Are there dangerous ideas?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Are there dangerous ideas?

This topic contains 360 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 1 week, 1 day ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 361 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34338

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Encogitationer,

    You’ve solved it!

    Hermeneutics, exegesis; ledgerdomain, telekenesis

    If the Jews were armed with that powerful knowledge during inquisitions, bubonic plague, pogroms, various persecutions and holocaust it would have gone swimmingly. The market place of ideas will be the antidote to the most virulent racism. The veracity of the aforementioned is beyond question and by extension will operate even more efficiently now that there are so many ignorant and rabid racists being informed by information bubbles. Just a tiny exposure to your biblical babble will redecide the mind of the rabble.

    Free speech! No trick laws! Problem solved. Katy bar the door.

    #34339

    Davis
    Moderator

    Jake has pretty much touched on it. The free market of ideas only did so much to end violence and discrimination against LGTBQ+ people (not to mention minorities etc). It was necessary but completely insufficient. Violence, graffiti and hate speech are at the lowest level ever seen and yet it still happens but, you know, we don’t have to worry “that much” now about getting punched in the face for holding a boyfriends hand what with mobile phones and laws that will add to a simple assault. I don’t have the slightest pity for those loosing their joyous pleasure in verbally threatening me with faggot comments in the street, beating up fellow LGTBQ+ people and dehumanising us. They have SO MANY other ways to attack us and try to block our rights without the most extreme and obscene verbal and physical attacks. And they STILL do attack us in other ways (through the church, political means, advocacy, backhanded or veiled comments) though . In other words, these hate speech laws make life less miserable for us AND give them the right to still try and oppress us in other ways. So we can live our lives in less fear and shame and they can still be horrid biggots and oppressors in their own way. So yeah…they lose the most toxic and destructive spikes on their weapons and we gain a level of equality. It is an immensely sensible social transaction and compromise. The market place of ideas with social media and disinformation media is not an environment where hate and the misery and inequality will go away naturally on its own. Just look at LGTBQ⁺ hate crime statistics in the US went up over the last 10 years and compare it with Spain where it dramatically went down.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by  Davis.
    #34341

    Unseen
    Participant

    You know, there’s a lot of fun made of elderly people. It can hurt. And attitudes toward the elderly often affect things like employment prospects. When was the last time you saw an elderly person as a flight attendant, for example? Sometimes people are quite open about ridiculing the elderly. Maybe not in person, but certainly when they think they are with friends or some other receptive audience, the way racists talk about blacks or homophobes talk about gays.

    If we’re out of our way to protect vulnerable subgroups, why stop with racial groups, ethnic groups, or LGBTQ+?

    #34342

    Davis
    Moderator

    If a person or group of people insulted the elderly in their faces for being old, tried to create laws that gave them fewer rights and told them they aren’t human beings, were verbally threatening, graffitied their houses with slander about the elderly and smeared them repeatedly then I would say yes, why on Earth would you not take special measures to limit extraordinary persecution and misery?

    #34343

    Kristina
    Participant

    I would think many (if not most) jurisdictions do count age as a protected class. It’s one of the protected ‘identifiable groups’ here in Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in anti-discrimination statutes, and in the statutes prohibiting advocating genocide and hate propaganda. Although, I don’t know if you technically can commit genocide on the basis of age, but the concept translates well enough.

    #34344

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Age is not a reason to enact hate speech legislation. Sure there is some discrimination against elderly. Cases involving abuse of elderly in nursing homes is a thing. Civil rights legislation has i believe provisions for discrimination in employment as a result of age. But many cultures revere the elderly and none to my knowledge especially since it is an inevitable aspect of life see age through the lens of depraved irrational historical hatred.

    #34345

    Glen D
    Participant

    @unseen

    “You know, there’s a lot of fun made of elderly people. It can hurt”

    Just so.

    It comes as a bit of a shock to realise one has become socially invisible. Not just from being old*** either.  It can also happen to divorced people. The invitations stop coming.

    “When was the last time you saw an elderly person as a flight attendant, for example? ”

    Funny you should ask. I have a cousin in the US who flew cabin crew with United. She retired last year after 50 years flying. She’s now 71.

    Here in Oz, my baby sister flew cabin crew with QANTAS for 40 years.  She was made redundant due to Covid19. She turned 60 this year.

    Here there have been major changes to the National Age Pension. It was 65 for men and 60 for women. They have slowly been made the same with the lowest qualifying age  now 67.  The goal is 70. The age pension is non contributory and universal. It is now illegal in Australia to make a person retire on age basis .  A cynical person might opine this new system is because our largest age demographic is baby boomers. That the Tax base has dropped by around 60% of contributing persons.

    Me? I retired at 51 because I could

     

    ***70 is NOT  the new 60. 70 is still 70,and it’s still old.  It’s all a matter of attitude. I’m a mentally young 73. It is my body which is decaying, not the person inside. He is still somewhere between 18 and 25.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  Glen D.
    #34347

    Unseen
    Participant

    ***70 is NOT  the new 60. 70 is still 70,and it’s still old.  It’s all a matter of attitude. I’m a mentally young 73. It is my body which is decaying, not the person inside. He is still somewhere between 18 and 25.

    I’ll be 73 in about a month, Glen. What a coinky-dink.

    #34348

    Unseen
    Participant

    I would think many (if not most) jurisdictions do count age as a protected class. It’s one of the protected ‘identifiable groups’ here in Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in anti-discrimination statutes, and in the statutes prohibiting advocating genocide and hate propaganda. Although, I don’t know if you technically can commit genocide on the basis of age, but the concept translates well enough.

