Homophobia - Double Standards?

[AlterEgo]

Yes, and what I'm talking about is far more pertinent than "annoyance". Think the difference between using an insult and using a slur - why is one hate and one not?

Pedantry is dull, and derails the conversation. Can we actually get to the point?

It isn't pedantry to point out that you're using your own made up definition of what offence means! THAT is derailing the conversation. :roll:

I've not really made any point other than that nobody has a *right* to wake up in the morning and not be offended that day. I wasn't talking about people's identity - though I'd point out that my family has had an extensive history of their identity being attacked in Ireland, and were shot at - several times - yet they simply chose to be dignified and not to succumb to victim mentality. An aunt of mine was literally burned out of her house because of whipped up idiocy thanks to people like Paisley. I would not ever say that it is okay to denigrate another human being's identity. But it happens - so what you gonna do about it? Be a victim for ever?

 

[Railops]

what you gonna do about it? Be a victim for ever?

Victimisation is one hell of a growth industry, it's the new black, if you haven't been victimised on a daily basis you're missing out badly.

 

[Gutfright]

There is a difference between the casual use of the word 'respect' which we might use in the workplace, and the word 'respect' as pertaining to dignity or decency.

I'm getting at the latter.

How would you define disrespect then, and what in your view should happen to someone who disrespects another human being? Should the Old Bill come along and chuck 'em in the slammer?

 

[TheKnightWho]

It isn't pedantry to point out that you're using your own made up definition of what offence means! THAT is derailing the conversation. :roll:

I've not really made any point other than that nobody has a *right* to wake up in the morning and not be offended that day. I wasn't talking about people's identity - though I'd point out that my family has had an extensive history of their identity being attacked in Ireland, and were shot at - several times - yet they simply chose to be dignified and not to succumb to victim mentality. I would not ever say that it is okay to denigrate another human being's identity. But it happens - so what you gonna do about it? Be a victim for ever?

"made up definition"

No, I'm using a definition used by Papacharissi. An actual academic. Some of us have done a little more than looking at a dictionary and then declaring themselves right.

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/6/2/259.abstract

And you might not have been talking about people's identities, but that's exactly what is at stake here. Calling it a "victim mentality" just shows a staggering lack of empathy: congratulations at not being affected, but not everyone is like that. It's simply arrogant to say that everyone should just put up with being maltreated for no good reason.

 

[AlterEgo]

The dictionary is also descriptive and not prescriptive: otherwise academics could always point to the dictionary and go "look it's right here" when asking any question at all about a concept.

The dictionary is a pretty good place to start when you need the definition of a word though, rather than coming out in the middle of a debate with a separate definition. Academics define the question before they start.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Victimisation is one hell of a growth industry, it's the new black, if you haven't been victimised on a daily basis you're missing out badly.

And you're the champion of it. Remember that thread where you kept going on about how white men were victimised by that poster with the seesaw?

I'm all for giving people respect, but this hypocrisy is so low-hanging it's practically on the floor.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How would you define disrespect then, and what in your view should happen to someone who disrespects another human being? Should the Old Bill come along and chuck 'em in the slammer?

The article I've linked above is actually a really good place to start. Respect (which Papacharissi also calls civility) is about giving people a place in discussion. It's not the same as being rude to them, and she actually contrasts the two.

For example, if I call someone a mean name that's rudeness, but if I call them an ethnic slur that undermines their credibility as someone who is allowed to participate in the discussion at all, as it's an attack on their very identity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The dictionary is a pretty good place to start when you need the definition of a word though, rather than coming out in the middle of a debate with a separate definition. Academics define the question before they start.

Call it a good place to start, but don't keep shouting about it once a more extensive or contextually relevant definition is produced. The word 'respect' is immaterial here - the idea I'm conveying by the word is what counts, and I've now laid that out explicitly.

 

[NSEFAN]

And you might not have been talking about people's identities, but that's exactly what is at stake here. Calling it a "victim mentality" just shows a staggering lack of empathy: congratulations at not being affected, but not everyone is like that. It's simply arrogant to say that everyone should just put up with being maltreated for no good reason.

Indeed it is awful to be maltreated. So, what do we do about it?

