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 ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 361 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34362

    Unseen
    Participant

    So, do subgroups (ethnic groups, gays, handicapped folks) who complain more or who have advocates effectively complaining for them get legal protection? The ole “It’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease” syndrome.

    #34363

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    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!

    Oh, those fricken evil SJWs.

    No, wait, I’m sounding hyperbolic there.

    #34366

    Kristina
    Participant

    Hypothetically, everyone is supposed to have the same protections and rights save for when there are bona fide exemptions. Where there is an omission or an issue of systemic inequity, advocacy is usually required to have it rectified.

    It’s not so much that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but rather the squeaky wheel gets the same level of maintenance and care as the other wheels.

    #34367

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It’s not so much that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but rather the squeaky wheel gets the same level of maintenance and care as the other wheels.

    I think that’s a good point.  The reason the wheel is squeaky is because it needs maintenance and care.

    #34368

    Davis
    Moderator

    Indeed Jake. I was saying “if” it were the case there was a systematic egregious hate campaign against the elderly in the same way minorities and LGTBQ+ faced it then I would say, by all means make them a protected class. I am unaware of any movement to oppress the elderly as there are against minorities and other protected classes. Unseen if you know of one please point it out. Jake was right that there are laws to protect the elderly and they likely should be stronger (I wish they were). If they needed to be a protected class then they should be, until then, far more social services should be offered to the elderly, higher pensions and more efforts made to address their concerns about their personal health, safety and lack of job opportunities. I don’t see why any of this should be controversial. If they were significantly held back, smeared, verbally and even physically threatened then yeah grossly dehumanising speech should be met with a penalty.

    Enconginator, I’m tiring of your strawman approach to attacking hate speech laws. You are making them seem so broad that trivial insults would be met with swift and harsh justice. Please stop being so ridiculous. Hate laws don’t work that way. You’re listing off conservative talking points meant to induce fear in the approaching “horror” of hate speech laws when they have only been used in countries to protect vulnerable marginalised people from the most egregious dehumanising and threatening speech.

    #34372

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Davis, you beat me to the punch in terms of Enco’s straw dogs. He is beating the hell out of each and every one.
    The US supreme court had a clear and present danger standard at one point (meaning hate speech that might cause imminent harm could be proscribed) That changed to I forgot the critical language but it was not much of a difference from prior standard. Essentially there is a great deal of protection in USA for hate speech. The purported rationale of free speech taking precedence over hate speech ought to balance the interests. A well drafted law or police action against the most virulent and historical slander will not have a chilling effect on other speech. I think some may argue that if you stymie the virulent hate it makes the haters more determined to get their message out. I am more than willing to live with that possibility particularly when contemplating the modern dynamics of information transmission. The government should have the power to stop the nastiest hate groups from broadcasting their message. Further the government should have the right and duty to protect individuals who are being victimized by hate speech.

    I don’t mean atheists taking shit for being atheists. I don’t mean fat people being teased cuz of their weight. I don’t mean sensitive people who react badly to what would be no big deal for the majority. When we examine history and recognize the depth of depravity and cruelty that has been perpetrated and continues to be perpetrated and whose only M.O. is hate speech we ought to reflect and change things. Again i am reminded of the laws against marijuana. They were fucking stupid and the majority was taken in by the propaganda. This issue is not that difficult.

    #34373

    Unseen
    Participant

    Indeed Jake. I was saying “if” it were the case there was a systematic egregious hate campaign against the elderly in the same way minorities and LGTBQ+ faced it then I would say, by all means make them a protected class. I am unaware of any movement to oppress the elderly as there are against minorities and other protected classes. Unseen if you know of one please point it out.

    But you don’t need active hatred for a class to need protection. Take womankind for example that’s somewhat parallel to the plight of the elderly. Aside from the tiny category of so-called “incels,” the biggest problem women have had hasn’t been active hatred (“the only good woman is a dead woman”) but rather the problem of not being taken seriously, which is entirely different from hate. Am I wrong? This is exactly what the elderly suffer from.

    In the past, the elders were revered, their experiences valued, their wisdom sought. However somewhere along the way one of the few positives an elder had to look forward to, being taken seriously, got lost as they became objects of ridicule. Take away the reverence elders once enjoyed and what’s left? I can tall you: arthritis, failing organs, and growing more and more unattractive. Elders, like the handicapped, remind us of our frailty and mortality and so we don’t want to think about them.

    Jake was right that there are laws to protect the elderly and they likely should be stronger (I wish they were). If they needed to be a protected class then they should be, until then, far more social services should be offered to the elderly, higher pensions and more efforts made to address their concerns about their personal health, safety and lack of job opportunities.

    But as I mentioned above, while all those problems are important, the one way society hurts elders most is by dismissing and sidelining them because, the impression is, they have little to contribute.

