Sexism, god help us (2 Viewers)

[Unicron]

Yeah but that should be balanced against the likelihood of these men then going on to commit violence against a woman and whether or not Blanc is the person who planted this idea in their heads. Even if it can be proven that Blanc is responsible, is 'the big boy told me to do it' a legitimate defence?
There's no doubt that violence against women is a problem but I really don't think letting this guy in is going to further that problem nor will barring him solve the problem, at least not in any meaningful way.



Is that not allowing law to be dictated by the mob? At which stage 'law' loses its meaning.

Someone could nominate him for that one-way trip to Mars.

I'd describe it as massaging the law to allow something good to be done for once.

 

[nooleen]

it's not massaging the law, the law specifically provides for it

 

[hugh]

I don't accept the free speech argument as this guy is not coming here to take part in some sort of debate where his views can be challenged. He's coming here to work and that work seems to consist of charging people extortionate amounts of money to listen to him indulge in misogynistic hate speech. Presumably it is at the discretion of the state as to whether a permit to carry out said "work" is granted or not so this seems like a pretty good example of a case where it should not be.

I signed the petition.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

you seem to think violent behaviour occurs in a vacuum. do you not understand what 'incitement' means?

I could equally claim that you seem to think that all attendees of this 'bootcamp' will take to the streets and set upon the first woman they come across but that would be untrue and unfair.
I think I've demonstrated an ample understanding of 'incitement', the difference of opinion lies in how the law should interpret what is and isn't incitement.

I'd describe it as massaging the law to allow something good to be done for once.

Massaging the law? Come on, justice is supposed to be blind, to make it otherwise would be a huge and horrific misstep.

it's not massaging the law, the law specifically provides for it

The law provides for prosecution, not preemptive censorship.

I don't accept the free speech argument as this guy is not coming here to take part in some sort of debate where his views can be challenged. He's coming here to work and that work seems to consist of charging people extortionate amounts of money to listen to him indulge in misogynistic hate speech. Presumably it is at the discretion of the state as to whether a permit to carry out said "work" is granted or not so this seems like a pretty good example of a case where it should not be.

I signed the petition.

Free speech is not about the right to debate, it's about being allowed to express an opinion. While I believe a speaker should be willing to engage in debate they are not obliged to do so just as we are not forced to listen to what they say.
It's absolutely at the states discretion as to whether or not he's allowed enter, I would just rather that he's not refused entry because he may say despicable things.

 

[nooleen]

I could equally claim that you seem to think that all attendees of this 'bootcamp' will take to the streets and set upon the first woman they come across but that would be untrue and unfair.

i don't follow how that's an equal claim. as a response to your claim that 'only violent people are violent' therefore advocating violence is a non-issue, i said violence doesn't occur in isolation. you're still refusing to acknowledge any nuance.

I think I've demonstrated an ample understanding of 'incitement', the difference of opinion lies in how the law should interpret what is and isn't incitement.

i posted a clear explanation directly from the irish statute book of what's covered by incitement.

The law provides for prosecution, not preemptive censorship.

actually the law also allows for exclusion based on previous conduct.

 

[rettucs]

TIf was to say to you rob a bank would you do it ? The answer is no because you have the ability to think for yourself.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to give a talk entitled, 'how to rob a bank and get away with it' to a roomful of people, I think its safe to assume that someone in that room intends robbing a bank.

 

[hugh]

Free speech is not about the right to debate, it's about being allowed to express an opinion. While I believe a speaker should be willing to engage in debate they are not obliged to do so just as we are not forced to listen to what they say.

He's not expressing an opinion, he's providing instruction as to how to engage in sexual harassment. He not proposing ideas either, unless the notion that one should walk down a Japanese street, grab a woman and shove her face onto your crotch somehow constitutes an "idea". This is clearly not the kind of thing that the spirit of the concept of freedom of speech was designed to cover. And anyway, freedom of speech is commonly restricted in all sorts of ways, both formal and informal, so the idea that there is some sort of inviolable principle at stake here and the whole of edifice of western civilisation will come tumbling down if this guy's "right" to express himself is somehow curtailed is ludicrous.

It's absolutely at the states discretion as to whether or not he's allowed enter, I would just rather that he's not refused entry because he may say despicable things.

I'd rather that the original solution proposed (i.e. that someone just beats the shit of him when he gets here) was viable but I don't think it is, so I'm absolutely fine with this one.

 

[Unicron]

Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to give a talk entitled, 'how to rob a bank and get away with it' to a roomful of people, I think its safe to assume that someone in that room intends robbing a bank.

I am both a chronically single man and someone who doesn't know how to rob a bank, if offered the choice of going to one of those 2 seminars I I'd definitely go to the bank robbing one first. But I probably wouldn't rob a bank after.

 

[ann post]

what do you mean?

I was having fun with conjecture.

 

[egg_]

This is an interesting thread, it really is. Between Egg bumbling about ...

Haha! How did you get to be the grown up in all this?

 

[hydromancer]

Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to give a talk entitled, 'how to rob a bank and get away with it' to a roomful of people, I think its safe to assume that someone in that room intends robbing a bank.

I was just referring to the issue of censorship in general

 

[snakybus]

Haha! How did you get to be the grown up in all this?

Me? Grown up? I like the sound of that.

 

[hydromancer]

Anyway maybe I am wrong

 

[Cormcolash]

The thing is why should people act on his words or advice at all ? If was to say to you rob a bank would you do it ?

