Community Cohesion, the newsgathering editor of the BBC (who feels under pressure to ignore some crimes!) and the spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

[Quiet One 15]

Must...not...be...dragged...into...this...argument...again

[goferrarigo 0]

Must...not...be...dragged...into...this...argument...again

Seriously this arugment got a reply after a week... It seems it will not stop for another 20 days...