Are Words More Important Than Actions in Evolved Society?
As a tangent to a tangent on another topic about British and American cultural differences, this issue looks like a good barometer. From a Baby-Boomers' perspective, it's so obviously the wrong direction that it denies human reality and makes Orwell's 1984 look like non-fiction, and Hollywood's Demolition Man look like a documentary.
As a topic bonus, it doesn't need individualized political rationalizations. And won't benefit from them as supporting arguments.
Woman who carried placard depicting Sunak and Braverman as coconuts charged with hate crime
The point is, appearances are that we are becoming a society of humans who are so fragile that insults are considered damaging enough to be declared a crime.
The image is of the charged offender and her placard. Standing quietly with a non-offensive posture and facial expression, but holding a message that could be taken as an insult is a hate crime in Britain.
By appearances, that image equates to words being more important than actions. Geesh. It has always been so with politicians, but now it's becoming so with the populace.
By legal codification, the Brits are way ahead of the U.S., but we aren't far behind. In criminal law, it's still a moral condemnation for us, but in civil law we have our codifications too. Just not on par with the Brits, yet (Brits being generic for most of Europe).
As a kicker, this article also notes a man who was charged with the same hate crime for including a raccoon emoji in a text msg. (email?).
My generation ( and probably all that came before it) believes in the truth of the adage that a man is best judged by his actions, not his words. Everything about the instances in this topic declares that our modern 'evolved' society no longer believes that to be true.
You guys are nuts. Hopefully, we (the US) will recognize that the canary is dying before it's too late. Politically speaking, but of ideologies, not personalities, that picture of this issue is probably the one held by a lot of Americans regarding our coming elections. It is the stark characterization of our choices—and desires. Hells bells, we might be headed for our own 'Bexit' moment.
GAAn interesting topic, with lots of strands to it:
Firstly, I would like to start by saying that I love the coconut poster – very apt, as it does depict Rishi Sunak (UK Prime Minister) and Suella Braverman MP (former Home Secretary) as both are of Indian origin (Asian), yet both support white British right-wing politics, especially Suella Braverman MP who is extreme right-wing within the Conservative Party.
The terms “coconuts” is considered an insults within Black and Asian communities to describe people from their communities who are perceived as being sympathetic with white supremacist agendas.
As regards to whether it’s considered ‘hate crime’ or not under British Law; that remains to be seen when the case goes to Magistrates Court on 26th June.
The EU & UK ‘Hate Crime’ Laws themselves, which I fully support and defend, in themselves don’t go as far as the coconut poster, so I’d be surprised if it would stick in a Crown Court (judged by jury).
But when you dig deeper, it’s not the laws themselves that’s the problem, it’s too main issues:-
1. The Police Force themselves; almost exclusively the Metropolitan (London) Police Force, who has come under a lot of media attack in recent years for being……. in a few simple words – stereotype hard right-wing white prejudice thugs!
2. The Conservative’s passing of the Police and Crime Bill in April 2022, which gives the Police authoritarian powers that they’ve never had before; including the power to restrict ‘peaceful protests’.
PUSHBACK
1: London’s (Met) Police Brutality and Prejudices:
• September 2022 Sadiq Khan (Labour) Mayor of London sacks Dame Cressida Dick (Metropolitan (London) Chief of Police) because she resided over an era of London’s Police’s dishonesty, prejudice and incompetence without making any real attempt to weed out the rot, which included but not exclusive to:-
• The murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met (London) Police officer. A serving Met Police officer with a record of indecent exposure.
• The shameful treatment by the Met (London) police of a peaceful vigilant by women of Sarah Everard murdered by a serving Met Police officer.
Woman arrested at Sarah Everard vigil calls for Metropolitan Police to be abolished https://youtu.be/IitUGOBF9mQ
• The publication of a damning report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC): Who uncovered in their report, evidence of misogyny, discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment throughout the ranks of the Met (London) Police force.
• A report into the 1987 murder of Daniel Morgan - the killer remains unidentified - accused the Met Police force of institutional corruption, and
• The controversial raid by the Met (London) police of Lord Brittan’s home, who was falsely accused of child abuse etc. etc.
Met (London) Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick forced out of office by Sadiq Khan (London Labour Mayor), with support from the Conservative Government for his actions e.g. the London Mayor can’t sack the London Police Chief without consent from the UK Government (so it was a cross party decision to get rid of London Police Chief): https://youtu.be/7GuQTIAHRuM
2: Increase of Police Powers granted by Conservative Government
Although the Conservative’s passing of the Police and Crime Bill in April 2022, for the first time, gives the Police in the UK powers to restrict ‘peaceful protests’ (which I see as right-wing authoritarians) doesn’t make any difference in reality e.g. it hasn’t stopped, and is not going to stop protests and demonstrations in the UK; the British People do not cower to such authoritarian, as clearly shown in the video below of my fellow Bristolians violently attacking the police station and Bristol and burning several police vans in protest again the Conservative Government’s passing of the ‘Police and Crime Bill’ – the slogan of the protesters being “Kill the Bill”.
This is how we Bristolians violently reacted to the UK Conservatives new Police and Crime Bill that gives the Police more powers: https://youtu.be/vl7zVmo_n9Y
3: CCTV (1984)
Outside of China the UK has more CCTV’s per person than most countries in the world - 1 CCTV for every 10 people. But I’m OK with that because it does actually help to reduce crime and keep our streets safe.
4: 4th JULY
As you may have heard, the UK General Election is to take place on 4th July; so within six weeks we’re highly likely to have a Labour Government in power; so the slow creep towards authoritarian that we’ve seen from the Conservatives in recent years (since Boris Johnson came to power) will cease – although it’s less certain that such legislation will be clawed back to any great extent in the foreseeable future.
Although Labour opposed the new Police and Crime Bill when it was going through Parliament, and Labour has been under immense pressure from other left wing parties to repeal the new laws when it comes into power; the response from the Labour party so far has been, to quote:-
• “A Labour government would “look very carefully at this legislation”…. “We need to see how it’s working. And if it’s not working in the way the government say it’s intended to work then that’s something that needs addressing.”
• Labour went on to say “What we need to do is prioritise what we’re going to overturn and replace it with a positive vision. And in a democracy, the right to protest is fundamental.”
• Labour officials argue that a refusal to commit to repeal does not necessarily imply support for a measure, or a veto on action, just a refusal to overly tie the party’s hands after an election.You're certainly right about the possible "strands" to follow. I waded through the political and ideological ones for half a day to find a conceptual basis as a start.
For that starting point, strip all connotations from the use of "crime" and "hate crime," they're simply category labels. Also, set aside any details (such as your justifications).
At their root, your 'hate crime public order offenses' are simply laws against insults. It doesn't matter whether they end as convictable crimes, the point is that an 'evolved' society has decided to make hurting someone's feelings a legally chargeable crime.
As a note, I was unfamiliar with the "coconuts" slur. When I read the article's explanation of its meaning (matching yours) I could see it both ways: as an ideological insult or a racial slur. The image of the 'criminal act' didn't seem racial to me. (maybe because the 'criminal' was cute???)
Relative to the 'raccoon emoji' man (charged, but not taken to court), and your thought that this coconut crime won't go to court either, the implication is that there is a level-of-insult threshold.
For instance; calling someone a coconut could be the same as calling them a hypocrite. However, because someone feels insulted or offended by "coconut" it becomes a hate crime. It seems reasonable that being called a hypocrite should also make 'someone' feel insulted or offended.
If a charitable explanation of the placard's meaning (and its holder's intentions) is accepted, then the hate crime was only in the mind of the offended, as in, the crime is the words, not the actions. And that ain't right.
Another thing that 'ain't right' is your justification of the slur's reasoning: political and ideological condemnation based on skin color—they shouldn't hold a right-wing ideology because they're not white-skinned. C'mon bud, you have to be able to see how wrong that is. It isn't wrong because it's not our reality, it's wrong because it is accepted as an acceptable reason for a law.
GAResponding to your last paragraph first - If I’ve understood correctly what you’re saying: You’re referencing the ‘coconuts’ situation whereby Asian people ridicule other Asians who pin their ideology to the ‘white supremacist’ flag – in essence, Asians being seen as traitors to their own kind e.g. it was an Asian woman holding the coconut poster depicting two Asians in British politicians (one being that of Rishi Sunak/UK Prime Minister) who she sees as traitors to her own kind.
As far as you and I are concerned, there is nothing wrong with someone who is not white or British (or white or American in your case) from supporting a British (or American) right-wing ideology (or left wing ideology): But in this instance, it’s not our fight, it’s an Asian (the woman holding the poster) accusing another Asian (UK Prime Minister) from being a traitor to Asians e.g. ‘An Internal Fight’.
Yes, as you put it, our British & European “society has decided to make hurting someone's feelings a legally chargeable crime” if it’s motivated by hostility or prejudice.
Hate Crime as defined in UK & EU law:
“A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'”
Yes, “there is a level-of-insult threshold”, and usually the right balance is struck; however American’s tend to get a distorted view because the less than 1% of cases that seem ludicrous gets over 99% of the attention in American media.
There is a world of difference between calling someone a ‘coconut’ or ‘hypocrite’; just as there is a world of difference between calling someone ‘hypocrite’ or a ‘liar’ e.g. you can call anyone a hypocrite if you disagree with them, but in the UK Parliament calling someone a liar is an offence; a politician will get suspended if in Parliament they accuse another politician of lying (unparliamentarily language). I guess what I am trying to say, is that you need to understand the language of the land to know what words are taboo and how criticism should be phrased (and it’s not that difficult, when you live in a culture to instinctively know what the boundaries are and what language to use to get your point across).
Short ‘entertaining’ video: of a British politician falling fowl of the misuse of ‘Parliamentary Language’ in Parliament e.g. suspended from Parliament for calling Boris Johnson a liar. https://youtu.be/YmlJn35-xxg
Ironically, not long after the above incident in Parliament the Conservative Party 'forced' Boris Johnson to resign as Prime Minister, for lying to Parliament; and following an investigation by a cross-party committee Parliament also suspended Boris Johnson from Parliament for lying to Parliament - at which point Boris Johnson resigned as a politician rather than face the embarrassment of being sacked by his own voters (constituency) e.g. under British law, if a politician is suspended from Parliament for more than 2 weeks, only 10% of the people (voters) in the seat were he was elected in the General Election need to sign a petition to remove him/her for he/she to be sacked by his/her own voters.
354 Politicians (MPs) in the House of Commons vote to suspend Boris for lying to Parliament; only 7 MPs vote against the motion: https://youtu.be/yvoaJKAe4hM
In your penultimate paragraph, where you say “…the crime is the words, not the actions. And that ain't right.” That I think is where Americans and Europeans don’t see eye to eye e.g. in the opinion of Europeans, ‘words can hurt’ (cause harm), especially if the ‘words’ are intended “to stir up racial hatred” or “racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby”.
Part 3 of the Public Order Acts States:-
“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.”
Under British Law: “Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You (the person using hate crime) do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.”I didn't notice that the woman was Asian. I had to take a closer look to see it. I wouldn't call it generally obvious in this use.
There seems to be a lot of debate, in the UK, as to whether "coconut" is a racial slur or a criticism. One cultural comparison might be to our "Uncle Tom" slander. It is also considered a slur in within-group usage and a criticism in outer-group usage.
That seems to fit the reasoning of your explanation, as well as of many articles on the debate. From my perspective, everything about the specifics of this example of the issue says 'that ain't right.'
It seems admitted that there are two accepted views of the term: a racial slur or an ideological criticism. Also, the skin color of the user is accepted as the determinant, such as Asian vs Asian or Asian vs. non-Asian.
That seems to say that intent doesn't matter (actions), only the words. Now wait, I know there is a process before the charged hate crime is determined to be one (the Court process), the point is it is a hate crime charge that can be based on words only.
The image is of a pleasantly composed face, not one set and intent on promoting a racial slur. Her actions were simply holding the placard, not brandishing it. If that's fair, then it seems most likely her intent was to criticize not racially slur. That seems supported by the circumstances of her being charged. She didn't cause any problems at the protest and there is no indication anyone lodged a complaint. It is said that the police saw her in an image (the one in this thread) and decided it was a hate crime. They posted the image online to find her —so it is said.
It's probably safe to say this particular example is the most innocent of outliers and is getting attention because it is a useful tool, but that doesn't diminish the point of the issue—you folks intentionally created that tool.
This seems to follow the moral of IslandMom's (IslandByte) offered quote:
"Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny."
. . . but applied with society becoming the "your" and the moral progression reversed. First 'detrimental' 'habits' were regulated (ie. US alcohol Prohibition). Then the detrimental 'actions were criminalized (the crimes of the prohibition years). And then the 'words' were regulated, ie. you can't legally yell fire in a theater.
And now . . . you guys are okay with the regulation of the thought of the words, such as skin colors think differently about things so if the hate crime of the words is determined by skin color it is being determined by the thought—minus any action.
Your closing was the clincher. British law says intent doesn't matter. And that ain't right . . .
GAI concur with most of what you seem to be saying (if I’ve understood all your points correctly)….
Just a few points to pick up on….
1. Where you say “….the point is it is a hate crime charge that can be based on words only.”
The point is ‘words can hurt’….e.g. Cyberbullying “….the use of technology to harass, threaten, embarrass, or target another person: There have been a number of high profile cases in the UK where cyberbullying has led to the victim committing suicide.
In respect to where ‘words can hurt’ in relation to hate speech; in my view, it’s nothing compared to antisemitism. Muslims can and do take a fair bit of flak, and very little is done; but any criticism against Jews and you’re quickly accused of antisemitism – the Labour party fell fowl of that just a few years ago.
In relation to your statement:-
“The image is of a pleasantly composed face, not one set and intent on promoting a racial slur. Her actions were simply holding the placard, not brandishing it. If that's fair, then it seems most likely her intent was to criticize not racially slur. That seems supported by the circumstances of her being charged. She didn't cause any problems at the protest and there is no indication anyone lodged a complaint. It is said that the police saw her in an image (the one in this thread) and decided it was a hate crime. They posted the image online to find her —so it is said.”
Marieha Hussain is the Asian woman charged by the Metropolitan (London) Police e.g. a case of the London Police being overzealous – In my initial post I did go to great lengths in controversy surrounding the Metropolitan (London) Police; which led to the London (Labour) Mayor, with consent from the UK Conservative Government, sacking the London Chief of Police because she resided over an era of London’s Police’s dishonesty, prejudice and incompetence without making any real attempt to weed out the rot.
Finally, in your closing statement, where you say: “Your closing was the clincher. British law says intent doesn't matter. And that ain't right . . .”
In my view it’s the harm that’s done to the victim that is important; whether the person causing the harm was aware of the harm they were doing is immaterial, harm is still done. Albeit, in a British Crown Court, if a jury find someone guilty the Judge will generally give a lesser sentence if the criminal hadn’t intended to cause harm and or shows remorse for their actions.
The first thing I learnt when I did British Law at College was “Ignorantia juris non excusat” (ignorance of the law is no excuse).Associating the context of the 'words can hurt' and 'words only' reasoning of this discussion with the extreme example of cyberbullying is a mismatch that distorts the argument.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but to be equitable, the application of a law must consider intent. If a law is unrealistic then it cannot be equitable. A law relative to thoughts is not realistic.
