By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It has always been said "Pop will eat itself", but more like "Mom and Pop" (or non gender binary) will. Good to see dissent amongst their own ranks, a social justice "civil war" blooming?
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 19:53 - Oct 23 by londonlisa2001
"I was called a racist by my own nephew last year for using the word 'Chinky' as abbreviation for Chinese takeaway in the same innocent way I use Chippy to say fish and chip shop. "
When I said earlier in this thread that it'd be the Viz letters pages being quoted soon, I didn't realise it'd be that quick fair play.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 20:44 - Oct 23 by swanjackal
My apologies I shouldn't have said laws for your slur I should have said it can be reported as hate speech, and used as an official statistic of reported hate speech.
Don't apologise these are idiots that use their own imagination to brand people bigoted and racist!
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 20:44 - Oct 23 by swanjackal
My apologies I shouldn't have said laws for your slur I should have said it can be reported as hate speech, and used as an official statistic of reported hate speech.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 20:48 - Oct 23 by exiledclaseboy
Really? You sure?
Yes, hate speech can be reported as hate crimes. The figures often quoted for rises in hate crimes do not look at the numbers of prosecution but more the reports made of them.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 20:56 - Oct 23 by swanjackal
Yes, hate speech can be reported as hate crimes. The figures often quoted for rises in hate crimes do not look at the numbers of prosecution but more the reports made of them.
So it wouldn’t necessarily be a crime but might be recorded as a report of a potential crime whether or not a prosecution followed? I’ll take your word for that but if true it seems more of an indictment of how the figures are reported rather than a valid criticism of the law itself.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 19:53 - Oct 23 by londonlisa2001
"I was called a racist by my own nephew last year for using the word 'Chinky' as abbreviation for Chinese takeaway in the same innocent way I use Chippy to say fish and chip shop. "
When I said earlier in this thread that it'd be the Viz letters pages being quoted soon, I didn't realise it'd be that quick fair play.
Do you want me to post another Chinese take away up for you to be gratitiously offended about, what with your intellectual moral superiority over the ordrainary guy in the street? And you did not have an ounce of common sense to know what I was on about? Now do you hey!
Argus!
0
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:11 - Oct 23 with 3326 views
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 16:43 - Oct 23 by Wingstandwood
I'm to the left of Richard Littlejohn. I think most people are? However! The guy does at times indeed belong on Planet Earth like most of us.
Ahhhh when Richard Littlejohn expressed his opinion about the guy who took legal action against his local govt employer because he did not receive training to use the 6ft step ladder he fell off. I mean? Some people expect/require an instructive step ladder course. The same type that would call their child "IT"?
Do you want me to post another Chinese take away up for you to be gratitiously offended about, what with your intellectual moral superiority over the ordrainary guy in the street? And you did not have an ounce of common sense to know what I was on about? Now do you hey!
Do you want to point out where I was offended, gratuitously or otherwise?
The only person who's expressed offence is your nephew, who I assume you regard as a common sense free snowflake.
I'll wait.
0
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:24 - Oct 23 with 3301 views
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:07 - Oct 23 by exiledclaseboy
So it wouldn’t necessarily be a crime but might be recorded as a report of a potential crime whether or not a prosecution followed? I’ll take your word for that but if true it seems more of an indictment of how the figures are reported rather than a valid criticism of the law itself.
In that I can't argue, but you could throw in the Public order act of 1986 section 4a and 5 (although the insult removal was a good step, abusive is still able to be interpreted many ways) here, and their vagueness. Both probably have well meaning beginnings, but the overreach and vagueness of each section is, and has been an issue for a while.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 20:37 - Oct 23 by exiledclaseboy
Well you can’t be all those things for using incorrect gender pronouns under that bill unless it’s designed to promote hatred and/or violence or similar. So if someone wanted to be a dick purely for the sake of being a dick and called someone who identifies as “he” a “she” he/she/they isn’t going to prison for it.
I have to ask though, if you knew full well that I (for example) wanted to be addressed by a specific pronoun, why would you just not use that pronoun anyway?
Swanjackal, I’m genuinely interested in your answer to the question I posed in paragraph two above. Cheers.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:19 - Oct 23 by londonlisa2001
Do you want to point out where I was offended, gratuitously or otherwise?
The only person who's expressed offence is your nephew, who I assume you regard as a common sense free snowflake.
I'll wait.
On that particular occasion he was indeed a common sense free snowflake. It is wrong to label someone based upon imagination when something is said innocently without the slightest intention of being racist or offensive.
Time and more years will pass and indeed yet more new words will be added to the dictionary of imagination-based-offence despite those words never before being deemed as being offensive or racist before.
Argus!
