Sexism, god help us (1 Viewer)

[nooleen]

'...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.

congrats, you found a phrase that allows for circumstance. which circumstance is it that makes you think giving instruction to choke women isn't intended or likely to stir up hatred?

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?

how about with real life examples, such as video of this guy actually choking women.

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.

you're missing that the law considers this actionable.

edit: you're also missing that that the point of this particular law is to prevent somebody from compromising the safety or rights of others, rather than to censor his speech

 

[hugh]

What Squiggle said .....

Also, the point of not allowing him to speak is not neccessarily to prevent whatever direct consequences might arise from him speaking but to send a message that what he is saying is not acceptable. That's the important part.

 

[hermie]

Interesting read here for anyone with a bit of time on their hands. Mumsnet bashing thread, full of machismo suddenly turns when a particularly revolting post prompts all the lads to get serious and call out the creep
http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=57076

 

[nooleen]

good stuff

although this little doozy from someone on the 'sound' side seems to have passed by unnoticed

"I've aroused a sleeping partner before and wouldn't consider that sexual abuse."

ermmmmmm

wut

i certainly wouldn't start fiddling with someone in their sleep, for fuck's sake, creepy as fuck

 

[hydromancer]

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.

My point was people can think and decide for themselves if I write an article that says whatever band is shit and you read it then you don't have to agree with me you can form your own opinion

 

[hermie]

good stuff

although this little doozy from someone on the 'sound' side seems to have passed by unnoticed

"I've aroused a sleeping partner before and wouldn't consider that sexual abuse."

ermmmmmm

wut

i certainly wouldn't start fiddling with someone in their sleep, for fuck's sake, creepy as fuck

Yeah bit weird alright. Go for a bit of a snuggle. If they wake up, read the signs from there. Otherwise don't go groping.

 

[hydromancer]

good stuff

although this little doozy from someone on the 'sound' side seems to have passed by unnoticed

"I've aroused a sleeping partner before and wouldn't consider that sexual abuse."

ermmmmmm

wut

i certainly wouldn't start fiddling with someone in their sleep, for fuck's sake, creepy as fuck

This is just people having sex in the morning I think they could probably be even liveing/sleeping together full time

 

[nooleen]

yeah i don't think the time of day or your living situation has anything to do with permission to grope someone who's unconscious

 

[hydromancer]

So something like this is impermissible ?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[hydromancer]

Besides all they wrote was "I aroused a sleeping partner" you are the one using terms like grope creepy permission etc. I think you are maybe making a bit of an unjustified leap there about that event or relationship

 

[nooleen]

what do you think 'arouse' means? waved coffee under their nose?
how do you give permission in your sleep?

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

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?

I think it would be wrong, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to assume an individual is not rational, reasonable and capable of distingushing right from wrong. Are we to be treated as adults or children?
There are plenty of things out there that could be construed as glamorising sexual violence, should everything that might give that impression be banned?

congrats, you found a phrase that allows for circumstance. which circumstance is it that makes you think giving instruction to choke women isn't intended or likely to stir up hatred?


how about with real life examples, such as video of this guy actually choking women.



you're missing that the law considers this actionable.

edit: you're also missing that that the point of this particular law is to prevent somebody from compromising the safety or rights of others, rather than to censor his speech

You suggested that statutory laws are fixed, I pointed out that they're not, the sarcasm is unneeded.
The circumstance would presumably be context. The video shows Blanc telling a story of what he got up to in Tokyo, he's laughing and the audience are laughing, both of which would suggest it's meant as a joke and is treated as such. Is it a good joke? No, it's abysmal. Is it incitement to hatred? Given the circumstances/context I would say no, you obviously disagree. Such is life.

Again, I'm sure theres no end of videos out there of men abusing women, are we to try ban all them too?

The law considers it actionable when the act occurs, not that the act may occur.

Again, I don't believe that Blanc's actions up to this point compromise the safety of others in any substantial way, or at least not in a substantial enough way to warrant denying him a visa.