 

[AlterEgo]

"made up definition"

No, I'm using a definition used by Papacharissi. An actual academic. Some of us have done a little more than looking at a dictionary and then declaring themselves right.

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/6/2/259.abstract

And you might not have been talking about people's identities, but that's exactly what is at stake here. Calling it a "victim mentality" just shows a staggering lack of empathy: congratulations at not being affected, but not everyone is like that. It's simply arrogant to say that everyone should just put up with being maltreated for no good reason.

It would have been helpful for you to have explained that before you called out people for not having the "correct" definition then, wouldn't it?

There's a subtle difference between being educated and intelligent.

Where have I said that people should be maltreated for no good reason? Nowhere.

Why don't you try coming from a family that was systematically discriminated against? Where their national flag was literally illegal? Where they were unable to secure anything other than lowly paid employment because of their religion and nationality? Where they were unable to vote or get housing? Where, if you were gay, you were physically or sexually abused by the Church? Where their message and protest was hijacked by people with darker agendas? Where, when they protested on the streets, and their friends were shot dead for no good reason, they were told by the government of the day that they were all terrorists and liars? Where their own communities were victimised by their own people with twisted ideas of what was glorious and right? Where they weren't able to leave their estate without permission from either a man in a balaclava or fatigues? Where they could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial? Where, on a daily basis, they were told they were unworthy, second class citizens?

Please don't lecture me about a victim mentality. My family strove as hard as anyone else and maintained their dignity. Offended, they were. Victims they were certainly not, and they never, ever moaned about it.

I much rather prefer their approach than pandering by milquetoasts.

A lot of people my age (30) could learn a lot of things from people in my family about coping with hate and identity attacks with dignity.

I don't wish to dismiss your opinion, which is equally as valid as mine, as we are all little more than a sum of our own experiences; I don't however agree that I am the one coming from a position of naivety.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It would have been helpful for you to have explained that before you called out people for not having the "correct" definition then, wouldn't it?

There's a subtle difference between being educated and intelligent.

Where have I said that people should be maltreated for no good reason? Nowhere.

Why don't you try coming from a family that was systematically discriminated against? Where their national flag was literally illegal? Where they were unable to secure anything other than lowly paid employment because of their religion and nationality? Where they were unable to vote or get housing? Where, if you were gay, you were physically or sexually abused by the Church? Where their message and protest was hijacked by people with darker agendas? Where, when they protested on the streets, and their friends were shot dead for no good reason, they were told by the government of the day that they were all terrorists and liars? Where their own communities were victimised by their own people with twisted ideas of what was glorious and right? Where they weren't able to leave their estate without permission from either a man in a balaclava or fatigues? Where they could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial? Where, on a daily basis, they were told they were unworthy, second class citizens?

Please don't lecture me about a victim mentality. My family strove as hard as anyone else and maintained their dignity. Offended, they were. Victims they were certainly not, and they never, ever moaned about it.

I much rather prefer their approach than pandering by milquetoasts.

A lot of people my age (30) could learn a lot of things from people in my family about coping with hate and identity attacks with dignity.

I don't wish to dismiss your opinion, which is equally as valid as mine, as we are all little more than a sum of our own experiences; I don't however agree that I am the one coming from a position of naivety.

I didn't wander in with no explanation as to why I was using the word: I tried to explain what I was getting at repeatedly. In response you resorted to the dictionary and accused me of being wrong: only then did I feel the need to actually get out a citation. If you want to accuse me of being unintelligent for not explaining myself, I can only say that the problem lies with you refusing to properly engage with what I was saying, because there was plenty of information there already.

And I don't dispute that your family went through hard times. Why does that make you the king of how everyone who is victimised should behave? Why do you assume everyone has the same mental strength as you? The same education as you? The same patience? The same ability to restrain themselves or comfort themselves from the pain? The same mental resilience?

That's the thing about sociology: personal anecdotes are great for raising awareness of issues, but they cannot be used to discount the experiences of others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed it is awful to be maltreated. So, what do we do about it?

Legal intolerance of direct hate speech is no bad thing - ultimately the ideas conveyed there are pure hatred directed at a particular person, and those people are not prevented from retaining their opinions or expressing them in a way that doesn't directly attack others.

