Sexism, god help us (1 Viewer)

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

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


yes they are.


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


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


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


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

I'm not referring to Blanc specifically here, rather the broader understanding of the word individual.

Surely the language used in the statute demonstrates that it's open to interpretation?
"if the... words... are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred."
Firstly it gives leeway via 'are intended... to stir up hatred'. Can it be conclusively proven that Blanc set out with the intent to stir hatred?
Secondly, '...having regard to all the circumstances...' indicates that the circumstances surrounding the alleged event are to be taken into account. So judge A (me) decides that the circumstances mean it's not likely to stir up hatred and a charge of incitement to hatred is not warranted. Meanwhile, judge B (you) decides that the circumstances are likely to stir hatred and prosecution follows.
The law is not worded tightly enough to be unequivocal and so it can and will be interpreted differently by different people.

I obviously watched the wrong video initially. Having since seen the video of him walking around pushing girls to his crotch I have to say I'm even more disgusted than I was on reading of it. However, disgusting as it is I don't think it right to deny him entry to Ireland on the basis of the video.

The purpose of his act is not to show how to abuse women, its manipulation of women (amongst other things). Is such manipulation wrong? I say yes and I imagine most people would agree. Is it a crime? I don't believe so and, that being the case, why should he be punished?

I think we're at a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying hatred has to occur for incitement to be charged but that the crime of incitement itself has to happen. Given that Blanc has not yet incited anyone in Ireland to hatred it would be wrong to punish him for the same by denying him entry. If he's found to have committed incitement while here then of course he should be punished.

Where is the distinction? To go back to the video game example- is a video game that allows the murder of prostitutes (and anyone else) art? Or is it, by explicitly allowing such behaviour in a closed platform, encouraging and inciting the same?
If Blanc puts all his stuff in a book/film and calls it literature/cinematography is it then acceptable?

 

[nooleen]

I'm not referring to Blanc specifically here, rather the broader understanding of the word individual.

everybody else is talking specifically about blanc.

Surely the language used in the statute demonstrates that it's open to interpretation?
"if the... words... are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred."
Firstly it gives leeway via 'are intended... to stir up hatred'. Can it be conclusively proven that Blanc set out with the intent to stir hatred?

instructions to choke women, misogynistic language: threatening, abusive

Secondly, '...having regard to all the circumstances...' indicates that the circumstances surrounding the alleged event are to be taken into account. So judge A (me) decides that the circumstances mean it's not likely to stir up hatred and a charge of incitement to hatred is not warranted. Meanwhile, judge B (you) decides that the circumstances are likely to stir hatred and prosecution follows.
The law is not worded tightly enough to be unequivocal and so it can and will be interpreted differently by different people.

you don't seem to have looked at either the relevant laws or the relevant facts so i'm not going to put much store in your hypothetical judicial authority just yet.

The purpose of his act is not to show how to abuse women, its manipulation of women (amongst other things). Is such manipulation wrong? I say yes and I imagine most people would agree. Is it a crime? I don't believe so and, that being the case, why should he be punished?

he gives instructional seminars. of dating techniques. the important words there being instructional and techniques.

I think we're at a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying hatred has to occur for incitement to be charged but that the crime of incitement itself has to happen.

no, it doesn't. immigration rules allow for exclusion based on previous conduct.

Where is the distinction? To go back to the video game example- is a video game that allows the murder of prostitutes (and anyone else) art? Or is it, by explicitly allowing such behaviour in a closed platform, encouraging and inciting the same?

the distinction is between fantasy, and real life things that people do in real life to actual people.

If Blanc puts all his stuff in a book/film and calls it literature/cinematography is it then acceptable?

if it contains instructions to grab women by the throat, in real life, then no.

 

[David Kronenbourg]

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

 

[Cormcolash]

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

Because are you mental

 

[hugh]

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?

I'll try and answer each of these in turn.

1. Nobody decides what's acceptable. What's acceptable emerges over time on the basis of constant argument, negotiation and debate - a bit like what's happening right here.

2. In this particular instance, those opposed to Blanc's presence (and the attitudes he represents) are sending the message. We might consider this message to be a form of intervention in said debate.