Words can be hurtful and cause harm, but their use should only be illegal when there is intent (action) to cause harm. Cyberbullying is one extreme of intent and calling someone a midget because they are short is another. One has obvious intent and the other doesn't. (it could have, but generally doesn't)
As illustrated by this 'coconuts' example, since "little people' find midget offensive its use could be considered a hate crime—by British standards—simply because someone finds it offensive.
As with everything, it's a matter of degrees. Both sides can find examples and counter-examples as valid support. The argument isn't about drawing a line, it's about where the line is drawn. Regulating thoughts (through words) based on skin color without considering intent is an unrealistic place to draw a line.
GAFrom afar on a lazy Saturday morning having just decided to procrastinate the laundry I will toss my 'thoughts' into the ring, though there is no intent of ill harm.
Exploring a little, perhaps wandering . . . I get what your saying with intent and in agreement. I am stuck on 'hate'. Quoting the UK Law . . .
"
“A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'”
Focusing on the underlined, "motivated by hostility or prejudice" I ponder the midget example for short people. Calling someone a 'midget could be perceived as being motivated by 'hostility or prejudice' even if in a joking manner. A key is if someone else witnesses that and has the perception it is with hostility or prejudice. To me that means even if the short person (midget) did not take offense, the observer may have taken offense. Therefore, it is deemed hateful.
So, doesn't that fit the definition, but doesn't fall into a legal category? In that sense one may construe or surmise the intent was motivated by 'hate'. Do I have that wrong?
So, in essence, even though the target experiences no hateful intention from foul, disgusting, and verbiage of contempt if someone else deems it hateful, there is in fact a crime. Basically a reliance on subjectivity at that point. If it gets to court, then clarity arrives?
Forgive the wandering . . .
[Edit] After rereading I quire what does "criminal offence" mean? Does that negate everything I just said?If I'm following your logic . . .
A person that intends no harm (as in has no clue they are), says something to someone who has no issue with what was said (no harm - no hate), is guilty of a hate crime because someone else (anyone, anywhere?) was offended by what was said.
As a description of the argued British position, you nailed it.
My perspective is that as a description of an unrealistic and unjust law, you also nailed it.
Consider: when stripped of the specificity of details, both sides' arguments and examples end with "thought" being the determining factor.
Even worse, with the examples of 'Asian vs Asian' and 'midget vs. little people,' introducing skin color and physical form, the 'thought' being validated doesn't even have to be congruent with the issue, it can be a thought from anyone from anywhere.
I think Bill Maher did a routine on that concept. To paraphrase: 'There's nothing more silly or self-righteously self-serving than being offended for someone who isn't offended.'
To your 'criminal offense' edit; that has been the context of my responses. Civil issues and judgments are a different matter. Civil offense convictions are litigations of penalties, and criminal offense convictions are liberty-restriction punishments.
GAThanks! I think or pretty sure we're in agreement. The Bill Maher thingy seems to peg it. However, bored this morning alas should have done the laundry to keep me busy, I am going down the rabbit hole of inquiry. Presently, I am looking into the Western Christian concept of 'my brother's keeper'.
Weekend mornings can be like that for me too.
GA
Having had a coffee break while mulling over Tim’s comments, and reading your reply to them; I think I may have spotted where the nub of our differing views stems from – namely that you object to a third party e.g. the police consider ‘words’ said to be hate crime when the target person of those ‘words’ doesn’t necessarily feel that a crime has been committed.
Without reading Hansard covering the debates in Parliament when the laws on ‘hate crime’ was being worded I can only speculate on the reasoning for such wording.
But before I do (just as a side line): Bearing in mind that Britain is a very bureaucratic country, Hansard shouldn’t come as a surprise - I don’t know if you have anything like Hansard in the USA?
Hansard, which dates back to 1771, and these days is published in the Public Domain on the Internet, is a substantially verbatim report of every debate in Parliament – as explained in this short video: https://youtu.be/X1-2fsCONeM
But getting back to the point: All too often in cases of ‘hate speech’; historically, victims would not report ‘hate speech’ to the police because of their belief that the police would not take them seriously enough – instead some people would bottle it up inside themselves, which can lead to desperation, depression and suicide. Hence, by giving a third party (which may be a relative or friend of the victim, or the police themselves) the power to perceive ‘hate speech’ as a crime, gives the police the power to act in the interest of the perceived victim….
But it does also open the door for the police to sometimes be overzealous in fighting an imaginary crime; but usually such cases are rejected in the Crown Courts, by judge and jury; and quite rightly so - and that in itself can be a deterrent to the police being overzealous e.g. the police are not going to waste too much of their valuable time and resources pursing cases that they are not likely to win in Court.
Another point, which you may not have picked up on, is that in all my posts in this forum I’ve always said ‘Crown Court’ rather than just ‘Court’; and that’s deliberate in that minor offences (offences where the maximum penalty is less than 6 months prison) are never heard by judge and jury (Crown Court), they are all dealt with by Magistrates: And the Magistrates juridical system is completely different to a judge and jury e.g. the magistrates are unpaid, and are not legally qualified.
The UK’s Magistrates' Court: https://youtu.be/WeNDacwO5NAHells bells Arthur. I just posted a wrap-up because I thought we were done. And then I read this response.
I do "object" to the 3rd-party determination, but that's not the "what" I have been arguing about. The "what" I object to is the thought part.
As for the Crown court thing, I got it. However, I think a Crown court should be involved anytime jail time is a possibility.
The point has been that the crime is based on the accusation of a 'thought.' Whether it comes from the immediate offendee, the police, or a peripheral offendee, the crime is still determined by a 'thought.'
That is an unrealistic basis for the criminalization of an expression. It's tough enough when a charge comes from someone really offended, we have our civil law system to address that (even then, intent is still a factor), but when the charge can come from anyone that 'thinks' an offense has been committed, without any factor of intent, that's an unrealistic threshold for legal penalties.
Even so, it seems, to me, that your support of this is still more of an ideological difference than a cultural one. There's usually no objective right or wrong in ideological arguments, there are only opinions.
So . . . I'm still right and you're still wrong. ;-o
GAAs I just said to your other response: Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant to declare that ‘you (GA) is right, and that I’m (a Brit) is wrong’?
Well, that is where we disagree: Under British law, what the victim feels (the thought as you put it), or perception (as defined by British Law), is as important as to any physical harm is done e.g. there have been people in the UK (a number of high profile cases) who have committed suicide because they perceived that they were being victimised, even when they wasn’t any intent – so we are back to ‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’.
I disagree with your premise that my ideological support is not cultural; it is very much a part of British and European culture; just as the concept of ‘gun ownership’ is an ideology that is engrained into the American culture – an ideology that as a Brit, I think is totally wrong, and insane."As I just said to your other response: Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant to declare that ‘you (GA) is right, and that I’m (a Brit) is wrong’?"
Curious, what does being a Brit have to do with the dialogue in question?A lot e.g. British/European social and cultural values in such areas are radically different to American social and cultural values - I would have thought that would have been obvious.
So when GA said I'm wrong then he was effectively inferring that 'we, the British are wrong'. Opinion poll published in March 2022 shows that 72% of Brits (71% of Conservative voters) would approve of misogyny being added as hate crime under British law; as this link shows: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ … isogyny-haOkay, you just made it much more complicated for me. I guess I am a simpleton compared to your intellect. What does misogyny have to do with it?
72% of Brits in favour of having misogyny being added as hate crime under British law is an example showing the high level of Brits support for the hate speech laws in the UK, clearly indication that it is part of the British culture and not just ideological as GA suggested.
That's not likely to mesh well with the influx of hardcore Islamic migrants the UK has taken in.
It will be interesting to see how that works itself out... what is good for the goose is not for the gander seems the most likely course taken.That’s a myth propagated by American right-wing propaganda that has been debunked. A UK study published in 2020 “finds no credible evidence for a far-right stereotype that has spread widely in the media”
In 2022 just 6.42% of sex crimes in the UK were committed by Muslims; and the percentage of UK population who are Muslims is 6.5% - so the stats speak for themselves.
Thanks! Culture is a funny thing. It, in my eyes, is relative.
As to the compare/contrast of culture specific vs. ideology a generality I am left with questions for myself. Which is the driving force? Does culture drive ideology or does ideology drive culture?
One must consider religion is an ideology just as secularism is. And, within those broad bush strokes lie the finer brush strokes. In the end you have a picture, an image, and something relatable to any observer. And, then in some to many cases one postulates which is supreme . . . the religious/secularist ideology or the political. In other words, is there a hierarchy?
Alas, just a little wandering while what shared is not resolute as specific having authority. Only, . . . .Isn't it important to recognize the 'end goal' of an ideology?
The old saying: 'its not where you start from, its where you end up that matters' ?
In order to support a new belief, you must discard a former belief. To what purpose should always be in mind.I get your point, however how does culture fit into your narrative. Are you saying ideology arrives first and drives culture? Is it a chicken and egg scenario?
In the case of ideology driving culture I would presume that is through education and conditioning. One must know and understand the ideology to change the culture, right? However, isn't it the culture that conditions one?
I totally disagree on your premise on belief. Beliefs, in my mind, never go away. They are at least buried in the unconscious mind. However, they may raise their ugly head up or they may appear as a saint.
C.J. Jung said;
"“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”Consider that it is a deeply buried belief buried in the unconscious mind that there are two sexes.
What is the purpose (the end goal) of the ideology that is promoting the concept that there are 72 sexes today?
Why is this new belief, based on ideology, being enacted and enforced on the population by the most powerful offices of our government today?I know of 'no' ideology promoting 72 sexes nor genders. So, I can't conceive that notion, yet understand what you are after. Frankly, I don't touch that topic, so I will bow out using that as an example.
Is it a 'topic' or is it an ideology... with the topic at hand but a stepping stone to a final goal of changing culture, beliefs?
EDIT:
72 genders list - FREE TEST to discover your gender!
https://72gender.com/72-genders-list/
How Many Genders Are There? All 72 Genders List
https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_th … rticle.htm
I think you answered your own question. Ideology drives culture. As long as physical reality sets the parameters.
At our earliest start (the caveman days), a first-formed group was not a culture. But, as the 'first moment' grows to a continued existence, then the ideologies (in congruence with the physical reality of the moment) of its parts will form the culture of the group. As I see it. The details of the times may change but I think the basic concept stays the same.
GAAgree to the first, not the second.
Ideology is often very disconnected from reality.
Miracles and faith of yesterday often were no more realistic and based on reality than the 72 different sexes we are told are absolutely real today.
It's hard to maintain one's sanity in an insane world. I'm sure someone like Plato or Socrates noted this in the past.I don't see the disagreement. Your point seems directly related to my statement's "physical reality" qualifier.
GAI was referring to the fact that ideology is not restricted by reality... or the physical world did not set the parameters...
Well, to be honest my meaning was clearer to me when I typed it...
Not worth debating the matter. ;-)But, but, wait. Maybe it is. There was more before but I deleted it because it sounded preachy.
I see it like this (and thinking of levels as basic as would be in caveman times): A group doesn't become a culture until it becomes a 'collective' (with a nod to Tsmog) with enough in common to remain a group (not just a transient event).
Now, jumping to the 'evolved society' level. They make it that far because the competing ideologies had enough in common to stay together while they continued to push their desires.
In the span between those times ideologies have driven cultural changes, but the physical realities of relevant times dictated how much change that culture would accept. Ideological extremes almost never get all they want, they get increments of what they want.
Extremes of something are just sects. Christianity isn't the ideology of religion, it is a sect of the ideology of religion. Transgender and '72 sexes' issues aren't the ideology of liberalism, they are sects of it. Relative to culture, they are both ideological sects of belief, not the physical reality of the culture.
So, transgender may gain acceptance as a valid belief, but '72 sexes' never will because (at least for now) it is disproven by physical reality.
That's not presented as the gospel of our reality, it's just how I see it.
GAI believe the message I was trying to relay was that we have an ideology being deliberately pushed onto society/civilization.
That it is being promoted and propagated under falsehoods (unattached to reality and facts), hence, what is the ultimate goal?
The ultimate goal of 72 sexes is not so that we can be inclusive to 72 sexes that before the 2000s we didn't know existed... there is a purpose behind it, it is but one part of a larger collective goal (EDIT or Sect as you noted)... an ideology... whose ultimate purpose is to strip America and Americans of what made it uniquely special for humanity.
I would recommend reading 'Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes' as this author/book approaches revealing what is going on in a more subtle way.
Going back to a point in time far closer to when all this really reared its ugly head, you may find this reading from back in the 60s of some interest:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CI … 0008-6.pdf
EDIT/ADD (from 2017):
Everything is not as it seems in politics.
In recent months, the American people have come closer than ever to figuring that out, with the notion of a shadowy “Deep State” secretly pulling the strings in Washington capturing the public imagination.
There is indeed a “Deep State,” or perhaps several, that includes elements of Wall Street, career bureaucrats with views deeply at odds with those of mainstream America, as well as the “intelligence community” that does the dirty work and appears to accept no limits on its power.
But little has been said about the Deep State behind the Deep State — or the real Deep State. Until now.
The UN partners with the WEF in 2019... it is clear that the Deep State behind the Deep State wields tremendous power over America and the Western world. The agenda is becoming clear, too.
If left unchecked, this powerful network of “Deep State” operatives fully intends to foist a draconian system on humanity that they often tout as the “New World Order.”
The American people have the power to stop it. Equity, ESG, DEI are acronyms that spell the end of our rights to Liberty, Property, and freedom is we allow what has infected the EU/UK/Canada to take hold and destroy our Nation.
Much of what has been referred to as the “Deep State” is merely part of the government... the legions of entrenched Big Government bureaucrats and especially the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and other secretive agencies.
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
Clearly BRICS is separating itself from this effort. BRICS will quickly become the more dominant economic force in the world, largely due to the bungling of the Biden Administration.
While secretive, many of the outfits are not secret societies in the true sense of the term. In fact, they have websites, put out reports, and in many cases make their membership lists public (IE - WEF). That these organizations wield incredible power in government, media, academia, military, banking, intelligence, business, and more is beyond dispute.
Or, consider the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the U.S. and its sister organization in the U.K. known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, or the Chatham House).
To get some sense of how influential the outfit is, consider the words of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband and daughter are members, in a 2009 speech at the CFR’s new office in Washington. “I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters,” she said. “I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
In other words, the unelected CFR establishment sets policy, and the visible government implements it. The same applies to the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which is also dominated by CFR operatives. Knowing how toxic the CFR label has become politically among conservatives, though, leading CFR “Republicans” actually boast of their dishonesty in concealing their membership from the public. George W. Bush’s Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, was filmed on video bragging: “I’ve been a member [of the CFR] for a long time, and was actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” He cackled, and the audience laughed.
Members include virtually the entire establishment. Among others: vast swaths of the Republican and Democrat establishment; countless current and former members of Congress and senior bureaucrats; “journalists,” columnists, editors, anchors, commentators, and media execs; CEOs, chairmen, and presidents of mega-banks; multiple cabinet secretaries in every administration going back generations; current Supreme Court justices; former presidents and vice-presidents; Federal Reserve bosses; celebrities; mega-church pastors; military brass; ambassadors, diplomats, and bureaucrats at international organizations; tax-exempt foundation chiefs and executives; leaders and professors at key universities across the country; and “intelligence community” bosses who do much of the dirty work.