However, that doesn't mean people won't be mistreated. Even if "You're a filthy [slur]!" is banned, the indirect statement "All [slur]s are criminals!" wouldn't be. To be honest, I disagree with banning such statements, but instead think we should limit where such things can be made: hence my support for banning protests outside abortion clinics.

 

[AlterEgo]

I didn't wander in with no explanation as to why I was using the word: I tried to explain what I was getting at repeatedly. In response you resorted to the dictionary and accused me of being wrong: only then did I feel the need to actually get out a citation. If you want to accuse me of being unintelligent for not explaining myself, I can only say that the problem lies with you refusing to properly engage with what I was saying, because there was plenty of information there already.

And I don't dispute that your family went through hard times. Why does that make you the king of how everyone who is victimised should behave? Why do you assume everyone has the same mental strength as you? The same education as you? The same patience? The same ability to restrain themselves or comfort themselves from the pain? The same mental resilience?

That's the thing about sociology: personal anecdotes are great for raising awareness of issues, but they cannot be used to discount the experiences of others.

Sorry, you asked me a specific question which I answered. That was the definition I was using. And indeed there was plenty of prior discussion where you might have been able to have gathered that information too, of course. So perhaps the failing to engage is on both sides here - but no hard feelings, these things happen on the Internet.

It doesn't make me the "King of how everyone who is victimised should behave". I'm recounting personal experiences that inform my point of view, which is really all any human being can do. Draw on carefully selected academics all you like - it's something of a pox of the Internet that we can all find an academic citation to fit our own point of view. We have all the time in the world to Google sociology lecturers; I can do that anytime and I'm sure I could find one with a similar viewpoint to mine. So what then?

My family are strong people. And not everyone else is so blessed. But that doesn't justify the restriction of free speech, or mean that people have any right to be shielded from being offended.

I'd reiterate that I abhor hate speech in all its forms, including that quoted in the OP about burning gay people. My point is that simply shutting down arguments with "that's wrong/illegal" isn't constructive. I'm against "safe spaces" for this reason.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It doesn't make me the "King of how everyone who is victimised should behave". I'm recounting personal experiences that inform my point of view, which is really all any human being can do. Draw on carefully selected academics all you like - it's something of a pox of the Internet that we can all find an academic citation to fit our own point of view. We have all the time in the world to Google sociology lecturers; I can do that anytime.

My family are strong people. And not everyone else is so blessed. But that doesn't justify the restriction of free speech, or mean that people have any right to be shielded from being offended.

I'd reiterate that I abhor hate speech in all its forms, including that quoted in the OP about burning gay people. My point is that simply shutting down arguments with "that's wrong/illegal" isn't constructive. I'm against "safe spaces" for this reason.

Carefully selected academics? So because the definition is inconvenient for you suddenly it's not credible? I really do despair. It's not a statistical survey - that criticism makes absolutely no sense. If you have a problem with the definition, produce an argument as to why it's wrong. The idea that all academic papers are equal and that the fact anyone can produce anything that supports their argument so we can just ignore any citation misunderstands how academia actually works.

What I'm a lot more curious about is evidence that suppressing hate speech makes it worse. And I don't mean individual examples of where ideas were suppressed and thrived - I mean how UK law is making hate speech worse.

 

[AlterEgo]

Carefully selected academics? So because the definition is inconvenient for you suddenly it's not credible? I really do despair. It's not a statistical survey - that criticism makes absolutely no sense. If you have a problem with the definition, produce an argument as to why it's wrong.

What I'm a lot more curious about is evidence that suppressing hate speech makes it worse. And I don't mean individual examples of where ideas were suppressed and thrived - I mean how UK law is making hate speech worse.

I can only speak from my own personal experiences in how people might constructively deal with hate, or personal attacks, or institutionalised racism. I can also produce a number of personal experiences where driving discussion underground, away from the mainstream, leads ultimately to more hate.

I sense they are certainly not going to satisfy you.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I can only speak from my own personal experiences in how people might constructively deal with hate, or personal attacks, or institutionalised racism. I can also produce a number of personal experiences where driving discussion underground, away from the mainstream, leads ultimately to more hate.

I sense they are certainly not going to satisfy you.