    I don’t see why any of this should be controversial. If they were significantly held back, smeared, verbally and even physically threatened then yeah grossly dehumanising speech should be met with a penalty.

    You are so wrapped up in the problems of the LGBTQ+ that you are blind to other ways people may be in need of help and protection.

    #34383

    Glen D
    Participant

    @kristina

    “Hypothetically, everyone is supposed to have the same protections and rights save for when there are bona fide exemptions.”

    Oh absolutely! Yet even in my own well developed society and functioning democracy(Australia) this is rarely the case.  Although Oz does have some robust Social Justice policies (in health, education and welfare)

    Gay marriage was finally legalised  in 2017.  This means that same sex couples now enjoy the same protection under the law as hetero couples.  This a huge deal.  I’m aware because my sis is gay and had a partner for many years. Her partner died .  Sis was not recognised as a spouse. She and her partner had the foresight to make very detailed wills. Had that not been the case, my sister would have had an extremely hard time financially, as well as the desolation of losing her partner

    Each of my parents died in care.  My father at age 87 after years of dementia and confused misery.  My mother died last year, at age 92.  She died by refusing any but palliative care, quietly , gently , with dignity. She was surrounded by her family. I can think of a lot worse ways to die..

    “You are so wrapped up in the problems of the LGBTQ+ that you are blind to other ways people may be in need of help and protection.”

    WOT? How very judgemental of you.  I don’t remember having an election.   So pray tell, who put you in charge of deciding about what people should or should not care?

    We humans are innately self interested. We tend to focus about things which effect us.  Today my concerns are how much longer I will be able to drive, how much longer will I be able to stay in my own home. Whether I will develop arteriosclerosis and become demented in my mid 70’s (I’m 73). Both my father  and grandfather developed that horrible condition, and died from it.

    As it turns out, I do not allow others to determine my moral values nor to decide about what I should care.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by  Glen D.
    #34386

    Davis
    Moderator

    Unseen I said more should be done to protect the elderly and gave some examples of what should be done what more do you want? However they do not need the same kinds of protections from hate speech because they aren’t dehumanised in the way minorities and LGTBQ+ people are. In any case you seem to be against hate speech laws so why would it matter? Neither group would be protected from hate speech laws if you had your way. Could you please elucidate what your solution would be to protecting the elderly, minorities and LGTBQ+ people without hate speech laws and how you would deal with the particular problems of all three groups ensuring equality, safety, ending discrimination and drastically reducing violence against them?

    #34407

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    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

    You are right, it is horrible when things like that happen and in real life it isn’t funny.

    It also wasn’t funny when my Grandma had a vericose vein to break in her bed and the blood soaked the sheets.  We were all shocked hearing her make light of it: ” I bet you think it’s my ‘time of the month,’ huh?”

    The real butt of the joke should be the producers of the commercial, who probably should have got a feel for reactions before releasing the commercial.

    #34408

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    Since South Carolina in the U.S. doesn’t have a State “hate crime” or “hate speech” law, the City of Columbia, along with Greenville and Charleston, have their own “hate” ordinances.  Here is some of the results:

    Black Homeless People Among The First Arrested Under Columbia’s New Hate Speech Law
    https://www.postandcourier.com/news/black-homeless-people-among-the-first-arrested-under-columbias-new-hate-speech-law/article_f107d58c-eba4-11ea-ba4b-4792a05e4b1e.html

    In at least one instance, it was law enforcers and medical personnel who were the targets of the “hate speech” and prompted the arrest.

    In another instance, there was no evident racism, just a liquor store employee mad at a local politician for encouraging loiterers and trespassers by feeding them pizza.

    SC Liquor Store Worker Arrested After Spat Where He Called A Black Politician A ‘Donkey’
    https://www.postandcourier.com/news/sc-liquor-store-worker-arrested-after-spat-where-he-called-black-politician-a-donkey/article_2b1c30b6-b634-11ea-bafa-2ffaa5612390.html

    Now, Mr. El-Ammouri should have just called the police to deal with the loiterers, tresspassers, and Ms. Neal instead of confronting them, but that big mistake aside, “donkey” isn’t a racist term at all.

    For our foreign members, In the U.S., the mascot/spirit animal for the Democratic Party is the donkey and the Republican Party equivalent is the elephant.  Maybe Mr. El-Ammouri just assumed Ms. Neal was a Democratic Party apparatchik.