Corporate members include the world’s largest bailed-out mega-banks, Big Oil, Big Pharma, crony capitalists, the military-industrial complex, publishing houses, along with much of the establishment media. Among the mega-banks and financial giants: Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, American Express, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Soros Fund Management, Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Crédit Agricole, Rothschild North America, Inc., and more. Military-industrial complex: DynCorp, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Raytheon Company, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and more. Big Oil: ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, Hess, and more. Media: News Corp (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, National Geographic, and more), Time Warner (CNN, HBO), The Economist, Bloomberg, and more.
While not everyone involved supports the globalist Deep State agenda, most do, defectors have said. The late Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained the danger of the CFR, its agenda, and the ideology of most of its members. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he explained.
“The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible. By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” he added. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”
The ultimate goal of the CFR is global government. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” warned the admiral, who served as the judge advocate of the U.S. Navy. “This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.” Ward also revealed why the CFR’s members would be so violently hostile to Trump’s campaign promises. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First,’” he said. Trump, of course, campaigned on an America First platform to stop globalism.
hmmm . . . interesting perspective you presented. I can conceive ideology came first at the economic level. One caveman comes upon another. One is carrying two rabbits and the other two bunches of bananas.
They deem there is worth to exchange one of each. The worth is having selection of something novel to have for dinner. They both had the same idea. An ideology is born, right?
Culture won't arrive until they live in the same camp becoming a collective. Do I have that right?I'm not sure about your 'trade' example, it feels more like a mechanism than an ideology. *shrug*
But you nailed it with your closing word choice of "collective." It carries the message I was reaching for with that awkward 'first-moment to continued existence' description.
GAWell, no expert with a reliance of learning through Google University, there are different ideology basics and then the combined forms. From what I have learned some of the basic types of ideologies are:
Economics
Social
Religious
Political
Governing
and, even, ethical
Plus, more
[Edit: Plus, my personal belief or thoughts is each and every individual has their own unique to themselves ideology. They may discover likeness with one or more of the basic ones. Myself, I find likeness with the Republican party platform of old in line with Reagan almost generally, the Democrat platform of the Clinton days economically, and some of the Libertarian principals. So, a bastard of sorts ;-) ]
Good questions:
“Does culture drive ideology or does ideology drive culture?”
I don’t know the answer to your first question; but I suspect that to a large extent ‘ideology drives culture” e.g. over the millennia changing ideology has shaped the British culture.
Your next question: “….which is supreme . . . the religious/secularist ideology or the political. In other words, is there a hierarchy?
I can give an answer to this based on British history; although I suspect the answer is by and large universal.
Before answering this, it needs to be noted that there is an ‘in principle’ answer based on the British Constitution e.g. traditions and customs based on the British (unwritten) Constitution; and a ‘in reality’ answer (in accordance with the Constitution) – both of which are equally valid in their own way!
In 1215 King John signed the Magna Carta (the foundation stone of the British Constitution); at that point the hierarchy was:-
1. God
2. The Pope of Rome
3. The King of England
4. The embryonic Parliament (House of Lords)
In 1341, under the reign of Edward III, Parliament was divided into two chambers: What would become the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: the hierarchy from that time became:
1. God
2. The Pope of Rome
3. The King of England
4. The House of Lords
5. The House of Commons
In 1534 King Henry VIII broke ties with the Pope and created the Church of England, making himself the head of the church; so the new hierarchy became:-
1. God
2. The King of England
3. The Church of England
4. The House of Lords
5. The House of Commons
10 Years after the end of English civil war (1642-1651), where the King was deposed and England became a Republic for 10 years, came the split between the ‘in principle’ and ‘in reality’.
From 1660; when Parliament reinstated a King (King Charles II); in theory, according to the British Constitution, the hierarchy was:
1. God
2. The King of England
3. The Church of England
4. The House of Lords
5. The House of Commons
In reality, from 1660 the hierarchy was:
1. The House of Lords
2. The House of Commons
3. The King of England
4. The Church of England
The House of Commons began to radically reform from 1832, but it was not until 1911 that the House of Commons finally became supreme over the House of Lords.
In today’s secular society (modern Britain); in theory, according to the British Constitution, the hierarchy is:-
1. God
2. The King of England (as head of the Church of England)
4. House of Commons
5. House of Lords
The above theoretical hierarchy is supported by the fact that King Charles III, who is the head of the Church of England, swears an oath to god, and the fact that 25 of the politicians in the House of Lords (in accordance with the British Constitution) are C of E Bishops, and that British politicians in Parliament have to either swear an oath of allegiance to King and god, or optionally take a non-religious, solemn affirmation.
In today’s secular society (modern Britain); in reality, according to the British Constitution, the hierarchy is:-
1. House of Commons
2. House of Lords
3. The King of EnglandSo, what form of government is it officially? A parliamentary one? I ask because similar to Britain Sweden was once a monarchy as well. Today they are a Constitutional monarchy. They also align with being a secular society, 'today', one might say in the formal sense. The state separated from the Church of Sweden the year of 2000.
From the U.S. Department of state they share Sweden's hierarchy is;
" Executive--monarch (head of state); prime minister (head of government); Cabinet, responsible to Parliament. Legislative--unicameral Parliament (Riksdag--349 members)."Officially, the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
The ‘Executive’ (the elected government) is given delegated powers from the King by legislation and social conventions (The Constitution), with the King serving as the Head of State (symbolic), and the Prime Minster serving as the elected head of government in a Parliamentary Democracy.
The Government is answerable to Parliament (the Legislature), which is made up of two chambers; the House of Lords (unelected and unpaid politicians who are either appointed for life or inherited the seat, albeit they get paid expenses), and the House of Commons (who are paid, and who are elected on a 5 year term maximum). There are:-
• 650 MPs (elected politicians) in the House of Commons, and
• 783 (currently) unelected politicians in the House of Lords, of which 26 are Bishops, and 92 are hereditary peers e.g. the seat being inherited from their forefathers over the generations.
How do you become a Lord, in the House of Lords: https://youtu.be/RrQBTvRj0s8First, I made a reply, then deleted because the humorous video explained some of it. I like British humor. They say you learn more easily when having fun, fun, fun as best as can be. That is my mantra as a departing salutation with emails to friends.
First, stated is the government is answerable to Parliament what does government mean? I ask because I have always presumed Parliament was the government or at least faction of it.
Wow! This is just a question of curiosity. Are all 650 MPs seated when assembled? I ask because of the videos you have shared as well as others. They always show what to me looks more closer to a small hall than a large one. And, those that speak are naturally verbal without aid of electronics.
With both houses is there a precedent for voting for something to pass. In other words, a simple majority vs 2/3 and etc, Do both houses have to approve legislation for it to become law? Does the prime minister have to sign off on the law? In other words, does the PM have the power to reject legislation? Can a law be contested in the courts for legality?
I got from the video the House of Lords read the proposed legislation and may send it back to the House of Commons, but it didn't say if they vote on it.
Just questions of curiosity . . .In answer to your questions:
1: WHAT IS THE MAKEUP OF THE UK GOVERNMENT IN PARLIAMENT?
In the UK Parliament Government is the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet. The Prime Minster being the leader of the political party that won the General Election.
A Cabinet are politicians appointed by the Prime Minster to run the various Government Departments e.g. one politician being responsible for each Government Department: Currently 22 Cabinet Members. So currently the Government consists of 23 elected Conservative politicians in the House of Commons - the Prime Minister and 22 Cabinet Members – These are known as the Front Benchers because they sit on the front benches in the chamber in the House of Commons.
The Remainder of Conservative MPs are not part of the Government, they are part of Parliament; and these are known as the Back Benchers as they sit on the back benches, behind the Government. And it’s not unusual for there to be friction between Government and its own beck benchers e.g. the Conservative back benchers (represented by the 1922 Committee) have deposed three Conservative Prime Ministers in the last 5 years.
2a: HOW MANY PHYSICAL SEATS IN PARLIAMENT?
There are 400 seats in the House of Lords and 427 seats in the House of Commons.
The rules on seating in the two chambers are different:
House of Lords:
In the House of Lords all politicians, whether they are seated or not, can participate in debate.
House of Commons:
In the House of Commons, only those politician who that find a seat are allowed to participate in debate; so for the backbenchers it’s a case of ‘first come, first served’ – with the front benches on either side being reserved for Government, and the Shadow Cabinet.
The Shadow Cabinet being where the leader of the main opposition party appoints MPs from its only party to mirror the Government Cabinet e.g. the Minister of Defence in the Conservative Government cabinet will be shadowed by a Labour MP who has been appointed as the Shadow Minister of Defence who will hold the Minister of Defence to account in Parliament etc.
Although only those MPs who are seated are permitted to take part in debates in the House of Commons; when it comes to time to vote ‘all’ MPs can vote.
One reason the chamber in the House of Commons doesn’t always look full on CCTV is because during long boring debates many MPs will wander off for a snooze, a coffee break, a chat (lobby), or to deal with his Constituency correspondence and other official business etc. But dotted around the House of Commons are big monitor screens that gives live updates on the debate – And when it comes time to vote the division bells are rung 8 minutes before the division lobby doors are locked.
Hanging from the ceilings are microphones, so that the voiced of everyone speaking in the Commons can be heard clearly.
2b: HOW ARE THE SEATS DIVIDED IN THE COMMONS?
In the House of Commons there are 427 seats:-
• 1 seat at the far end for the Speaker.
• 213 seats on one side of the Chamber for the Government side, and
• 213 seats on the other side of the Chamber for all the opposition parties
The Front benches are reserved for the Government on one side, and the Shadow Cabinet on the opposite side; with all the other politicians scrambling on a first come first served bases to find a seat on the appropriate side.
The Red Lines Dividing the Two Sides of the Chamber:
In front of the front benches on both sides of the chamber is a red line, the two red lines are two sword lengths apart; and traditionally MPs are not allowed to stand in front of these red lines during debates e.g. in medieval times it was to prevent opposing sides from coming to sword blows. Although these days it is illegal for any MP to wear a sword in Parliament, except for the Serjeant-at-Arms – In fact it’s obligatory for the Serjeant-at-Arms to wear his/her sword in the Commons.
3: VOTING - SIMPLE MAJORITY
Voting is just a simple majority in both houses
4: DO BOTH HOUSES HAVE TO APPROVE LEGISLATION FOR IT TO BECOME LAW?
Yes, both houses have to approve legislation for it to become law. HOWEVER, under the Salisbury Convention (a rule imposed on the House of Lords in 1948, voluntary by the House of Lords themselves, and hence became part of the British Constitution): The House of Lords are obligated to approve any Government Bill if that Bill was part of the Government’s Election Manifesto when they were democratically elected; all they can do is to try to Amend it. BUT, if a Government tries to pass a Bill that was NOT part of the Government’s Election Manifesto, then the House of Lords are free to block that Bill if they so wish.
5: DOES THE PRIME MINISTER HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THE LAW? IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THE PM HAVE THE POWER TO REJECT LEGISLATION?
NO. The PM has no power to reject Legislation passed by Parliament.
6: CAN A LAW BE CONTESTED IN THE COURTS FOR LEGALITY?
Most defiantly yes:-
The most recent example is the Government’s Rwanda Policy:
The Government’s Rwanda Policy is where two years ago the UK Government paid the Rwanda Government $million as part of an agreement that illegal immigrants entering Britain from France would be sent to Rwanda.
This policy is considered illegal under International Law because Rwanda is considered an ‘unsafe’ country for illegal immigrants by the UN. Therefore, on their first attempt last year, to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda it was stopped at the last minute by both the UK High Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Rwanda asylum plan cancelled after European Court of Human Rights ruling: https://youtu.be/kSOABmAClqw
Following the Government’s failed attempt, in Jan of this year the Government forced Legislation through Parliament (with strong opposition from the House of Lords) to make sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda legal under ‘British Law’ (in spite of it being illegal under International Law).
The House of Lords couldn’t block it because it was part of the Government’s immigration policy in their Election Manifesto, but the House of Lords did manage to delay the Bill becoming law until last month.
However, within days of the Bill becoming law a High Court in Northern Ireland declared the new law illegal in Northern Ireland because it contravenes the Northern Ireland 1998 Peace Treaty with Britain under International Law (The Good Friday Agreement). And every indication is that if the Government did try to implement the new law it will still be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. The new law is never likely to be used because we are now in the middle of a General Election, and if Labour wins they are committed to repealing the new law as soon as they come into power.
Another example is the changes the Scottish Government tried to make to the UK’s ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’ in Scotland. Under UK law a transgender can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate, but part of the application process is the requirement for a medical assessment by two NHS doctors.
If the medical profession certifies that the person is transgender, and a Gender Recognition Certificate is approved, that allows the transgender to have their sex changed on their birth certificate and marriage certificate.
The Law that the Scottish Government passed in Scotland was the removal of the need for the medical assessment. This was one step too far for the UK Conservative Government, so they challenged the Scottish Law in the Courts and won – making the Scottish Law void.
UK government blocks Scotland's gender recognition bill: https://youtu.be/EOryYoDLNcs
7: VOTING IN THE TWO HOUSES
In replay to your query: “I got from the video the House of Lords read the proposed legislation and may send it back to the House of Commons, but it didn't say if they vote on it.”
The progression of a Bill in the House of Lords is the same as in the House of Commons; as follows:-
A Bill must undergo five steps in each House of Parliament – first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading.
If a Bill is approved by the House of Commons (by vote), after passing through the above 5 steps then it passes to the House of Lords who process the Bill though the same 5 steps, voting on it at the various stages as appropriate.
If the House of Lords add Amendments to the Bill then it has to be passed back to the House of Commons to debate and vote on the Amendments – A process which can end up in what’s called ‘ping-pong’.
The Most famous ping-pong was when in 2012 the Conservative Government introduced a Bill to cut Welfare Benefits by $15 billion; in accordance with their 2010 Election Manifesto. The House of Lords (who vehemently objected to the welfare benefit cuts) kept adding Amendments to the Bill each time the House of Commons passed it onto them – After three months of this pin-pong between the two Houses, the then Conservative Prime Minister shelved his plans to cut Welfare Benefits in order to avoid a ‘Constitutional Crisis’.
To repeat, "Yes, it would be very arrogant if I were serious in declaring I was right and you were wrong. It was a joke. As noted by the emoji.
Too many folks take themselves too damn seriously."
The thought was 'more' ideological than cultural, not "all' ideological. It was just a thought, not a criticism or statement of fact.
GA
Thanks for sharing your thoughts - you raise some interesting observations.
Problem is that someone, somewhere will find just about anything we say to be offensive. Comment that the sky is a lovely shade of blue and someone will be offended because their portion of the world has brown eyes so the statement is "dissing" them.
Problem is that we have decided that perception and feelings trumps truth and reality. It takes priority, with truth and reality coming in a distance third and fourth. And this inevitably produces the kinds of things (I think) this thread is about. The "hate" crime of words. The cyber bullying. the perversion of pretending to be a sex we are not. The list goes on and on where feelings trump truth and therefore words must be banned and punished.Yep, that has been the point of the discussion. Words and feelings are now becoming more important than actions.