But I'm not convinced that people being thwarted in the mainstream works either. Legitimisation of ideas, as happened to UKIP with its 2015 election coverage, only bolstered support. That's an example of where something went from pub discussion to TV news practically overnight - support soared.

That's not to say UKIP are hate speech - what I'm saying is that mainstream coverage doesn't result in ideas going away just because a large number of people find them ridiculous.

 

[Gutfright]

As far as I can tell, we're all pretty much agreed that there shouldn't be a "right not to be offended". If I want to tell my neighbours that their newborn is the ugliest baby I've ever seen, they would certainly find that offensive but I shouldn't be arrested for it.

 

[NSEFAN]

Legal intolerance of direct hate speech is no bad thing - ultimately the ideas conveyed there are pure hatred directed at a particular person, and those people are not prevented from retaining their opinions or expressing them in a way that doesn't directly attack others.

However, that doesn't mean people won't be mistreated. Even if "You're a filthy [slur]!" is banned, the indirect statement "All [slur]s are criminals!" wouldn't be. To be honest, I disagree with banning such statements, but instead think we should limit where such things can be made: hence my support for banning protests outside abortion clinics.

Do you think anything can be done to stop people from being so hateful in the first place?

 

[J-2739]

Do you think anything can be done to stop people from being so hateful in the first place?

Education? Sure, it's not going to eliminate hate speech in the first place but as a generic rule, those who receive proper education are more likely to do better in an open society.

 

[AlterEgo]

But I'm not convinced that people being thwarted in the mainstream works either. Legitimisation of ideas, as happened to UKIP with its 2015 election coverage, only bolstered support. That's an example of where something went from pub discussion to TV news practically overnight - support soared.

That's not to say UKIP are hate speech - what I'm saying is that mainstream coverage doesn't result in ideas going away just because a large number of people find them ridiculous.

Conversely, I could tell you about the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act. Essentially, you could be arrested and interned indefinitely for daring to suggest that the Protestant state was evil and illegitimate and ought to be overthrown. Had a man stood up on a soapbox in Derry city centre and said that in the early 1960s, he would have been roundly criticised by Protestants while most Catholics would probably have steered clear.

The fact it was illegal drove all of that conversation into places like Republican Clubs - inhabited by a certain sort of person. It's that finely distilled hate, which existed in its own bubble, without challenge by moderate forces, which empowered that minority to commit actual, physical atrocities.

One of the things racists in 2016 like to point to is Oswald Mosley's "Rivers Of Blood" speech. It is borderline hate speech. Funnily enough, anti-racists also point to the speech and thoroughly discredit it. If something is so bad or undesirable an idea it can really only be exposed as such of it gets discussed by decent people with honourable agendas.

One of the reasons we've found ourselves in Brexit scenario is because Britain - for some years - has been unable to have an adult national debate about border control and immigration. Those who yell "racist, shut up" have been hoisted by their own petard.

 

[Harbornite]

One of the things racists in 2016 like to point to is Oswald Mosley's "Rivers Of Blood" speech. It is borderline hate speech. Funnily enough, anti-racists also point to the speech and thoroughly discredit it.

I'm not aware of this speech, do you mean Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech?

 

[PHILIPE]

Homophobia and certain types of racism are not necessarily meant to be grossly insulting or meant to cause offence although they very well might to some people. It is often just making fun of somebody because they are different and not due to hating the person. So why is everything termed as a hate crime and which has just become an obsession with the politically correct police. One has to draw a line though, there is no place for violence or extreme vile language being directed at anybody which is completely out of order. Talking about hate crime, one police force has decided that builders wolf whistling at passing women is a hate crime. Do they hate the women ?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not aware of this speech, do you mean Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech?

Bloody academics!

Yes.

Same hate, different chap.

 

[EM2]

Homophobia and certain types of racism are not necessarily meant to be grossly insulting or meant to cause offence although they very well might to some people. It is often just making fun of somebody because they are different and not due to hating the person.

So it's OK to make fun of someone if you don't actually hate them :roll:

 

[Harbornite]

certain types of racism

Which types?

 

[J-2739]

So it's OK to make fun of someone if you don't actually hate them :roll:

Banter, surely? (not your post, generic term)

I think some are missing my original point.