Which bank? What's the plan? Get in quick, out quick, getaway driver? Or do we rent the building the next door, tunnel into the vaults, and get all the loot at night when nobody's around? Or do we go in, build ourselves a fake wall to hide behind in the vault, and then walk out in broad daylight with no-one any the wiser?
Who's the inside man? A woman? Fuck that, this plan is doomed.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

i don't follow how that's an equal claim. as a response to your claim that 'only violent people are violent' therefore advocating violence is a non-issue, i said violence doesn't occur in isolation. you're still refusing to acknowledge any nuance.


i posted a clear explanation directly from the irish statute book of what's covered by incitement.


actually the law also allows for exclusion based on previous conduct.

My claim is that people who are prone to violence will be so regardless of whether or not Blanc (or anyone else for that matter) tells them to be so. Therefore, banning an individual from the state will only have a negligible, if any, effect while simultaneously setting an ugly precedent.
And of course violence doesn't happen in a vacuum, there are any number of reasons for it, I would have thought that was so evident as to not need stating.

As I'm sure you're aware we live under a common law system where the law is not fixed but instead open to interpretation. I believe, in the case of free speech, that that interpretation should be so loose as to allow the greatest extent of free speech. Following on from that incitement to violence should only be judged an offence when that threat of violence is immediate.

I obviously missed the part that allows for exclusion. Regardless, my point that just because something can be done doesn't always mean it should still stands.

He's not expressing an opinion, he's providing instruction as to how to engage in sexual harassment. He not proposing ideas either, unless the notion that one should walk down a Japanese street, grab a woman and shove her face onto your crotch somehow constitutes an "idea". This is clearly not the kind of thing that the spirit of the concept of freedom of speech was designed to cover. And anyway, freedom of speech is commonly restricted in all sorts of ways, both formal and informal, so the idea that there is some sort of inviolable principle at stake here and the whole of edifice of western civilisation will come tumbling down if this guy's "right" to express himself is somehow curtailed is ludicrous.



I'd rather that the original solution proposed (i.e. that someone just beats the shit of him when he gets here) was viable but I don't think it is, so I'm absolutely fine with this one.

Opinion should, and generally does, extend to instruction. Below is a link to instructions on how to remove a water meter (an illegal act), should this also be illegal?

Comments

An idea is, in essence, a thought. Just because this thought is not very good or desirable doesn't mean its not an idea.

Its exactly what the concept of free speech is- the right of an individual to put forth ideas that we find reprehensible. Free speech means nothing if its not available to all.

Edit: Things dont generally 'come tumbling down', it's usually a slow process of erosion, I don't think we should encourage anything that leads to erosion of our rights.

 

[nooleen]

free speech doesn't mean the right to do whatever you want

a lot of people have trouble with that for some reason

 

[nooleen]

As I'm sure you're aware we live under a common law system where the law is not fixed but instead open to interpretation.

the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is statutory law

Edit: Things dont generally 'come tumbling down', it's usually a slow process of erosion, I don't think we should encourage anything that leads to erosion of our rights.

yeah, and people don't hear the suggestion of violence and go out and deck someone; it's a process of social conditioning that creates conditions where violence is more acceptable.
such as having some douchebag promoting choking as a pickup technique.

 

[rettucs]

Opinion should, and generally does, extend to instruction. Below is a link to instructions on how to remove a water meter (an illegal act), should this also be illegal?

please explain how removing a water meter poses a threat or danger to someone, or compromises their safety or rights.

you're missing the fundamental point that everyone with an opposing view to yours is making.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is statutory law


yeah, and people don't hear the suggestion of violence and go out and deck someone; it's a process of social conditioning that creates conditions where violence is more acceptable.
such as having some douchebag promoting choking as a pickup technique.

Statutory law is still open to interpretation.

'...if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred'

Here '...having regard to all the circumstances...' would presumably be open to interpretation.

Social conditioning such as video games that allow the murder of prostitutes? Books that describe violence in explicit detail? Movies that show beheadings, rape, murder, whatever else you please to think of? Where do we stop?

please explain how removing a water meter poses a threat or danger to someone, or compromises their safety or rights.

you're missing the fundamental point that everyone with an opposing view to yours is making.

The original point, as I read it, was that this guy is providing instruction as to illegal acts therefore he should be punished, that is what my reply was intended to address.
What point am I missing? I am not arguing that Blanc is not advocating violence just that this advocation to violence is not an immediate threat to someone and so should not be banned.

 

[Squiggle]

My claim is that people who are prone to violence will be so regardless of whether or not Blanc (or anyone else for that matter) tells them to be so. Therefore, banning an individual from the state will only have a negligible, if any, effect while simultaneously setting an ugly precedent.

This assumes that everyone is reasonable, rational and capable of independently determining right from wrong... and that's a very dangerous assumption.

The message that No doesn't really mean No, that it just means the female is playing hard to get, or wants more convincing, isn't new and some otherwise lovely guys of my acquaintance have had to be abruptly disabused of it over the years... "Oh, you really meant no?!"

Not all rapists, or perpetrators of violence against women (or children, or other men) are people who were obviously "prone to violence". Believing that they are is part of the problem. Judges letting men off because they're lovely guys who just lost control of themselves for whatever reason...

It's ok to commit sexual assault, as long as you don't make a habit of it, or went to the right school, or live in the right area, or have a respectable (ha) career? And it's ok to allow glamorisation of sexual violence as long as everyone can be assumed to know that nobody means it's ok?