In this case of hate crimes, actions and intent aren't even part of the equation.
GAThis is the problem with accepting men as women and allowing them to compete with and occupy places in society as women.
This is the problem with 72 different sexes.
This is the problem with minors being mutilated and these procedures being encouraged and protected by the government.
These things do not strengthen a society, they allow for its downfall.
Words can have any meaning a person 'feels' that they mean, even symbols can be turned upside down, what was once the 'Peace Sign' made with fingers is now considered racist a sign of white supremacy.
This is NOT Liberalism.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
Equity is NOT Liberal nor what America promised in its Constitution.
Feelings are not a basis for Fact or Reality. Regardless of someone feeling like a woman that was born a man, or if you are offended by what someone said or wrote.
You will own nothing and be happy about it. sounds like an outlandish fantasy. Then I researched it.
Through both the UN and WEF (they partnered in 2019) businesses, governments, and global elites share a vision of a future that sounds utopian: Everyone will have everything they need, and no one will own anything.
That is their goal and that is ultimately what most in DC today work toward, most certainly the Biden Administration.
From declines in home and vehicle ownership to global inflation and government spending, many of the trends of the past few years reveal that a new world is emerging... one in which Western citizens, by choice or by circumstance, increasingly do not own possessions or accumulate wealth.
Can one truly be free, have liberty, without the right to own property?
The Biden Administration is creating the perfect economic environment for the rich and powerful to solidify their positions and prevent anyone else from getting ahead.
International organizations, socialist activists (Open Society), and multinational corporations like Blackrock (Larry Fink) all work together to reduce the power of the dollar and make millions poorer and less free.
Its not a Democrat vs. Republican or Black vs. White issue facing us today.
It is Pro-American, Liberty, Property-Ownership vs. Oppression and Servitude brought about by callous International Agencies and Autocrats (WEF, WHO, UN, IMF, WB)... that do NOT have the interests of American citizens in mind when they are making their decisions.
American Citizens and their Freedoms, Liberties and Rights are the problem they are focused on doing away with... and the Biden Administration is complicit in this.
Why is “associating the context of the 'words can hurt' and 'words only' reasoning of this discussion with the extreme example of cyberbullying” a mismatch? Cyberbullying is no more than just ‘words’.
Yeah, “If a law is unrealistic then it cannot be equitable”; there are plenty of examples of unrealistic laws in every country – and often (but not always) in free democracies they become unenforceable.
But where you say “the application of a law must consider intent” in the context of hate crime, our views do differ for a couple of main reasons:-
1. There are people who are prejudice without realising it; so they unintentionally hurt people without even realising that they are doing so – ‘ignorance’, and
2. The more important factor is the harm done to the victim of hate crime; the fact that the person causing harm didn’t have intent because of ignorance is secondary – in my view. But as I said, in a Crown Court, Judges do take into account whether there was intent or not when sentencing if the person is found guilty by a jury – although, will take into account whether there was ‘intent’, and if not my well find the person ‘not guilty’.
That reminds me of when I was juror, and one case I sat on was a young lad who had been charged with ‘dangerous driving’ on a motorbike – maximum sentence being 2 years prison.
There was no doubt that he was speeding, and if the police had bought a charge of speeding we would have found him guilty; but they didn’t they only charged him with dangerous driving, based on undisputable evidence that he was guilty obtained from an ‘unmarked’ police van that was following him.
However, after 2 hours of debate in the jury room; we concluded that he was ‘NOT Guilty’ on the grounds that he was driving under duress e.g. that in his mind he thought that he was being chased by thugs in a van, not police in an ‘unmarked’ van.
So what is on a person’s mind when they commit a crime can have a bearing on their judgment in Court, even if the police are overzealous; but it still doesn’t alter the fact of “Ignorantia juris non excusat” (ignorance of the law is no excuse).
So as I often say in these forums – nothing is ever ‘black and white’
So where you say “Words can be hurtful and cause harm, but their use should only be illegal when there is intent (action) to cause harm.”; as I’ve already covered above – we have fundamentally differing views on this matter:
In my view, if words do cause harm, a crime has been committed, and so ignorance of the law is no excuse. If ignorance was an excuse then people who are ignorant of the harm they are doing could go around causing untold harm with impunity – which in my mind is unacceptable.
I guess an analogy is someone kills another person, regardless to whether there was ‘intent’ or not, a crime is committed; if the killing was done with intent then it’s murder, if it was done without intent then its manslaughter.
Which highlights another major difference between British and American law e.g. if you kill a burglar in the USA who has broken into your home then it’s legal because you’re defending your property; whereas in the UK it’s automatically manslaughter.
Putting things in perspective, one need to look at the culture e.g. American attitudes are radically different to European attitudes – so what Americans find acceptable Brits don’t and vice versa e.g. as an American you believe our European laws go too far, whereas as a Brit I strongly believe that American laws don’t go far enough – and I’m not sure (with our differing cultures) whether we will ever see eye to eye?
As regards calling ‘little people’ midgets; it’s not hate crime in Britain, but it’s disrespectful; and as a Brit I think it’s reasonable to be respectful to others e.g. being respectful of others by calling dwarfs little people and not midgets, and calling transgender people by whatever gender terms they find respectful etc.
I agree that:-
“As with everything, it's a matter of degrees. Both sides can find examples and counter-examples as valid support. The argument isn't about drawing a line, it's about where the line is drawn.”
But as a Brit, as explained above; I have a different perspective to your view, where you say “Regulating thoughts (through words) based on skin color without considering intent is an unrealistic place to draw a line.”And here we are again, finished. We made it through the 'What' without getting hung up on tangents of the 'Why(s).'
This time is a bit different. This one looks to be affected more by ideology (ie. your degree of liberalism) than British culture.
Since that's the case, there's no need to continue arguing the details. It's obvious that I'm right and you're wrong. ;-)
GADon’t you think it’s rather arrogant to declare that ‘you (GA) is right, and that I’m (a Brit) is wrong’?
Sorry, but the ideology in British (and European) society on ‘hate speech’ is part of our European/British culture.
I’ve quoted in previous posts above the definition of hate speech under UK law; maybe you would find the definition under EU law more palatable?
EU Law: Definition of Hate Speech in the EU:
“Hate speech is all types of expression that incite, promote, spread or justify violence, hatred or discrimination against a person or group of persons, or that denigrates them, by reason of their real or attributed personal characteristics or status such as “race”, colour, language, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.”
If you don’t like the UK laws on Hate Speech, then you’ll hate the ‘Online Safety Act’ passed by the Conservative Government in October 2023 even less; and the EU’s equivalent; the Digital Services Act, which became EU law in Feb 2022 – especially as these laws will have an impact on your e.g. under these laws the CEO’s of social media platforms such as twitter and Facebook etc. are legally responsible and therefore can be prosecuted if they don’t make enough effort to remove harmful content quickly. Under the British Law Social Media platforms can be fined up to 10% of their global annual profits if they don’t comply with the law.
https://youtu.be/KCZt6CXghMYYes, it would be very arrogant if I were serious in declaring I was right and you were wrong. It was a joke. As noted by the emoji.
Too many folks take themselves too damn seriously.
[EDIT ADDED]
As you say . . . after a short coffee break . . . That "Some folks," and "too seriously" need some explaining. It fit the bill for the moment, but if left alone, will probably be as misunderstood as the "I'm right" one.
Our (generic forum posters) participations are only individual opinions. Sometimes they are informative discussions that profit all involved, and sometimes they are just arguments about who's opinion is right regarding the hot-button issues of the day.
That's why I stick to concepts. The 'this is what I think' discussions, not the declarative 'I'm right, you're wrong' arguments concerning 'details.' I certainly form my own opinion about who is right—based on my opinion of the concept, but, I know we're just keyboard warriors and Google scholars, not world-savvy sages or wise philosophers. Too many of us get carried away and forget that.
The emoji was intended to convey that. and the reference to "some of us" was intended to be both directed and generic.
We're just enjoying a 'hobby' bud. ;-)
GALanguage barrier: I apologise for misinterpreting your intent; American and British is so radically different that it’s not always possible for a Brit to know when an American is being serious or not – an no doubt vice versa.
I think one reason I might have missed your humour is that your emoji has only shown up as a jumble of letters and not the picture icon!
I guess the only addition is that in general people tend know their own culture best; but all too often some (not you) from across the pond think they know Britain and Europe better than the people who live here in Europe.
Yep, as you said: “Just enjoying a hobby” – HubPages being something I spent a short period on first thing in the morning before I start my day e.g. gardening, my workshop, or whatever else is on the agenda for the day etc., which currently includes finding time to catch up on the election campaigning by the various political parties for the UK’s General Election on 4th July (which so far has been quite entertaining).It looks like we're good. This is good, because your "misogyny" thing, from my perspective, is so nuts that I ran to look up the term to make sure we were talking about the same thing. We are and it is nuts.
You want to legislate contempt—as a thought. I'll get back to you on that. The thoughts are stumbling over themselves trying to get out first. They need some organization.
The emoji thing: I'm not fond of picture emojis (probably an 'old coot' thing), but they can be useful. So, I chose a 'protest' position: I'll use them, but my way, and only two. My smiley face is: winking eyes ; a nose - and a smile ) Together you get a 'jumble of letters,' a sideways smiley: ;-) Picture emojis are text tresspassers. Sort of like an ereader vs. a physical book.
GAOn the emoji thing, I,too use the 'old fashion, before technological wizardry came along, of doing it shall we say manually. In machinist speak, it is like comparing the original Bridgeport mill to today's numerical control (NC) Bridgeport mill. I learned on the former and don't know how to use the latter.
But, I do use the new fan dangled newer ones too.
With my letters to a dear friend in Sweden I use Yahoo mail. An emoji is only the traditional, manual one → ;-) :-)) :-/ :-0 and onward. In other words, they don't provide an emoji option.Here's something to ponder . . . does your Yahoo description say something about us and Yahoo?
GAWellll . . . curious I was not lying I just checked and Yahoo does have emojis. Oops!! Goes to show you what I know ;-)
However, I tend to do the manual version intuitively. It is like being on automatic pilot and there is ease until you learn the queue to do them . . . I guess.
Why is ‘misogyny’ nuts?
Contempt of court is a criminal offence in the UK; but beyond that contempt of anything else isn’t a crime – and I don’t see that it should be: Although if contempt leads to a criminal act e.g. hate crime, criminal damage etc., then the person will be judged by their actions.
Your textual representation of an emoji, namely ;-), doesn’t stand out - and if it is seen, can so easily be taken as just punctuation diarrhoea. However, as a baby boomer, I do get what you are saying – my hang up is with smart phones: It does irk me the way most people these days are glued to their smart phones to the exclusion of what’s going on around them, responding to it every time it goes ping, even when they are in a middle of holding a conversation or watching something on TV with you.
I feel mobile phones should predominately be just a phone, not a mini-computer. I use my smart phone predominately just for phone calls; most of the time (except for when we go out) I put my smart phone somewhere where it’s out of earshot - and I wait until I’m sitting at my home/office computer before I answer my emails, do my banking, and everything traditionally done on a home computer.
Also, I much prefer to use cash rather than make cashless payments; which is getting increasingly difficult to do as more and more people prefer not to use cash – In that respect I’ll use my bank card for cashless payments when forced to, but I refuse to use my smart phone to make cashless payments.Still working on the misogyny thing. Relative to smartphones, I like what I can do and get from my smartphone. But I can easily ignore the pings and dings and feel like you about folks being glued to them.
GAI'm with you, GA, when it comes to smartphones. I purely hate to see others (especially kids) with their nose buried in the smartphone but I use it far more for things other than a phone than I do as a phone.
A recent trip, traipsing around a dozen different foreign cities, would not have been possible without Google.
When my credit card began to fail in some readers, the phone was available to pay with.
It provided music and games on the 10 hour flight each way.
It bought me entrance tickets to tourist traps online, guaranteeing me a place when I got there.
It gave me a description of those same traps, allowing me to plan which ones to see.
It found restaurants to eat at.
It provided translation service through at least 10 different languages as needed.
It provided some communication via text and wifi between travel mates while on board ship. Not phone - WIFI data.
More than a few times it was a flashlight.
It provided currency exchange rates as needed, through a half dozen different currencies.
It provided continual map and guidance service.
It gave me the ability to ride public transport, always knowing which bus/train/metro/boat I should get on.
And, as always, it was an unlimited encyclopedia of knowledge.
Phone usage was $.25 per minute for calls there; I spent $11 in three weeks (mostly my sister calling me to see what I was doing or when dinner was). I also spent, I'm sure, well over 100 hours using the phone for other purposes than being a phone.Sounds like you get your money's worth.
I'm even beginning to like the results from my AI Assistant.
GA
I looked into this misogyny issue—your government's views, efforts, and conclusions, your legislative efforts, and explanations of what legislation is the goal.
I got nothing. There is nowhere to go with this issue that hasn't already been covered by the 'coconuts' discussion. My objections follow the same logic, only more strongly so. The bottom line is that like the 'somebody thought . . .' racial rationalization for coconuts, this one goes even further to encompass thoughts of contempt.
You guys think it's okay to legislate against thought. 'That still ain't right.'
GAWe don’t “legislate against thought” in the UK; you seem to be taking the argument one step further than reality!
What people think is immaterial; it’s what people say (‘words’) and how it’s presented/said that is important – and it’s the ‘word’ not ‘thought’ that is regulated in ‘hate speech’.
Besides, misogyny is a serious crime; so why shouldn’t it be included in ‘hate crime’.
However, the proposal to include ‘misogyny’ as hate crime was not the Government’s policy; it was an Amendment introduced into Parliament in 2022 by the House of Lords in response to a serving Met (London) Police Officer (while on duty), kidnapping, raping and murdering Sarah Everard in 2021.
The Police wasn’t pressing for misogyny to be included as hate crime because they already have sufficient powers under other British laws to prosecute when such crimes are committed; and the House of Lords didn’t get support from the House of Commons either e.g. the House of Lords Amendment was defeated in the House of Commons by 314 to 190 votes.
https://news.sky.com/story/ministers-cr … d-12554448It appears, from your exclamation mark punctuation, that you feel strongly about this misogyny issue, so let me start with a caveat: We're just enjoying a 'hobby' here and a sense of humor is an asset.
As the Pol said to the starry-eyed 1st-termer: Bless your heart, murder is a serious crime, misogyny is just a poor character trait.
“legislate against thought” rephrased?
Legislate against crime based on thought? Based on the thought of a receiver instead of the sender? Based on the thought of a victim instead of the actions of an offender?
In your clarifying statement, you say what people think is immaterial, it is how it is presented that makes the difference. It seems to me that determination is based solely on the thought of the one making the charge. That's what I'm saying too.
In the coconuts example the circumstances and context indicated to a neutral party (me), that the placard holder's intent wasn't a racially motivated slur, yet because someone thought it was, your law classified it as a chargeable crime.
Now you say 'contempt' fits the same mold. Surely 'arrogance' should be equally punishable. It is contempt's companion, it's hard to have one without the other.