It's all part of freedom of speech. Different words mean different things to different people. So you'd like a limited speech zone like China or North Korea?

 

[PHILIPE]

So it's OK to make fun of someone if you don't actually hate them :roll:

I didn't say it was OK but just said it was making fun of them. You don't have to actually hate someone to make fun at them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which types?

There is racism that is nasty, vindictive and violent for which there is no place in society and there is racism that is again verbal, but mild-mannered, without hating but could be described as human nature.

 

[EM2]

Banter, surely? (not your post, generic term)

I think some are missing my original point.

Banter is defined as 'the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks'. That usually means that there are guidelines that generally everyone involved understands and that there is a line that you don't cross. It's never explicitly stated but everyone taking part usually knows where it is and how far they can 'push it'.
But unfortunately, 'banter' has been taken over as an excuse for people to be vicious and cruel to anyone they like, and just dismiss it as 'Oh, it's just banter'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...there is racism that is again verbal, but mild-mannered, without hating but could be described as human nature.

How is any form of racism human nature? No-one is born racist.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I didn't say it was OK but just said it was making fun of them. You don't have to actually hate someone to make fun at them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There is racism that is nasty, vindictive and violent for which there is no place in society and there is racism that is again verbal, but mild-mannered, without hating but could be described as human nature.

Yes, but it can contribute to dehumanising them. If the punchline is that someone is a woman or that someone is gay, then have a think about why you find that funny.

 

[PHILIPE]

Banter is defined as 'the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks'. That usually means that there are guidelines that generally everyone involved understands and that there is a line that you don't cross. It's never explicitly stated but everyone taking part usually knows where it is and how far they can 'push it'.
But unfortunately, 'banter' has been taken over as an excuse for people to be vicious and cruel to anyone they like, and just dismiss it as 'Oh, it's just banter'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How is any form of racism human nature? No-one is born racist.

Why do people do it then ? Not everybody is like that. It can be, to some people, human nature to direct remarks at people because they are different.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why do people do it then ? Not everybody is like that. It can be, to some people, human nature to direct remarks at people because they are different.

Learned behaviour. Nurture.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . .
However I've noticed a double standard on this subject with regard to homophobia. This weekend, the footballer Andre Gray has been charged over tweets sent in 2012 of an alleged homophobic nature. Yet Brian Souter has not been challenged over his funding of "gay cure" organizations and his general beliefs which in my opinion have no place in the 21st century.

. . .

So, does anyone else find this double standard rather incongruous?

I'm completely at a loss to understand who you are alleging practices "double standards", and unfortunately, I'm not aware of the remarks the two individuals have made, so I can't comment on that.

But based on your brief 5 words "Andre Gray has been charged", I wonder if you are suggesting that it is the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service who are operating "double standards". Well, just in case your observation of "double standards" is attached to either or both of them, I will say this to you:-

1. If it is a criminal offence that the 2 people have commited, then are you sure that they have both been reported to the Police for investigation?

2. If they have, but one has not been pursued and the other has, then do you know whether it is the Police of the CPS who have dropped the allegation? Whichever it is, then the injured party still has options -

3. The injured party (which can include a third party which is injured or otherwise suffers as a consequence of the offence), can begin a Private Prosecution of the offence themselves.

4. Additionally, or alternatively, the injured party dissatisfied with the Police or the CPS who declined to prosecute the offence, can bring an action against either the Police or the CPS.

5. If no complaint has been made, then no action will be taken, even for something as simple as a Public Order Offence, which can give offence simply by perceiving what was said or done.

6. But if it is a Civil loss, even a consequential loss, or an injury to reputation or standing in society, then there is no question of having to involve the Police or the CPS. The injured party can simply make their claim for damages and or an injunction to stop the offensive action.

I hope some of this might help you to clarify for me who you think has operated under "double standards".

 

[Gutfright]

Seeing as this thread is about homophobia, I wonder how people here would react if they were on a train when they heard some football fans having the following conversation:

"Arsenal are just gay this season"
"Yeah, their defence are playing like a bunch of poofs"
"That Koscielny is such a faggot, he needs to man up"

Would you tell the police? Lecture the football fans about their lack of sensitivity? Or shrug your shoulders and let 'em get on with it?