0
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:31 - Oct 23 with 3279 views
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:24 - Oct 23 by swanjackal
In that I can't argue, but you could throw in the Public order act of 1986 section 4a and 5 (although the insult removal was a good step, abusive is still able to be interpreted many ways) here, and their vagueness. Both probably have well meaning beginnings, but the overreach and vagueness of each section is, and has been an issue for a while.
I’ve just read both sections you highlighted and I’m not really seeing a problem. If vagueness is your issue how would you resolve the vagueness? I may be wrong here so please correct me if I am but you seem to be veering towards the view that there shouldn’t be any laws against any type of words (spoken or written) being used in any context or manner. Am i right?
Do you want me to post another Chinese take away up for you to be gratitiously offended about, what with your intellectual moral superiority over the ordrainary guy in the street? And you did not have an ounce of common sense to know what I was on about? Now do you hey!
I would. Could you post another please?
0
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:39 - Oct 23 with 3261 views
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:24 - Oct 23 by exiledclaseboy
Swanjackal, I’m genuinely interested in your answer to the question I posed in paragraph two above. Cheers.
Actually they can, although unlikely, with fines more along the lines, and especially with their regional courts upholding judgements of human rights councils, even before this bill was passed.
Truthfully, to the second paragraph, I would call you as I saw you. If you looked like a man, I would call you that, if I thought you were a female, Miss/Mrs. If you told me that you wanted to be referred to as "X", I would ask your name and call you your name, and if I was talking about you to others I would say "they" or "them" or use what I observed. "Mr" "Mrs/Miss".
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:39 - Oct 23 by swanjackal
Actually they can, although unlikely, with fines more along the lines, and especially with their regional courts upholding judgements of human rights councils, even before this bill was passed.
Truthfully, to the second paragraph, I would call you as I saw you. If you looked like a man, I would call you that, if I thought you were a female, Miss/Mrs. If you told me that you wanted to be referred to as "X", I would ask your name and call you your name, and if I was talking about you to others I would say "they" or "them" or use what I observed. "Mr" "Mrs/Miss".
I don’t agree with you om the impact of the bill but it’s Canadian so I’ll not labour it. I need to clarify this point though. If I asked you specifically to address me using a certain gender pronoun and that pronoun didn’t coincide with your opinion of what I should be known as based on your observation, you’d refuse to address me using that pronoun?
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:51 - Oct 23 by Humpty
That's a review of a restaurant called China Kitchen.
Yeah but if you squint, arrange some of the letters differently and add another letter, it’s an anagram of “ch**ky”. Ya daft common sense free snowflake.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 19:39 - Oct 23 by Wingstandwood
Oi….It does affect people because if you're not up-to-date with the latest made up on the hoof PC dictionary you can then get maliciously and wrongfully branded a bigot or a racist. I was called a racist by my own nephew last year for using the word 'Chinky' as abbreviation for Chinese takeaway in the same innocent way I use Chippy to say fish and chip shop.
Apparently to some now the term Afro is now offensive and racist and that is despite Sainsbury’s having an Afro Caribbean food range (Google the words) and see the other 4,880,000 results if you wish. Common sense free w#nkers going all Orwellian word-speak in a desperate attempt to trawl, to fabricate, to find something, just anything to be offended about. Mary Whitehouse did exactly the same with Tom And Jerry.
I think the bloke who wrote this may have had you in mind as well.
0
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 22:01 - Oct 23 with 3231 views
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 21:31 - Oct 23 by exiledclaseboy
I’ve just read both sections you highlighted and I’m not really seeing a problem. If vagueness is your issue how would you resolve the vagueness? I may be wrong here so please correct me if I am but you seem to be veering towards the view that there shouldn’t be any laws against any type of words (spoken or written) being used in any context or manner. Am i right?
Not at all. Unless they are a call to action (direct threat/incitement of violence/riot against a group/individual), then speech, in my view, should be free and open, no matter how unpleasant it can be. I can disagree with their position and enter debate, or even walk away from them. I believe in the concept of free speech. That does not mean I don't think that there should not be consequences. Libelous speech for instance should be challenged, individual private organisations can have their own rules of expulsion based on their own ideals etc. Like I said, the wording of law is crucial, vague terms give a wide scope.
So, no, not at all, context/manner matters for words and how they are applied.
The World's gone mad: Part 1 on 22:11 - Oct 23 by swanjackal
Not at all. Unless they are a call to action (direct threat/incitement of violence/riot against a group/individual), then speech, in my view, should be free and open, no matter how unpleasant it can be. I can disagree with their position and enter debate, or even walk away from them. I believe in the concept of free speech. That does not mean I don't think that there should not be consequences. Libelous speech for instance should be challenged, individual private organisations can have their own rules of expulsion based on their own ideals etc. Like I said, the wording of law is crucial, vague terms give a wide scope.
So, no, not at all, context/manner matters for words and how they are applied.
So do you believe that you should be free to say whatever you like to anyone you want to say it to with impunity as long as you’re not threatening them or inciting violence?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