    I suspect that while it may be there on paper, it’s not embraced or pursued in practice with the intensity and enthusiasm applied to defending Black or Native Canadians (or do you use Native Americans even in Canada?). Do most Canadians feel guilty snickering under their breath to an old guy struggling to use his cell phone the way they might feel guilty at feeling amused at a gay person or Native Canadian behaving in a seemingly stereotypical way?

    #34349

    Unseen
    Participant

    Age is not a reason to enact hate speech legislation. Sure there is some discrimination against elderly. Cases involving abuse of elderly in nursing homes is a thing. Civil rights legislation has i believe provisions for discrimination in employment as a result of age. But many cultures revere the elderly and none to my knowledge especially since it is an inevitable aspect of life see age through the lens of depraved irrational historical hatred.

    I suspect a lot of the legal protections for the elderly are just pro forma and are not really pursued with much vigor or enthusiasm. In particular, I wonder if the law would be brought down on someone who wrote a demeaning piece about the elderly with anywhere near the vigor applied when the subject of the language is a black, a Muslim, or Jew? Perhaps we elderly just don’t complain enough.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  Unseen.
    #34353

    Kristina
    Participant

    I would think many (if not most) jurisdictions do count age as a protected class. It’s one of the protected ‘identifiable groups’ here in Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in anti-discrimination statutes, and in the statutes prohibiting advocating genocide and hate propaganda. Although, I don’t know if you technically can commit genocide on the basis of age, but the concept translates well enough.

    I suspect that while it may be there on paper, it’s not embraced or pursued in practice with the intensity and enthusiasm applied to defending Black or Native Canadians (or do you use Native Americans even in Canada?).

    As a generalization, indigenous peoples. People also say ‘First Nations’, but not all indigenous people are first nations. That said, I’ve met indigenous Canadians who prefer the term ‘Indians’ or use the European terms for their nation such as the ‘Burrard People’. Some people say ‘natives’ or ‘native Americans’ probably due to American influence, but it’s weird. As someone of German-Dutch heritage who is second generation Canadian, I am a native Canadian, but I’m not indigenous.

    Do most Canadians feel guilty snickering under their breath to an old guy struggling to use his cell phone the way they might feel guilty at feeling amused at a gay person or Native Canadian behaving in a seemingly stereotypical way?

    It’s going to vary, but if I had to guess, the third group faces the most prejudice currently and has been the most consistently maligned. That’s not to say they are the worst treated overall. Just saying in terms of public attitudes, Canadians tend to have a very poor and warped image of the first peoples, and it’s not purely accidental.

    Much of what advanced gay rights in Canada was people getting to know gay people often as members of their own families or close social circles. And while there are many issues and prejudices with how we view the old and young alike, most of us have frequent interactions with people close to us who challenge those stereotypes. For instance, many people frequently video chat with their grandparents, so while jokes about the elderly being helpless with technology still persist, they seem to be getting less traction with time. Same with the idea that old people are all olde timey bigots who can’t learn anything. I know a number of people whose grand parents accepted them as queer much more readily than their parents even if on paper (or voting habits) it seemed like it should have been the other way around.

    Most people won’t suddenly give birth to indigenous people or become them when they are older, and there is a degree isolation between peoples which seems to be a combination of circumstance and social engineering, especially when First Nations oppose energy and resource projects. Then the propaganda comes out hard, and not just in one direction.

    The dynamics of each demographic and how it fits with social attitudes are really different. But legal protections, ultimately, aren’t about how society perceives you; they’re about what options you may have for legal recourse when you are unjustly treated like shit.

    #34355

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    I have some sad news: If age becomes a “protected class” for “hate speech” laws, you’ll need ‘way bigger and more cells to hold all the accused, including handicap-friendly cells.

    Back in the Eighties, I did not know a person alive who did not laugh at the LifeCall Commercial, including my Grandparents who never said an impolite, cross-word to anyone:

    LifeCall Commercial “I’ve Fallen And I Can’t Get Up!”

    Comedians even made fodder of it and judging by the video comments, people still do.

    Mind you, no one laughed when my Grandparents had accidents and needed help, nor when they were hospitalized and died.  Everyone pitched in however possible.

    What I think people really laughed at was the kind of rough, physical, slap-stick humor as seen on The Three Stooges.  

    Few people, if anyone, really hate the elderly, but SJWs will hear none of that.  Pry his eyes open and make him watch Golden Girls 24/7 ’till he relents!

    #34356

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    It was probably with the Eighties in mind that the modern LifeAlert commercials are much more stark and serious, with many fewer hecklers.  Also, more people are older:

    LifeAlert Commercial 2018

    Times change and attitudes did too, this time for the better, and without the prompting of the law.

    #34357

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelieverss,

    In the home of The Scottish Enlightenment, the proposed “hate speech” law has Center-Left, Center-Right, Classical Liberal/Libertarian, Civil Liberties/Human Rights Groups all outraged.  Both Christian groups and The National Secular Society hate this thing!

    Free To Disagree

    Home

    Free to Disagree opposes the new ‘stirring up hatred’ offences in the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. The new offences pose a serious threat to freedom of expression for everybody.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Wrong spelling on link
    #34361

    Unseen
    Participant

    My dad fell when he got up in the middle of the night to pee and nearly bled to death by the time he was discovered. He had a LifeAlert around his neck but didn’t think to use it.

    Feel free to laugh, I guess.

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 361 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.