You felt it was arrogant of me to say I was right—based on what you thought I meant. Yet, when your thought was addressed it was shown to be mistaken. "Contemp" legislation would have allowed me to be charged with a hate crime (regardless of convictability(sp?)) because you "thought" I was being contemptuous/arrogant. That ain't right.
GADebating with an ardent socialist/globalist can be difficult, can't it?
But kudos to Arthur for knowing what he is, confidently expressing it and defending it.
Unlike here in America... where many believe defending their Party is defending 'Democracy' or defending a war is defending "Democracy'... not sure what is worse, being deliberately deceptive about it, or being so clueless as to believe it.Ken, I think that he has made his case well, from a totally different perspective one that you don't appreciate. Democracy is the rule of law and not giving room for those that undermine it. There seems to be a more stable appreciate of that concept in Britain than what exists here.
What! He's a socialist? Damn, who knew. I wonder if he knows I'm a Conservative?
GAWhat???
A Conservative? You?
I've known you all these years and you kept it in the closet so well...It's a grammar (and socks) thing. [C] vs. [c].
GA
Yep, I’m also an atheist and a vegetarian; and my closest friend is a gay Catholic Priest: It’s not what you are that matters in friendships and relationships e.g. your gender, religion, politics etc., it’s who you as a person that matters.
A bit of British Humour about the British Police, and our varied dialects across this small island - to lighten up the day: https://youtu.be/34mk2F4iff4 
I like vegetables too. I eat them once in awhile. The video was good. It made me think of 'Teeter' in the tv series Yellowstone.
GA
I thought you were a classical liberal. Now I know the truth. Good to know.
Google says the "Classical Liberal" box would be a good fit for me. I don't disagree, but I think '[C]onservative' is more generally accurate.
I feel Conservative. Dress Conservative. Live conservatively. So I must be the duck.
GAYep, I was once a Democrat, even got to sit beside Ted Kennedy and have a discussion (brief) one day back when I was 16.
I changed... but so did the Party, and our government.It was the internet. The internet caused it all.
GAWas it?...
Is that what has caused a slow erasure of the edifices of reason?It's the facilitator of it. Before it, the idiots had to yell into the vastness of society to, hopefully, find kindred spirits and build mass. Now, the internet allows them to yell right into the masses of society. Everybody hears them, whether they want to or not.
GAWhy not simply change channels who compels you to listen?
"Whatcha talking bout Willis?
My point was about the availability of the channels and the immediacy of their effect. It had nothing to do with being compelled.
Consider it this way: The "idiots" I referred to would be anyone with a 'nutty' (intended as generally as 'idiots' was) idea/belief.
So, before the internet, idiots that boil their turds would never be able to form a club because —since they wouldn't announce that to everybody in public, they couldn't easily find fellow-thinkers. But, with the Net they can have instant connection with the other 9 turd-boilers in the world without having to leave their basement.
Now they have a club. They can make speeches, join parades, and have recruitment drives. Now the world has to deal with turd-boilers. Whereas, before the Net it was just immediate acquaintances that had to deal with them.
Just substitute your favorite 'idiot' and 'nutty' idea with the 'turd-boilers': Lefties, Rightwingers, Marxism, Socialism, etc., and you have the concept.
GASo, GA, what is wrong with the availability of channels and the immediacy of their effect?
Everybody has a different opinion of what is idiocy and what is nutty.
I counter your "before the internet" position with this. My wife loves to listen to the English songstress, Susan Boyle. She was discovered on a u-tube internet posting. Think about it. She had no producers, no connections, no managers, just raw talent. This talent presented to her audiences directly that would not have been possible without the internet. Worthless concepts and ideas do not go viral and will not gain popular support on line or anywhere else. I trust the people to decide.
even though, you may have issue with this, I like the democratization of people and ideas. Not everybody has the money or resources to get their ideas and concepts out and that should not preclude them from doing so. Another reason I support the internet.I don't have an issue. It was a jocular response to Ken.
GALOL Does that include Donald Trump and his ideas? Or nearly any Republican? You have made your position there crystal clear; Republicans have no ideas or thoughts worthy of anything at all - now you say they should be expressing them on the internet.
No, i don't like Trump, Republicans nor their ideological bent on most everything, but I did not propose to muzzle their ideas. While, I have heard more than I can handle, I don't subscribe to any of them. Is that OK?
They are free to express themselves as anyone else and I will support their right to that.
I seem to be communicating poorly these last couple of days. let me try again.
My point wasn't that the internet is bad, only that it can facilitate bad things. It also facilitates good and great things. It isn't good or bad, it just is. Like a hammer that can build a house or crush a skull, it just 'is.' It's a thing, not an action.
The point about the "turd-boilers" —let's replace them with Nazi sympathizers, the point about Nazi sympathizers is that they are dangerous to our society. Individually they are dangerous, collectively they become very dangerous. The Net's facilitation of the massing of that collective was the point. Without the Net it is unlikely (or at least less likely) they would ever find that mass of kindred spirits by word of mouth or social gatherings.
Since the Net also facilitates good 'collective efforts,' only the results can be judged good or bad, not the act.
GAIts alright, I am listening regardless.
But, GA, doesn't every invention since the wheel have the potential of encouraging both good and bad things? In spite of the national carnage in auto fatalities, I am not giving up my SUV for a stagecoach.
I simply see the good of the Internet outweighing the negative aspects. This is true of the printing press, making it possible for more people to read and understand more. Having ready access to knowledge and information is preferable to the selected ignorance of the past where a lot of unsavory ideas and concepts are not recognized for what they are by most people, short of a lot of scholarly research.
There are and has been a lot of unsavory groups in our society, internet or not. Their ideas had best stay within that realm of they will be prosecuted if anyone's hair strand is so much as bent out of shape.Maybe it's the drugs . . .
Each of your responses defends the internet. You offer judgment in each of your comparisons and anecdotes. There wasn't a judgment of the internet intended in my comments. Your responses say you think there was.
If my description of it as a "facilitator," or as "facilitating" bad actors caused confusion (it generally carries negative connotations more often than positive ones), then maybe 'enabler' would be . . . Nope, enabler sounds even worse. The point is the negative inference wasn't intended.
See what I mean about doing a poor job communicating. I'll work on it.
GA ;-)It was fairly simple what you said regarding the internet.
It allows people of like minds to find one another, increasing their distorted beliefs in echo chambers... where as before they had no ability to find like minded people so easily.
You used some unusual example... for instance, people who want to believe themselves to be anime-animals... 20 years ago that was nuts and you wouldn't find many people in the neighborhood thinking like that, but on the internet... you'd think its normal today.Yep, the ability to create 'echo chambers' carries the point.
The unusual example was just for Cred. I tried to think of one that couldn't be rationalized.
GAAlong those lines, with jest, I am a member of an enthusiast group for In-n-Out burger. My Facebook feed is inundated with images like the following creating an echo chamber.
(A double-double with pickles added animal style)
Why do you torment me? I remember the In and Out franchises when I lived in California. The problem is with age, nothing ever tastes as good as it looks anymore.
I first had a double-double back about '73 at Irwindale drag racing track. They had a stand there. The burgers are just as good today as back then. BTW . . . they are opening an In-n-Out in Tennessee soon. So, its getting closer to you.
One thing to note, I get a double-double and fries for just a notch over $8. Consider they only have one size for fries and it is larger than large at other burger joins. I take it home so no need of a drink. It costs more at the other burger places.No question about where's the beef, that is some serious beef. The only thing we have comparable is "Five Guys" that would stack a burger like that.
In and Out prices seem pretty reasonable, you can pay 20 bucks for a loaded hamburger at Five Guys. I am looking forward to the In and Out arrival in Florida.There is only one located here in Escondido, Calif. It is about three miles from me. I bring it home to eat. I bring aluminum foil with me and wrap the burger and fries in it. It is warm when I get home.
Where I worked through 2013 it was just over a 1/2 mile away. I ate there at least 3 times a week then. M'm . . . M,m
Another interesting thing... Reviewing the French Revolution and how that was an overthrow of government/nobility and church and norms....
Today is a weird combination of that... Only the destruction of norms is being fostered by the government... While at the same time the government that is supposed to ensure the constitution is followed is doing everything to undermine it.
Is this a reverse revolution? The few using the destruction of the nation's foundational pillars to re-assert a form of subjugation and suppression of the people?
Ken, those people of "like minds" need not always be distorted and nefarious in their beliefs. You could easily do a 180 and see your example in a positive outcome, and positive developments, echo chambers, that would otherwise remain under the lampshade.
Exclusive access to information is a source of power and control in the wrong hands, and we do not want too much of that. Everyone having a hand in it makes it difficult for sinister people to monopolize information.
I guess that you sort of came across as negative regarding the internet, generally. Perhaps, I was mistaken?
Oops – we were talking at cross purposes; I thought you were still talking about ‘intent’ (of the sender), whereas you’d switched to ‘perception’ (of the victim).
I’ve read your last 4 paragraphs several times, and even taken a coffee break to try to understand your meanings; but for some reason I’m not grasping the meanings behind your statements – I either haven’t got my brain in gear, or we’re talking to different languages?
Anyway, I’ll muddle through and see if we can get any closer to understanding each other; firstly, a look at your last four paragraphs?
1. Where you say “It seems to me that determination is based solely on the thought of the one making the charge. That's what I'm saying too.” Do you mean the ‘sender’ making the charge or the ‘victim’ making the charge? Depending on which you meant, it changes the meaning of the statement.
2. The coconut example is likely to be little more than the police being overzealous; that will be determined by the courts e.g. less than 1% of hate speech cases, the ones which are obviously ridiculous (and usually get thrown out by the courts), occupies over 99% of American Social Media – which gives you a distorted picture of reality.
3. I said ‘contempt’ is not a crime, except ‘contempt of court’, so there is no punishment under British law; and the same applies for ‘arrogance’.
4. Being contemptuous or arrogant is not a crime; saying something that is an expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is a crime.
Getting back to what I assume is the nub of your “That ain’t right” feeling – namely “perception” of the victim:
As a Brit, I do feel that ‘perception’ of the victim is an important factor in determining whether ‘hate speech’ has been committed: There have been a number of high profile cases in the UK where children have committed suicide because of their belief that they were being prejudiced (hate speech) on social media by their mates who intended no more than to just tease them because of their differences e.g. ‘sexual orientation’.
Getting back to your first point: Misogyny
Yes I do “feel strongly about this misogyny issue”:
I don’t see why you dismiss misogyny as being trivial and unimportant: Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. So to me misogyny is a serious crime.
Yep, I agree “We're just enjoying a 'hobby' here and a sense of humor” or should I say humour “is an asset.”
Here’s a bit of Scottish Humour about ‘Hate Crime’ published by the Scottish Police (Warning, it’s in a Scottish dialect, so if you’re not familiar with the dialect you might find it a little difficult to follow): https://youtu.be/SPeUtdT9oUMContrarily, I don't think we are 'talking past' each other. The crux of both our views is the criminalization of a thought based on a perception of that thought by someone other than the one holding it.
I don't think I am trivializing misogyny, I don't think there is anything good about it, but it's a trait, I disagree with thinking criminalizing character traits—which are very different things than 'character actions,' is a good thing.
I thought of the semi-recent Gold dress/Blue dress controversy (but not the psychiatric aspects). You're probably familiar, and I found a good illustration of where I think we are, in a Guardian article about the dress thing:
The science behind the dress colour illusion.
Why do some people see The Dress as blue and black, and some as gold and white?
It had this image and blurb that seemed right for this discussion. There isn't a misunderstanding of what "Is" is, so we could argue our differing views of the 'details' forever.
"Look at the image below. The colour of surfaces A and B are identical. Place your finger over the join where the top and bottom half of the image meet.
Colour illusion
Surfaces A and B are the same colour. Photograph: brainden.com"
The area that gets covered—where the two colors meet, is the area of our contentions. Set aside the contentions (for a moment) and you see we are talking about the same thing.
GAWith regards to your statement “The crux of both our views is the criminalization of a thought based on a perception of that thought by someone other than the one holding it.” You hold an atypical American view of trivialising hate speech because of your inherent belief that ‘Freedom of Speech’ is paramount.
Whereas the European view is that with ‘Freedom of Speech’ comes responsibly to ensure that ‘freedom of speech’ doesn’t harm others. In that respect, allowing others, including parents and the police to criminalise hate speech to protect innocent vulnerable children is far more important.
You are trivializing misogyny, it was because of misogyny that Wayne Couzens (a London Policeman) abducted, raped and murdered Sarah Everard. Because misogyny isn’t currently a crime in the UK, before he committed such a heinous crimes Wayne Couzens was well known within the Met (London) Police Force for making female police officers feel uncomfortable because of his misogyny: That’s why the House of Lords wanted to change to the law to include misogyny as hate crime.
Following the murder of Sarah Everard by Wayne Couzens (a Serving Police Offer) who got a ‘whole life sentence’ for her murder; it came to light that two other Serving Police Officers (PC Jonathon Cobban and PC Joel Borders) had previously shared misogynistic messages with Winne Couzens on WhatsApp: The Metropolitan (London) Police were swift to prosecute both, and both got a 12 week prison sentence for sharing misogynistic messages on WhatsApp. So NO; misogyny is NOT trivial.
I don’t see the dress colour illusion or the other colour illusion is relevant to this discussion. It’s not a different viewpoint of the same thing; it is two completely different viewpoints (values) based on our radically different social/cultural values – ‘And never the twain shall meet’.Yep, most Americans do have a strong belief in freedom of speech. However, your thought that it is an unusual or abnormal view is arguable. "Atypical" was a word choice with an intended inference ("typical" being a neutral descriptor that would have carried the same message of difference), and that inference turns a 'fact' into an opinion.
And once again, as with the misogyny issue, not being in favor of criminalization only equates to trivialization in the extreme, not the norm. It is only an 'all or nothing' or 'if you aren't with me you're against me' perspective that would see it that way. Others see a scale of degrees between the two.
That thought is sorta reinforced when you follow with a rationalization that it's the right thing to do "to protect innocent vulnerable children." To this point, the context has been all about adults. Why introduce the 'it's for the children' justification? Do you think the argument needs to go to that extreme to find rationalization?
That was a bit pointed, but that's a common refrain heard over here when an effort being promoted or defended can't stand on its merits without it. 'It's for the children . . .' carries the direct inference that only an ogre could be opposed to protecting children. If an argument needs that it's a weak argument.
Your police example shows the starkness of our differences.
It reads as if you are saying either, he killed her because he was a misogynist, or, he wouldn't have been available to kill her if he had been imprisoned because of his misogynist views first. I would argue that he killed because he was a bad person, not because he was a misogynist.
The second part, about the other two officers, getting prison time for sharing messages of views seems very clear: they held thoughts—no actions beyond that sharing, and were imprisoned for it. That is nuts. Here's an extreme extrapolation for you: Today a misogynist thought can put you in prison, next it will be an arrogant thought that gets you jail time.
As for the correctness of the included image illustration . . .
Side A and B are the same color. That color is the issue for both views. For us, the criminalization of holding a view is the issue of our differing perspectives. Is that wrong? Do you disagree both sides of the image are the same color? Do you think I am also not talking about the 'color' of our issue?