What Squiggle said .....

Also, the point of not allowing him to speak is not neccessarily to prevent whatever direct consequences might arise from him speaking but to send a message that what he is saying is not acceptable. That's the important part.

Who is deciding what's acceptable? Who is sending this message? A load of people on the internet or the government?
If the former- do you really think mob rule is a desirable thing?
If the latter- given this states history of banning 'unacceptable' works do you really think we should look to retread that course?

 

[nooleen]

I think it would be wrong, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to assume an individual is not rational, reasonable and capable of distingushing right from wrong.

evidence to the contrary such as video of a person choking women?

You suggested that statutory laws are fixed, I pointed out that they're not

yes they are.

The circumstance would presumably be context. The video shows Blanc telling a story of what he got up to in Tokyo, he's laughing and the audience are laughing, both of which would suggest it's meant as a joke and is treated as such. Is it a good joke? No, it's abysmal. Is it incitement to hatred? Given the circumstances/context I would say no, you obviously disagree. Such is life.

the video shows him going around, grabbing women by the throat.

Again, I'm sure theres no end of videos out there of men abusing women, are we to try ban all them too?

if they want to do a tour of public talks on how to abuse women - yes, obviously.

The law considers it actionable when the act occurs, not that the act may occur.

no it doesn't. read the act. it's specifically about incitement.

Who is deciding what's acceptable? Who is sending this message? A load of people on the internet or the government?
If the former- do you really think mob rule is a desirable thing?
If the latter- given this states history of banning 'unacceptable' works do you really think we should look to retread that course?

you're still missing the distinction between art/literature and incitement of violence.

 

[Cormcolash]

My point was people can think and decide for themselves if I write an article that says whatever band is shit and you read it then you don't have to agree with me you can form your own opinion

Is the article about U2? Or Bob Geldolf? Aren't they both shit? Neither of them? Then which band is shit again?
Actually, what kind of music do Julien Blanc play? Sounds like it might Electro, going by the name?

 

[hydromancer]

what do you think 'arouse' means? waved coffee under their nose?
how do you give permission in your sleep?

arouse
əˈraʊz/
verb

1. 1.
   evoke or awaken (a feeling, emotion, or response).
   "something about the man aroused the guard's suspicions"
   synonyms: cause, induce, prompt, set off, trigger, stir up, inspire, call forth,call/bring into being, draw forth, bring out, excite, evoke, pique, whet,stir, engender, generate, kindle, fire, touch off, spark off, provoke,foster, whip up, sow the seeds of;
   literaryenkindle
   "they had aroused his hostility and suspicion"
2. 2.
   awaken (someone) from sleep.
   "she had been aroused from deep slumber"
   synonyms: wake, wake up, waken, awaken, bring to, bring around, rouse;
   informalknock up
   "she was aroused from her sleep by her mother"

There are some good definitions there people do that sort thing in relationships it can maybe even be a healthy and romantic thing. Of course abusive relationships do definitely exist and also rape can happen in a relationship I wouldn't try to deny or undermine that but in this instance especially with so little info I wouldn't myself necessarily reach the conclusion that something negative or non consensual happened.

 

[nooleen]

it's entirely obvious that it wasn't those definitions of arouse that the poster was referring to

I still haven't been answered... if you grab your GF's arse or tits while she sleeps is it sexual abuse?

I wouldn't have thought so. I've aroused a sleeping partner before and wouldn't consider that sexual abuse.

I wouldn't myself necessarily reach the conclusion that something negative or non consensual happened.

an unconscious person can't give consent

 

[hydromancer]

it's entirely obvious that it wasn't those definitions of arouse that the poster was referring to




an unconscious person can't give consent

Really why is it not obvious that those definitions used were not meant they are the literal meaning of the word

 

[nooleen]

because it's a response to a question about grabbing somebody sexually while they're asleep

 

[hydromancer]

Do you know these people by they way or even anything about there relationship ?

 

[nooleen]

just that one of them touched the other sexually while unconscious