    Oh, but these city do-gooders in Columbia just mean so well. /sarcasm

    #34409

    Unseen
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers, Since South Carolina in the U.S. doesn’t have a State “hate crime” or “hate speech” law, the City of Columbia, along with Greenville and Charleston, have their own “hate” ordinances. Here is some of the results: Black Homeless People Among The First Arrested Under Columbia’s New Hate Speech Law https://www.postandcourier.com/news/black-homeless-people-among-the-first-arrested-under-columbias-new-hate-speech-law/article_f107d58c-eba4-11ea-ba4b-4792a05e4b1e.html In at least one instance, it was law enforcers and medical personnel who were the targets of the “hate speech” and prompted the arrest. In another instance, there was no evident racism, just a liquor store employee mad at a local politician for encouraging loiterers and trespassers by feeding them pizza. SC Liquor Store Worker Arrested After Spat Where He Called A Black Politician A ‘Donkey’ https://www.postandcourier.com/news/sc-liquor-store-worker-arrested-after-spat-where-he-called-black-politician-a-donkey/article_2b1c30b6-b634-11ea-bafa-2ffaa5612390.html Now, Mr. El-Ammouri should have just called the police to deal with the loiterers, tresspassers, and Ms. Neal instead of confronting them, but that big mistake aside, “donkey” isn’t a racist term at all. For our foreign members, In the U.S., the mascot/spirit animal for the Democratic Party is the donkey and the Republican Party equivalent is the elephant. Maybe Mr. El-Ammouri just assumed Ms. Neal was a Democratic Party apparatchik. Oh, but these city do-gooders in Columbia just mean so well. /sarcasm

    I wonder if calling police “pigs” is a hate crime under those laws?

    #34410

    Kristina
    Participant

    Black Homeless People Among The First Arrested Under Columbia’s New Hate Speech Law

    [snip]

    SC Liquor Store Worker Arrested After Spat Where He Called A Black Politician A ‘Donkey’

    The first one might be troubling specifically regarding free speech*, but it’s difficult to say. I can’t read that article because it’s behind a paywall. The only other articles I can find are very poorly written. They don’t say what the law in question is, how it’s applied or what the individuals were actually charged with. I can’t find the text of the actual legislation (or what that legislation even is).

    In the second incident, the man–Joe Elamouri–was charged with assault. There were claims he used racial slurs in addition to calling the person a donkey. I don’t know that this was ever substantiated. I also am not sure any of this factors into his assault charge.

    *It is more troubling if a law appears to be disproportionately applied to specific segments of society.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by  Kristina.
    #34431

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen I said more should be done to protect the elderly and gave some examples of what should be done what more do you want? However they do not need the same kinds of protections from hate speech because they aren’t dehumanised in the way minorities and LGTBQ+ people are.

    Tell us that when you drift into your 70’s and start noticing what people say and how they behave and notice how it makes you feel.

    In any case you seem to be against hate speech laws

    What makes you describe my view in such a sweepingly unnuanced way? As I typically do, I look for and find inconsistencies, exceptions, dysfunctions. For example, if you write a law requiring anyone anyone to conduct normal business with whoever walks in the door, you have to accept all the different ways they would then be applied in a consistent manner. The Christian sculptor who doesn’t want to sculpt Satan with a boy on one knee and a girl on the other has to sculpt Satan,

    Could you please elucidate what your solution would be to protecting the elderly, minorities and LGTBQ+ people without hate speech laws and how you would deal with the particular problems of all three groups ensuring equality, safety, ending discrimination and drastically reducing violence against them?

    I am not against such laws per se. I do want laws that (a) anyone can understand and apply without the assistance of an attorney and (b) which can be applied consistently without favoring one group or another, and (c) only when a criminal law is actually the best way to handle the problem. There’s this entirely other kind of law, for example, called tort law. Tort law has certain advantages over criminal law. First, the burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” which is an easier burden than criminal law’s “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Second, unlike criminal law which has fairly rigidly defined and limited consequences including prison time and/or cash penalties, in tort law the penalty is in cash with low limit. It’s whatever a sympathetic jury feels is just, which often means cash penalties far beyond those in criminal litigation. Third, you don’t have to convince a prosecutor to prosecute a case Instead you hire an attorney, who will take it if s/he feels you have a winnable case.

    #34436

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, your understanding of law is not half bad for a nonlawyer.

    I have dim recollection of first yr law school class in torts. First class and prof writes torts on chalk board-says it comes from french word, tortus meaning twisting i think. But tort law is civil law and yes it is all about money damages. You are correct about the burden of proof but in cases of fraud the burden of proof is higher than ordinary torts law. Not sure what you mean by low limit damages-there is in some cases a limitation imposed on damages under tort reform laws but generally the damages that can be awarded are enormalous. Most states also have limitations on the amount attorneys can take in contingency cases. If an attorney takes your claim on a contingency basis it means she thinks it is a winner. BTW in claims that are settled…everyday shake and bake personal injury claims…the standard one third contingency is excessive when settled without filing suit. I used to do em for 25 percent which is still a lot.

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 361 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.