The differences in our cultures are, like the joining point in the image, what changes the color we see in the image, such as the conservatism of my view and the liberalism of yours.
Take away the ideologies (as in 'put your finger over the joining'), and both see the same color—the same issue. The point is we aren't talking 'past' each other (as in misunderstanding the message), we simply disagree.
*I will refrain from telling you I'm right, again. There is seldom any gain from stating the obvious. ;-) ROFLMAO (just in case)
GAI'll respond in full when I get time: But first - FYI "To this point, the context has (NOT) been all about adults." I have actually mentioned children a number of times in this forum.
And secondly - the two Police Officers who were imprisoned for sharing misogyny on WhatsApp, was NOT just 'thoughts', the very act of sharing on-line is 'an action' beyond 'thought' - All I see is that you keep trying to twist things to belittle what is a very serious matter.Also as an FYI, you have only mentioned "children" once—relative to cyberbullying. In a post prior to that one, cyberbullying was
discussed, along with other adult-associated hate crime examples. The thought-stream of that prior post had cyberbullying as an adjunct to the "coconuts" angle of the discussion. It wasn't a "to protect vulnerable children" usage.
If you are seeing my comments about misogyny as belittling, you should take a minute to look again. Why has your perspective changed from discussing differences to belittling them?
GAAs I said in my post above, I've actually referenced children in this forum on three previous occasions; the first time was right at the start of the debate - But then again, right-wing Americans don't care who gets hurt, as long as 'freedom of speech' is paramount.
My perspective hasn't changed from discussing differences to belittling them; it's you who keeps trying to trivialise serous issues.
I've think we've reached a point where it's become pointless discussing matters further - I've got far more fruitful ways to spend my time.Not only have I mentioned children 3 times in this forum, including right at the start, but I’ve also referenced the Online Safety Act, passed by the UK Conservative Government in 2023, which focuses on children safety online, and which is similar to the Legislation passed by the EU in 2022.
In the UK Adult TV News Media, most British News Channels these days set aside a short slot (at least once a week) called FYI, where children present the news: This short video below is one such children news slot on the adult news channel (Sky News), where at 4 minutes into the video the children news presenters cover the ‘Online Safety Bill’ just before it became law, and interviews one of the UK Conservative Government Ministers responsible for the Bill. https://youtu.be/SdxAoXY2R9g
Below, is another short video of Sky News talking about the Online Safety Bill just before it became law: https://youtu.be/fWzQ_Nrsubw
So you can’t tell me that children’s safety online cannot be protected in the name of ‘Freedom of Speech’ – That’s an American attitude, not a European attitude.
This is an Indian’s New Channel’s view of the UK’s Online Safety Act: https://youtu.be/KCZt6CXghMY
And FYI: One of the main Labour Election Manifesto policy (when they win the General Election) is to lower the voting age across the whole of the UK to 16.
There is more to this issue than what our "conservatives" share with you. We had an incident recently where a United States Supreme Court Justice was found flying pro-Trump banners on both his private properties. Your job and your responsibilities automatically proscribe your "freedom of speech". The member of the highest court of the land should be demonstrating impartiality in every aspect of his life, or he brings the reputation of the court to render non biased opinions into question by the observing public.
if the Chief of Police is caught spewing his bigotry and intolerance on line is that not an affront to the people that he is to serve impartially and free of corruption? Jobs that require the public trust must also require public behavior consistent with that.
While we would not go so far as to jail them as a crime has, technically, not be committed, we would be well within our rights to insist that such individuals resign from their positions or recuse themselves in cases of blatant conflicts of interest." a United States Supreme Court Justice was found flying pro-Trump banners on both his private properties."
Now, Credence, you know that is flat out false. It is a lie. Those flags were put up by the judge's spouse, who refused to remove them for several days. Unless you feel the male of the household has complete authority to do whatever he wishes, and therefore should have taken them down against her wishes?
But a question: A certain Democrat Mayor was filmed at the forefront of a small riot, breaking down private fencing and entering private property. Should she, too, be fired ("forced to resign") or is it only Republicans that are held to such a standard?Any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And just plain dumb.
The same goes for the flying of an “Appeal to Heaven” flag. These flags are viewed by many people as a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court. And he refuse to refuse. In my view, he is displaying complete contempt for ethical standards.
Courts work because people trust judges. Taking sides in this way erodes that trust. It further degrades the legitimacy of the Court. His wife does not understand that?
Is it unreasonable to expect a spouse to avoid embarrassing a loved one or complicating his or her professional life?
How would folks feel if Katanji Brown Jackson flew a BLM flag on her property and then blamed it on her husband? We all know the outrage that would ensue.
But similarly, why were right wingers so upset with Judge Mechan's daughter's job/past jobs? But not concerned over extremist flags flying over the homes of Alito?
Seems a bit hypocritical.
In terms of the mayor that was mentioned, I don't know the details of that story and the misinformation that is likely to have been presented in certain media. But a mayor is an elected office. Citizens will exercise their right to keep that person in office or vote them out when the time comes. Unfortunately we are stuck with the current scotus... The court needs to be overhauled. Term limits should be imposed.One story said the Justice did realize it was a bad idea and asked his wife to take it down. I think the same story said he didn't know about the flag until it hit the news, (or social media, or something).
I don't know if that's true, it's just one of the many explanations of the timeline. If it is, it seems the justice acted as you think he should have. So far.
Then, the story says his wife refused. As was asked, does the husband, in order to do the ethical thing, now have to exert marital authority to force his wife to take it down? Do you think he has that authority?
I'm with you on the "dumb" part. I think there is 'dumb' all over the issue. From the participants to the manipulators. It's dumb for this to even be an issue.
GAApparently it IS unreasonable to expect a spouse to avoid embarrassing their spouse.
But is it reasonable to blame the judge for the actions of his spouse? YOU certainly appear to think so - your entire post is one long dissertation on how that judge is responsible for those actions.
I disagree."But is it reasonable to blame the judge for the actions of his spouse?"
Well then, I surmise that you disagree with Jim Jordan saying he is going to try and haul judge Merchan and his daughter before his ridiculous weaponization committee? It's reasonable to assume that a daughter's actions or beliefs reflect that of the parent?
BTW Congress has no oversight capabilities concerning state courts.
The Supreme Court is supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Alito has not done that and certainly needs to recuse in all Trump, J6 related cases.
Again, would you be perfectly fine if judge Jackson flew a BLM flag on her property and then blamed her spouse? Would you be okay with any of the so-called liberal justices flying any sort of flag that is related to a particular cause or posting signage related to a partisan cause? MAGA seems to be speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this one.
MAGA wants to hang Merchan due to the work of his daughter but turn a blind eye to Alito because he through his wife under the bus?
My view? Those who sit on the highest court in the land should certainly have better judgment...Alito clearly doesn't and his arrogant refusal to recuse is a blatant middle finger to the courts ethics code. Scotus, with Alito and Thomas has become a dumpster fire. The American people shouldn't be saddled with these people until they die... Time for court reform."The Supreme Court is supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. "
Agreed.
"Alito has not done that and certainly needs to recuse in all Trump, J6 related cases. "
And what did Alito do (not his wife, Alito) that he should recuse himself?
Was it to live in the house where someone put an upside down flag? Was it to be married to someone that he failed to have complete control over? Was it to fail to check his surroundings every hour or so for an upside down flag?
Just what did Alito do to earn your wrath? You dance around the question very well, refusing to give a specific answer, but what you DO say has nothing to do with answering that simple question."And what did Alito do (not his wife, Alito) that he should recuse himself?'
He has given the very appearance of impropriety. Why should I believe him in terms of blaming his wife? And the story that his wife told, and Justice Alito repeated, has been refuted by the neighbor... Further adding to the appearance of impropriety.
Once again...If Justice Jackson flew a flag related to a partisan cause and then blamed it on her husband wouldn't it leave the stench of impropriety? Wouldn't it lead many to question the truth of the matter? I am certain that it would. What say you?
So, a Supreme Court justice of the US is unable to impress upon his wife the importance of his appearance of impartiality rather to descend to the stupidity of neighborhood squabbles? Not once, but twice? Such a man does not deserve to sit on the court. Yes, it is an excuse by Alito and a lame one at that. I said nothing about "me tarzan, you jane" stuff. Two adults should be able to reason and both come to this conclusion.
Yes, the Mayor should be severely chastised or fired. The position you hold and the oath that you take require nothing less.
and what whistle stop does this "Democratic mayor" hail from?How simple! Just say "Well, wife and husband should be able to reason it out and both come to the conclusions you did". And that makes perfect sense to you.
Again, I disagree.
It has been a while, but I believe the "whistle stop" with the Democratic mayor was Sacramento, I think during the uproar over the SCOTUS decision on abortion. Could be wrong, but don't think I am. In any case it was a large California city. And absolutely nothing happened.I don't trust Alito already as this behavior has me to believe that he is firmly in Trumps back pocket. America should not have to questions the impartiality of its Supreme Court justices. As Willow said, if Justice Jackson had a "black Lives Matter" flag on her property, the Rightwingers would virtually 'have a cow'.
I will check out your story regarding Sacramento for validity.The rioters broke down an iron fence and entered a private, gated HOA to scream at the home of some politician or judge (that wasn't even home). I think it was over abortion, but not positive. And I think it was the Sacramento mayor in the forefront as they did so, but again not positive. It was several years ago - might even have been over Trump's election.
That is ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt "this time" as I could identify the specific city and instance...
Yep, absolutely: A Police Officers job does "require the public trust (and) must also require public behaviour consistent with that." And where a Police officer does act inappropriately, most certainly they should be reprimanded at the very least.
I’ve never said that the American’s definition of ‘freedom of speech’ is “unusual or abnormal”; just different to the European perspective.
‘Atypical’, ‘typical’, ‘stereotype’; what’s the difference – either way you’re portraying the stereotype “white, middle class, Christian, right-wing, American” stereotype that’s so commonly portrayed in social media on this side of the pond.
Again, you are trying to put words into my mouth; I’ve never said it’s “all or nothing”, and you’re the one who said “you’re right and that I’m wrong”, supposedly said in jest! FYI, I stressed the importance of the “right balance” within the first week of this discussion. You’re the one that keeps trying to make it “all of nothing” e.g. you’ve on several occasions argued, where I‘ve said something is a crime under British law, ‘that because I said (so-and-so is a crime), you’ve gone on to say that such-and-such ‘fits the same mold’, and thus 'such-and-such should be equally punishable.’ You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that there are degrees and balances in British law, and that it’s not ‘black and white’ – Surely the fact that I’ve mentioned many times that the police can sometime be overzealous is a clue to the fact that there are boundaries – as I clearly stated in the first week of this forum.
FYI, it’s not the first time I’ve referenced children in this forum, if you do a word search you will find that I’ve referenced children on at least three other occasions. In fact, the first time I referenced children was right at the start of this forum; so NO, “To this point, the context has (NOT) been (just) all about adults.” - Again, you seem to be twisting the discussion to fit your narrative.
Sorry, but if the Policeman who killed Sarah Everard wasn’t a misogynist, it’s highly unlikely that he would have murdered her. It’s being a misogynist that made him a bad person.
The two police officers imprisoned for sharing misogynist messages online were not imprisoned for their thoughts; they were imprisoned for their actions. Again you’re trying to trivialise the issues by falsely making out that ‘actions’ are ‘thoughts’ – If you keep your thoughts to yourself, that’s your business – If you share your thoughts on line (words) then that is more than just thoughts: “The Pend in mightier than the sword”.
I’m sorry, but I disagree with your ‘colour analogy’: You seem to being suggesting that on this (and many issues) that American and European cultures are actually the same (same colour) they just appear to be different (an illusion)? Whereas in reality American and European cultures are radically different (as is evident by this ‘pointless’ discussion) – And thus “Never the Twain Shall Meet”.
The reason I started to participate on HP over 10 years ago was to learn about the American social, cultural and political system first hand from Americans themselves, rather than try to understand America from just reading about it on the web – but my close encounters on HP just confirms what the web portrays: And it makes me all the more glad that I’m European and not American.Probably sticking my nose where it doesn't belong . . . the point is offering another perspective . . . take it with a grain of salt . . .
"‘Atypical’, ‘typical’, ‘stereotype’; what’s the difference – either way you’re portraying the stereotype “white, middle class, Christian, right-wing, American” stereotype that’s so commonly portrayed in social media on this side of the pond."
So, Brits do stereotype Americans across the pond? They fit them in one basket? Social media or even media is the cause/fault of that? Don't you think/speculate that is what happens with 'perspective' for those on your 'side of the pond' for us here?
You realize, (I am pretty sure you do, but will go through it anyway) the first thing that comes to any person's mind is thoughts that are influenced by what is known as imaging. An image comes along reinforcing or changing thoughts cognitively.
That is why with neuroscience research they show images to people being scanned to discover topics like emotions, prejudices, and etc. People respond to images more quickly thus those scientist get the true reaction and what parts of the brain there is activity.
Our images arrive to us through lived personal experiences followed by, today, portrayals through the Movies and TV programming inclusive of news broadcasts. Images are strongly symbolic.
For example, with myself, mention the British culture the very first image that comes to my mind is the Victorian age. That is the movies I have seen most. You know horses and carriages and the socially elite.
The next image is old WWII movies specific to British culture the scenes with American airman interacting with the available ladies in pubs and the related love story. The third image that comes to mind is the Beatles walking across Abby Road in the crosswalk.That is/was a favorite album during my heyday.
The next one is the Benny Hill comedies I watched in the wee hours of the early morning while stoned on pot in my early twenties. For a male role model It is Sean Connery because of all the movies he was in. Oddly, I have no female image for the Brits. hmmm . . . Except for Princess Diana.
[Yes, I know Connery is a Scot. Yes, I know Princes Diana was an American. But, they represent Britain and its culture to me.]
Politically speaking I see Boris Johnson as the representative image and the parliament proceedings you have shared. It is after those images that are conjured that I cognitively process something written about the Brits and its culture.
More personal is I lived with a young lady from Britain for a little over a year. It was a platonic relationship us each having our own significant other. In Britain she lived in the Windsor area. She was very prim and proper mainly, yet was a hairdresser and into current fashion of the time period.
[Edit: My friend was British and Armenian]
To me that was kind of far out there, even though I would have been deemed more liberal than conservative. I was a bearded, long haired, car enthusiasts working as a machinist in the racing industry.
Those are the imaging I go through with Brits and their culture.
Consider that happens maybe in two blinks of the eye. That forms perspective. It is in the conscious mind remaining that way until something replaces them. Then it goes into the subconscious mind and working memory while cognitively processing something. Yet, it still influences that thought process as a conceived perspective.
So, let me first ask when the US President is mentioned do you think of Trump or Biden? Which image comes to mind first? What does that symbolic representation mean to you? I know you know that today's US executive government led by Biden is liberal bordering on progressive and has been for the last three years. That means over half of the population voted for a liberal bordering on progressive leader.
The point being is imaging influences our perspectives/thoughts firstly. So, curiously, what images do you have of Americans? Does that influence/change your 'thoughts' for 'all' Americans? No need to reply . . . just offering perspective.
Also, a mind map of sorts I learned in a class goes like this . . .