3. See answer to 2.

4. The people opposed to Blanc's presence are not a mob and they are not ruling anything.

5. I'm not sure if I am required to answer this one now but for the record, no.

 

[therealjohnny]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...el-way-to-respond-to-julien-blanc--ekgt3AUGux

“If we deny him entry, he’ll brag about it on Twitter and probably get loads of retweets from a sad army of brain dead, semen-reeking, backwards-baseball-cap-wearing humanoids,” he wrote.

“He’ll be a hero among skunks and s***heels, and this is what he wants. Let’s not do him that favour.”

 

[nooleen]

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

 

[therealjohnny]

The tv show "It was alright in the 70s". Holy shit

 

[therealjohnny]

Something to offend everyone

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I have scrolled through most of this, but I have definitely been in relationships where we have given each other permissions as far as behaviour while sleeping goes.

 

[nooleen]

permissions is an important word there

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

It's probably not helpful for me to scroll past 4 pages of posts and then write something that only affects me

The only truism I know about female sexuality is that it is bespoke. I haven't found any rules really that one can take from one relationship to the next.
A woman's sexuality is part of her personality that you need to get with.
Or that's my experience anyway.

Which always got me with this PUA shit. They are trying to apply some tricks or whatever that might work on one woman but not the next. It's dumb.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Shit. I did it again.

 

[nooleen]

i've spent most of the day reading around the two most recent cases (of many) currently in the news of school/campus rapes being covered up and serial rapists being allowed to thrive in a culture of dismissing and minimising violence against women. i don't see this as anything other than a massive indictment of fucked-up attitudes that are allowed to persist.
this is the backdrop to outrage about PUAs, street harassment, casual sexism, 'feminists are going too far', and arguments about consent.

Why Were Three Teenage Rape Victims Bullied Out of School in Oklahoma?

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA | Rolling Stone

 

[nooleen]

that post isn't directed at anyone by the way, i just think those stories are very illuminating

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

everybody else is talking specifically about blanc.


instructions to choke women, misogynistic language: threatening, abusive

you don't seem to have looked at either the relevant laws or the relevant facts so i'm not going to put much store in your hypothetical judicial authority just yet.


he gives instructional seminars. of dating techniques. the important words there being instructional and techniques.


no, it doesn't. immigration rules allow for exclusion based on previous conduct.


the distinction is between fantasy, and real life things that people do in real life to actual people.


if it contains instructions to grab women by the throat, in real life, then no.

I'll try and answer each of these in turn.

1. Nobody decides what's acceptable. What's acceptable emerges over time on the basis of constant argument, negotiation and debate - a bit like what's happening right here.

2. In this particular instance, those opposed to Blanc's presence (and the attitudes he represents) are sending the message. We might consider this message to be a form of intervention in said debate.

3. See answer to 2.

4. The people opposed to Blanc's presence are not a mob and they are not ruling anything.

5. I'm not sure if I am required to answer this one now but for the record, no.

So, I was gonna argue all of these but in light of the post below (of which more anon) and the fact that neither side is likely to yield I'm not sure it would be of any use to do so.

i've spent most of the day reading around the two most recent cases (of many) currently in the news of school/campus rapes being covered up and serial rapists being allowed to thrive in a culture of dismissing and minimising violence against women. i don't see this as anything other than a massive indictment of fucked-up attitudes that are allowed to persist.
this is the backdrop to outrage about PUAs, street harassment, casual sexism, 'feminists are going too far', and arguments about consent.

Why Were Three Teenage Rape Victims Bullied Out of School in Oklahoma?

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA | Rolling Stone

If nothing else they're illuminating in that I've realised while I can argue Blancs entry or not to the state relatively dispassionately it's probably not in good taste to continue to do so.
It's an emotive topic and as it's not my 'group' that's at the receiving end of Blancs behaviour my continuing to argue with someone who is of that group is unnecessarily confrontational and, given the lack of concession from either side, likely to be ultimately futile.

Shall we return to complaining about minor matters and discussing 7s love-life?

 

[nooleen]

i was more hoping that they'd be illuminating in that there are actual consequences of not confronting misogynistic behaviour

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Wee were talking about that UVA case in the pub on Friday

All sorts of fucked up

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

discussing 7s love-life

This is a wholly bad idea

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Also boring

And that's not a pun