Trigger → thoughts → imaging → emotions → feelings → behavior
Consider, feelings interpret emotions for ourselves. In other words, emotions drive feelings.
[Edit for fun and the dramatic effect is the following image]
Thanks for your input Tim, always appreciated – IMHO if there were more Americans like you and Credence then America would have a rosier future.
Stereotyping existed long before social media, and yeah every country stereotypes every other country – it seems to be quite a natural phenomenon – albeit sometimes unjust e.g. when you get to know the people your perspective of that nation can change; often for the better. One example that springs to mind is American’s views of Muslims is often unjust.
Yep, absolutely, “Images are strongly symbolic”. Yep, your images of ‘Victorian Britain’, Americans in Britain during WWII, and the Beatles walking across the zebra crossing in Abby Road are fair representations – They’re strong images over here too e.g. plenty of Victorian buildings and streets still exist today in our cities, and most of our underground sewage and water system are still Victorian, as is the London Tube (subway in American), as is much of our infrastructure such as bridges and railways.
Getting back to the “scenes with American airman interacting with the available ladies in pubs”; the Brits have a saying about that from wartime Britain (which is often portrayed in British Comedies such as ‘Dad’s Army’ and ‘Goodnight Sweetheart’ and British films to this day) “Oversized, over sexed, and over here”.
Yeah, I use to watch Benny Hill, and Monty Python when a kid; and loved them.
To me the images of famous British females that spring to mind includes Boudica, Margaret Thatcher, Joanna Lumley (as in The New Avengers, Sapphire & Steel, Absolutely Fabulous etc.), and Dawn French in the Vicar of Dibley.
In answer to your question: “when the US President is mentioned do you think of Trump or Biden?”, as a Brit, ‘Trump’ is forefront of the mind – which is unfortunate because Trump is one of the most disliked American Presidents by the British people; as the latest YouGov opinion poll (2024) shows:-
63% of Brits dislike Trump, with only 24% liking him: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ex … nald_Trump
For Joe Biden: 40% of Brits dislike him, with just 24% who like him: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ex … /Joe_Biden
The all-time most liked American President by Brits is Barack Obama; only 12% of Brits dislike Obama, whereas a massive 66% of Brits like Obama: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ex … rack_Obama
I’ll answer your next question “Does that (image) influence/change your 'thoughts' for 'all' Americans? An emphatic no; my distasteful image of Trump does not influence/change my 'thoughts' for 'all' Americans: I know that everyone is different, and people shouldn’t be judged by stereotypes e.g. stereotypes is just a generalisation, and not always accurate.
Your mind map is good, but I think an extra step needs to be included near the end:-
Namely, instead of:
Trigger → thoughts → imaging → emotions → feelings → behaviour
Many (but not all) British people (and I’m sure it applies to people in other nations) follow this process:-
Trigger → thoughts → imaging → emotions → feelings → thoughtful → behaviour
In the former people are impulsive, in the latter people are considerate e.g. people reflect on their feelings before acting, in other words, the famous saying “Think Before you Speak”.
And just for fun: below image of Trump and Boris side by side
Interesting and thanks! The image of Johnson and Trump says a lot. That is because, for me. what they represent to me, though I am less familiar with Johnson. Most of what I know about him I learned from your sharing.
I like your preferred mind map. What works is what works. The mind map comes from Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). The trick as I learned it is to catch it at thoughts after the trigger or stimuli. If shall we say those thoughts are negative is to transform it before imaging. Imaging in a sense is pre-planning or envisioning a response. It does not necessarily have meaning with conflict.
For instance as a supervisor you are concerned that someone does get a certain task done. If one says, "Don't forget . . ." That is somewhat negative. It is better or more positive to say, "Remember . . ."
With humor with my reflections of British culture I am dated or a dinosaur. Even my roommate goes back to the early 80's. Watching that video you shared with GA proves that to me. But, even though I have been updated shall we say through imaging remaining in my unconscious mind is what I shared with you.
BTW . . . do they celebrate D-Day on June 6th in the UK? I know France does and I know we do here. The UK was instrumental with that offensive.Tim, we are coming up on the 80th anniversary of DDay, check out "The Longest Day" and the beach scene "Saving Private Ryan", no John Wayne coming over ridge in the nick of time in this one.
Cool, to be able “to catch it at thoughts after the trigger or stimuli” is a good technique; waiting until the end of the process, and then being ‘thoughtful’ to “think before you speak” can sometimes cause a pregnant pause.
Yes we do celebrate D-Day on 6th June: This is the UK’s Government’s webpage on planned featured events for D-Day 80: https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/d-day-80
There seems to be a striking resemblance between your Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.
If there is one thing that I wanted to impress on you is the fact that all Americans don't subscribe to the "conservative" values expressed here. I don't believe that advocacy, resigned acceptance or acquiescence with any proposed tyrant is ever a solution, even if some complain that he would correct the misunderstanding that there are 72 different genders, (did you know that Baskin Robbins has 36 different flavors of ice cream?) Yes, and so what? And Hitler made the trains run on time.....
For our conservatives of all stripes, Trump is just another politician. For others including myself, he poses a dangerous threat to our democratic traditions. You can be grateful that such a trend has not reared its ugly head where you live and I hope for your sake, it never does.
bTW, I thought that that adage went "overpaid, oversexed and over here"
There was a very interesting film "Yanks" 1979, that told a story of the interaction of American Troops in Britain during WWII.My error (silly me); you are right, it is “"overpaid, oversexed and over here" – and yeah, the 1979 film “Yanks” is factually correct.
Yep, I know “….that all Americans don't subscribe to the "conservative" values expressed here.” which is good – it’s a shame American politics is so polarised (split), with little prospect of finding common ground; but as with you, “I don't believe that advocacy, resigned acceptance or acquiescence with any proposed tyrant is ever a solution”.
Unfortunately “such a trend” where a political leader “poses a dangerous threat to our democratic traditions” has and is “reared its ugly head where I live”; namely Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage:
BORIS JOHNSON
We had our version of the 6th Jan 2021 insurrection attempt on 28th Aug 2019 when Boris Johnson tried to shutdown Parliament (prorogue) for five weeks, specifically so that he could seize power and then use Executive Powers to impose ‘crucial’ decisions on the country without hindrance from Parliament. Fortunately, as explained in this short video, he was stopped in his tracks by the Supreme Court: https://youtu.be/zsD-VnoPGmk
It’s not the first time a ruler has tried to silence the English Parliament; King Charles I made an attempt on the 4 January 1642, when he stormed into Parliament to try to arrest 5 sitting politicians. That action sparked a civil war (Parliament against the King) which lasted until 1651 (almost 10 years), during which time (in 1649) King Charles I was executed; England then became a Republic for almost 10 years from 1651 until 1660, when King Charles II (son of King Charles I) was invited back by Parliament to become the new King of England. Since that date NO King or Queen has been allowed to step foot in the House of Commons; hence the birth of the tradition that ‘Black Rod’ has the door slammed in his face when he summons the House of Commons to hear the King/Queens speech at the opening of each new Parliament: https://youtu.be/9o65Ap7nC8w
NIGEL FARAGE
Although Boris Johnson had a lot in common with Trump, including being a pathological liar – for which both the Conservative Party and the House of Commons eventually kicked him out (ending his political career). Nigel Farage (who is a close ally to Trump) is far more right-wing than Boris, and potentially far more dangerous.
Not only did Nigel Farage push the Conservatives into Brexit, but in his view the Conservative Party is NOT far enough to the right; and Nigel Farage’s current obsession is to destroy the Conservative Party (for that reason), with the intent of building a new right-wing political party in British Politics from the ashes that’s far more right-wing than the current Conservative Party.
For this General Election, that is ‘GREAT’ news for ‘all’ political parties to the left of Conservatives, because with the vote being split on the right (millions of Conservative votes going to Nigel Farage’s hard-right wing party), all the other political parties (to the left of the Conservatives) are set to pick up lots of seats in this General Election that that they wouldn’t have otherwise won.
Nigel Farage’s campaign to destroy the Conservative Party, because he thinks they are not politically far enough-right-wing: https://youtu.be/FolscMjKEz4Yet even Boris Johnson clearly stated that Trump was unsuitable for the job of President of the US. At least he had the decency to resign, we are going to need a cudgel to get Trump out if he gets another term.
Your Nigel is a bit of a also a problem but well with your organized system of governance to handle. These people are on the fringes in your society and after reading a brief documentary, can be easily removed and discredited.
We have a wannabe tyrant from a major political party that has mesmerized almost half of the population into thinking that he can fix whatever ails us without giving us the slightest evidence on his part that he could do so. We are in a lot more trouble than you.....Yes, it does come across on our TV News Media that you are “in a lot more trouble than” us. on this side of the pond we find it quite mystifying how such a figure like Trump can mesmerise half the American population. Our political leaders never seem to captivate the British public en masse in such a way:
• Currently according to YouGov (opinion poll) Boris Johnson is liked by 30% and disliked by 56% of British voters; ironically (all though he’s now been pushed out of politics) at the moment (with just 30% popularity) Boris is the most liked Conservative politician in Britain?
• Rishi Sunak (current Conservative Prime Minister) is liked by just 20% of British voters, and disliked by 55%.
• Nigel Farage is liked by 38% of voters and disliked by 42% of voters – he’s currently the most liked non Conservative/Labour British politician – which is a bit worrying.
• Keir Starmer, who is likely to be Prime Minister in a few weeks’ time, is the most liked Labour politician, with 30% of voters who like him, and 38% of the voters who dislike him.
Yeah, in British politics, politicians “can be easily removed and discredited.” which regularly happens in all political parties in Parliament. Although Parliament itself can a periodically remove discredited politicians from Parliament, usually internally it’s the political parties themselves who keep their own house in order e.g. The Labour party expelled George Galloway from the Labour Party in 2003 for his ‘attack’ on the UK/USA war in Iraq. Since being pushed out of the Labour Party George Galloway has continued to stand be elected as an Independent MP in Parliament (George Galloway is liked by 15% of voters, and disliked by 43%). And then of course, if British politicians who are caught in sex scandals etc. will usually do the honourable thing and resign. And in this respect, as you may know; the Conservative Party have deposed three Conservative Prime Ministers within the last four years.
This was the results in the last election where George Galloway (Independent), won his seat:-
• George Galloway = 39.7% of the votes
• Another Independent standing against George Galloway = 21.3%
• Conservatives = 12%
• Labour = 7.7%
• Liberal Democrats = 7%
• Reform UK (Nigel Farage’s Party) = 6.3%
How Rochdale (where George Galloway won) became the Weirdest By-Election: https://youtu.be/VF3frb_pUrk
That was an unexpected ending. Empathy has never been my strong suit. I thought I was reasonably discussing how my American view sees your British view on this issue, not being argumentive—just to argue or to be purposely obstreperous. So to avoid leaving with misunderstanding and assumptions . . . there are a few points . . .
Maybe semantics is the problem in some cases. "Atypical" isn't as clean (of connotations) as "different". My perception is that it's not usually used simply to say things are different—but different in an unusual or abnormal way. That word choice seemed to fit the context of the moment. Maybe I was mistaken and you did simply mean 'different'.
As for fitting your stereotype . . . I'm not financially middle-class (the typical measure), I'm not Christian, and, although obviously arguable, I don't think I'm a Right-winger (I don't own a pickup truck). Yet, you assume I'm a good fit for it.
And it wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, the 'all or nothing', and other 'air-quoted' phrases were used as descriptors, not criticisms.
As you can see, I am replying in order of your points as I read them. And then . . .
Bam! What the hell?
". . . you’re the one who said “you’re right and that I’m wrong”, supposedly said in jest!"
Here's an empathy test for you.
After the explanation and clarification of that joke—which you claimed to accept, and, admittedly from my perspective, I have been reasonable in our exchanges. Firm but reasonably so, not slanderous or accusatory.
Now that you seem a bit ticked with me, do you have any idea how insulting it is for you to now add "supposedly" with the strength of an exclamation to your 'acceptance'?
Is there any way to read that which does not carry the inference of deceit?
We can end in agreement that we're done on this one.
GAYep, I agree; “semantics is the problem in some cases” - I agree, my choice of ‘atypical’ was probably a bad choice.
Yeah, IMHO I do think you are a good fit for the British stereotype view of Americans; obviously I don’t your religion (or lack of religion) but most certainly you do come across as being Conservative (right-wing) – reinforced by 2 days ago, when in this forum you said to Tim “What! He's a socialist? Damn, who knew. I wonder if he knows I'm a Conservative?”
I’m middle-class (financially) and middle-class by the Government’s official definition.
Well yeah, at the time, my use of the word ‘supposedly’ was intended to insult, in a way that a cat feeling threatened will lash out: it is part of my ‘so very British’ stubborn streak coming to the fore e.g. when Brits are ‘pushed’, they will ‘push back’.
Perhaps this short video will put a smile on your face Asking Brits what we think of ourselves (and towards the end, comparing with American’s view of themselves); the answers reflect a stark difference between British and American mentality e.g. unlike the Scots (for Scotland), the English are not naturally patriotic about Britain.
Asking Brits Why They're Ashamed of Being British: https://youtu.be/3MHxFscqP-sAnother unexpected turn. Your insult was intentional — because you were ticked. And you were ticked because I disagreed with you. There are better ways to "push back."
GAYou still don't get it - I wasn't ticked because you disagreed with me; I was ticked because you seemed to be forcibly insisting that my point of view was wrong, rather than just different to your view point.
I think I do get it. It's not complicated. I did continue to disagree because I do think your point is wrong—in my view, and I say that 'my view' qualifier was evident throughout our discussion. You were frustrated with continued disagreement so your choice of recourse was to insult purposely. That's not a reasonable response.
GAI’m glad you said “in my view” in your first sentence: But you still don’t get it, I was NOT “frustrated with continued disagreement”. I’ve been on HP long enough to know that as an American you’ll will always believe that ‘hate speech’ should not be illegal; and I repeatedly indicated that we never will agree because of our cultural differences, which is why repeated the phrase “Never the Twain Shall Meet”.
My gripe isn’t that we disagree (that should be taken as read); and it’s not what you said, it’s the way you said it; specifically, coming across strongly suggesting that ‘I’m wrong’ (with no respect to my culture). And in my opinion, as a Brit, I think it is right that ‘hate speech’ should be a crime
But I recognise that in America, because of the American culture, hate speech is not considered a crime – just as I recognise that the right to own guns is perfectly acceptable in American culture, as is the death penalty - although I strongly disagree with both, feeling that the former is barmy and the later immoral – But it’s not my culture.
I made it abundantly clear right from the start of this forum that our disagreement is a cultural thing, when 2 days into the discussion, I said, to quote:
“….that in recent years in British/American relationships highlights different attitudes between Brits and Americans in relation to ‘hate crime’, is the Donald Trump’s visit”.So now we can argue about arguing about being wrong. . . (comic irony intended)
Is the point that I'm not getting that my strong support for my opinion disrespected your British culture of believing otherwise, or did the phrasing I used offend you?
GAIt’s the phrasing:
Both our opinions are equally strong, and we have opposite views; my personal opinion disrespects the American culture just as much as your personal opinion disrespects the British culture: And never the twain shall meet. However, although each may ‘think’ the other wrong; it’s counterproductive to state that attitude (thought) in ‘words’. A little diplomacy goes a long way.Perhaps this short video clip about arguing may give you smile
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ
As an example: Rather than keep saying in post after post that "that ain't right"; it would have come across a lot more better if you'd said "from an American perspective, that isn't right". e.g. the former suggest you are saying I am wrong, whereas the latter says that 'we disagree'.
Another thing that’s been at the back of mind, from a comment you made a while back in this forum:-
If I remember right, you made reference to the fact that criminal court isn’t necessary for hate related speech in that in America the aggrieved person can go through the civil courts?
My gripe with that is that for an individual (unless they are filthy rich) is the legal costs in the civil courts is prohibitively expensive – preventing most people from redress, and thus allowing the aggressor to spread hate speech with impunity.
Whereas, by making it a criminal offence, the police cover the cost, not the victim; so Justice is done.
It’s the same principle with Employment Laws in the UK; for example, if you have a grievance with your employer e.g. unfair dismissal – then you can take them to the Industrial Tribunal (Independent Government Body) who provide free and impartial Conciliating and Arbitration; and free advice for employers and employees: So it doesn’t cost the employer or employee a penny (cent) for justice to be done.
ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) https://youtu.be/pD7f-gurpg4
Mock Employment Tribunal UK - What happens in an employment tribunal in the UK? https://youtu.be/71wxEjFys6g"Whereas, by making it a criminal offence, the police cover the cost, not the victim; so Justice is done."
Another equally true way to see that is that 'other people' (public funding of the police) cover the cost, not the 'alledged' victim.
As is obvious, a civil torte is an argument between two parties. The public shouldn't have to cover the cost of other folk's civil disagreements.
As for 'justice being done' . . . that's your view. I see it as simply another disagreement over how involved a government should be in folks' lives.
GAYep, a ‘true’ “civil torte is an argument between two parties” that “The public shouldn't have to cover the cost of other folk's civil disagreements.” but I wasn’t talking about that I was talking about matters, such has ‘hate speech’ which is criminalised in the UK, but not criminalised in the USA.
Yep your feedback is the atypical American ‘free-for-all/survival of the fittest’, profit before people, attitude, especially right-wing Americans, on taxes, public spending and uncaring attitude towards the weaker and more vulnerable members of your society: Whereas, in the EU & UK our governments about our weak and vulnerable – A more caring society that is inclusive of everyone; often putting ‘people before profits’. I know which society I want to belong to…..and it’s not across the pond from me.Your closing is not a surprise. neither are the ideological criticisms it relies on. It takes us back to the starting point—criminalizing thoughts, not actions because you disagree with them. We got nowhere on this one.
GAWe do not criminalise thoughts in Europe - an action can become a crime if it's perceived to cause harm; which isn't the same thing.
Well, if you don’t like how involved the UK Government is in folks’ lives (the nanny state), to quote you “….I see it as simply another disagreement over how involved a government should be in folks' lives.” Then you’ll not be pleased with the latest and so far largest opinion poll for next month’s General Election (The MRP poll which proved to be accurate for the last two General Elections) paints a very bleak picture for the Conservatives in the General Election in just 5 weeks’ time – which if turns out to be correct will not only be the worst General Election results for the Conservative Party, but will bring the Conservatives on the brink of an electoral wipe-out.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/general … ing-labour
Of the 650 seats in the General Election; the MRP poll is predicting (after factoring in tactical voting) the following Election Result (326 seats required for ‘overall control’):
• Labour = 476 seats
• Conservatives = 66 seats
• Liberal Democrats = 59 seats
• SNP (Scottish National Party) = 26 seats
• Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party) = 3 seats
• Green Party = 2 seatsRelative to the politics of your coming elections, I'm simply a spectator. As a Southerner would say: "I don't have a dog in that fight."
GAYep, just as I’m only a spectator of American politics; but relative to this forum, the polls does illustrate a wide gulf between our two cultures, and further shows that the vast majority of Brits is shifting rapidly towards left-wing politics that are far more left-wing than you’ll ever get in American.
Following a coffee break, and a think; one set of episodes that came to mind, that in recent years in British/American relationships highlights different attitudes between Brits and Americans in relation to ‘hate crime’, is the Donald Trump’s visit (as head of state/President) to Britain….
1. Over half a million Brits signed a petition to ban Donald Trump from Britain on the grounds of ‘hate speech’; which resulted in the UK Parliament debating the issue – as per this short video:
UK lawmakers debate banning Trump https://youtu.be/aVO_kop4Cxc
2. As a result of strong opposition to Trump from the British Public (because of his perceived hate speech by the British People) Theresa May (then Prime Minister) had to postpone Trump’s visit to Britain by over a year, and even then his visit was met with mass protests and demonstrations from the British Public:
London protests (during Trump’s visit to UK) sends clear message to Trump: You're not welcome: https://youtu.be/I6L7CBhVvaY
3. Because of Trump’s hate speech, the Speaker of the House of Commons bans Trump from addressing Parliament (which is unprecedented) e.g. President Obama gave his speech in the UK Parliaments in 2011, as every previous USA President has done for decades.
UK Parliament Speaker 'Bans' Trump from Addressing Parliament during his visit to the UK: https://youtu.be/vELQlgoaDdQ
So I think all the above three videos demonstrates the strength and attitudes of the British people towards ‘hate speech’.What are the examples of the hate speech Trump used for the purpose of clarity?
The 1st video in my previous post, in particular answers this question e.g. relating to a petition signed by 586,930 Brits, which following its presentation to the UK Parliament led Parliament to debating the issue on 18 January 2016.
Namely, Trump’s comments regarding Muslims is considered hate speech by the vast majority of Brits.
UK lawmakers debate banning Trump https://youtu.be/aVO_kop4Cxc
The petition in question, entitled “Block Donald J Trump from UK entry”, and read as follows:
“The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.
If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.”Thanks for the reply, but it did not address the question. I see your post changed from when I first read it, so I deleted my reply to it. I watched the video twice now. I think there is a misunderstanding. I get it is the rhetoric/hate speech toward Muslims. I want to know what the the speech was in fact.
That is of importance in the context of this thread. Is it the specific words themselves. The tone of speech as in being emotional? Is it the syntax? Paragraph structure formulating an idea giving cause to imaging. What makes the speech hateful?In answer to your question; it’s not “the specific words themselves” it’s his whole demeanour, and most importantly from the British perspective e.g. what initially sparked Brits hatred towards Trump was his constant reference to fake news about Muslims in Britain, including Trump’s false claims that:
1. Parts of London are ‘no-go’ zones, where even the police don’t go (because they are controlled by Muslims), and
2. His false claim that the whole of Birmingham is a ‘no-go’ zone (controlled by Muslims).
The 3rd video (re-copied below) in my earlier post probably best covers where Trumps Muslim prejudice leads to in British Politics e.g. Trump’s numerous anti-Muslim speeches during his Presidential Election Campaign in 2015 – including his ‘fake news’ about Muslims in the UK; and culminating with his words becoming action with Executive Order 13769 (labelled the "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his supporters).
UK Parliament Speaker 'Bans' Trump from Addressing Parliament during his visit to the UK: https://youtu.be/vELQlgoaDdQ
But what initially incited the British Public (in 2015/2016) to hate Donald Trump so much was Trump’s consistent regurgitation of ‘Fox News’ ‘Fake News’ about Muslims in Britain: One such (of many relevant video clips by Fox News and Trump) being:- https://youtu.be/am2XFnENUFk
Also, London's newly elected Islamic Mayor (Sadiq Khan) Rejected Donald Trump over his proposed Muslim Ban: https://youtu.be/IYGZicJ14Qw
And one of Trump’s tweets supporting hate crime in Britain had this impact from British politicians in the UK Parliament: https://youtu.be/nsqC1NZIbts
So it’s not just one incident or one speech, but a string of tweets from Trump over the years that incited the British People to become so anti-Trump.Thanks . . .
[Edit] I think I get it. It is okay to hate Trump because it does not fit into . . .
“A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'”A Hate Crime is anything we determine it to be, at any time, given the current times, beliefs, and controlling ideology.
Anything you say, that today may be acceptable, may be deemed harmful or a hate crime in the future, you will be held accountable for any transgressions or crimes, regardless of how far back in time they were made, or what the accepted beliefs were at that time.
As we have been witness to (thanks to the many cases against Trump), current AGs (ruling Party) can change Statute of Limitations, ignore precedence, and redefine the meanings of words such as 'insurrection', 'rape' or 'fraud' based on the needs of the Party to charge, arrest, jail, or otherwise incarcerate and ruin opposing views and political dissent.
No, no, no. Take another break. Find another illustration. This is a No-Trump Zone.
GA ;-)Can I claim the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech); I say in jest
Oh no, and equally in jest . . . A Brit evoking Freedom of Speech as a defense . . .
GA
I have recently read an article about Sen Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts introducing legislation authorizing the Dept of Justice to hold municipal police departments accountable from a federal standpoint for aberrant behavior. We, too, are fighting encroaching authoritarianism coming at us from every angle and I fear that it may be a battle that we might well lose. At that point, America will be unrecognizable to me and much of the world.
It is difficult here to fight symbols and words, I remember the March of the NAZIs in Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish community back in 1978. They had a permit and the right to march. I have to draw the line for police involvement in speech to association with incitement to riot. The Right for me to say what I wish as long as I do not physically hurt anyone is enshrined, and as a result, I have to protect that right for others who well may be my adversaries.Yeah, I got the impression of you also “are fighting encroaching authoritarianism coming at us from every angle” from the British news media during the fiasco of the last Presidential campaign.
With regards to where you say “The Right for me to say what I wish as long as I do not physically hurt anyone is enshrined,…”; that seems to be a fundamental difference between European and American law in that in Europe its recognised that ‘word’ can “stir up racial hatred” whereas in America it’s only a ‘hate crime’ if and when physical harm is done.
To quote from ‘Part 3 of the Public Order Acts’ under UK law:-
“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
we are becoming a society of humans who are so fragile that insults are considered damaging enough to be declared a crime.
Becoming? I dont know. Didnt people used to kill each other over an insult?
People were also jailed and/or murdered for blasphemy. There are laws against defamation, etc.
My generation ( and probably all that came before it) believes in the truth of the adage that a man is best judged by his actions, not his words.
That's hypocrisy. Better to judge by both.
"Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny."Your closing quote was so impressive I had to look up its owner. Being guilty of frequently speaking of truisms, yours was perfect for the discussion—relative to the changes of evolving societies, and to a society being the "your" of the quote.
If the quote's "your" works as meaning society, does the same 'stepping stone' progress hold true?
If the US is at the 'watch your actions' step — illustrated by our laws against actions, would the UK's (et al.) hate crime words/public order offenses fit the step of 'watch your words', as in making laws to control them? Seems a reasonable analogy. Laws are first made to control actions, and then to control words. In this case it is the society forcing the discipline, not the individual mind. Same same?
If that is reasonable, would a projection that the next step in controlling societal evolution is to watch your thoughts in the same manner?
That's a rhetorical question for me. I know it's not for others. Another is, do ideological perspectives determine agreement or disagreement, or is the truth or untruth of the quote's progression the determinant?
I think your "hypocritical" thought is misplaced. The quote was "best" judged, not solely judged. I don't see the hypocrisy that you do. Also, there's the plain-fact judgment of the statement: one man promises you a new house and delivers, and another promises you a new house but doesn't even try to deliver. How would you judge these men if not by their actions?
And, yep, I'll stick with 'becoming.' The 'insults leading to killing' point is one of individual action, not societal. The times of societal 'jailed and murdered for blasphemy' are of past evolutions of society (relative to 1st-world societies), a state we have supposedly 'evolved' out of. It might be fair to say our current direction is a regression to those times. Instead of being religiously driven thought policing, it would be societal thought policing.
I have probably left a lot of 'open doors' for you, but 'since it was you' I replied 'shooting from the hip.'
GA
First, the link leads to a duckduckgo landing page for articles, not a specific article. I read the Aljazeera article to get the jest of the story.
I can only say I am flabbergasted. I half chuckled that there is opportunity for the right to take pot-shots at the left protesting for the Palestinian position using such vile and pernicious methods. You know . . . the we are better than you attitude. Or, see, you guys are worse than us.
Regarding the incident, I immediately reflected introspectively back to the early 70's when I referred to immigrants from Mexico both legal and illegal as 'wetbacks'. It was an accepted term in those days for the area I resided and still do - San Diego county, and commonly used of least amongst the commoners shall we say. The social elites, perhaps some to many of my elders, were much more polite, rather than politically correct as that wasn't hip then.
I suppose speculatively in the context of the discussion at hand, I was exercising a hate crime. I question, did I have the element of hate or was it simply contempt?
A little wandering as I feel like it. According to Human psychologist Plutchik's wheel of emotions contempt is a combined form of two spokes of the wheel. They are:
Rage, anger, annoyance
and,
Loathing, disgust, boredom
Most definitely my emotions were annoyance and disgust.
Alas, I digressed from the point of the OP. I am frankly, frightened by the action of pursing legal ramifications for the perceived hate of the incident. I mean, come on, if I wear a sombrero being a white guy is that a symbol of hate? Would it be misconstrued as making fun of a different culture? Seems, there is not only the possibility of that, but in today's world of culture scrutiny it has a high probability in 'some to many eyes'.
I place the blame on the Constitution. It allows too much freedom with rights. Who needs rights? Most certainly in my mind that teacher who held the placard had a right to do so. What was on the placard was a social commentary as I see it. It was in the vein of being satirical. Yes, the point was driven home, but was their any actual harm?
If that is the case there is one poet here on HubPages who writes satirical poems one right after other. A most recent one is;
Donald J. Trump -- the Winner: A Satirical Poem by Val Karas published at HubPages (May 22, 2024)
https://hubpages.com/literature/donald- … rical-poem
Off I go now, to read the thread and see if I am an old fool or not said with jestYep, I was aware of the link as a landing page and did consider the confusion of referring to a particular article, but I went with the landing page to avoid an appearance of bias by choosing a particular source. They all had the same basic details, so I went with neutral as a safe option. ;-)
Your "wetbacks" example works. It is a recognized derogatory term almost exclusively used with rude connotations. I say it reflects so poorly on the user that whatever follows it is probably not worth listening to. That's a moral judgment we all get to make. It shouldn't be a legal judgment with a threat of punishment.
Your "sombrero" example also works great. In my day, (apparently yours too) liking a sombrero (any cultural icon) was considered a nod to that culture, not an appropriation. Why is it viewed as appropriation now? It's because of the societal evolution that is the topic of the OP.
Curiously, I had never considered such use to involve contempt, I simply thought of it as derogatory condescension. I don't see folks purposely being rude to be qualified to be contemptuous of anyone.
GA
Sadly, if given the opportunity, this Administration will push it further than the UK or Canada given another 4 years to do their work.
I listened to a fascinating elaboration on how Liberalism ultimately ends in the deconstruction of sexual identification, human identification, etc. while at the same time making it impossible to debate a matter or dissent from Liberalism/Progressivism in any way without being considered a deviant at best, a criminal at worst.
If allowed to continue on course for four more years, without being stopped, reversed, and repudiated America risks becoming the most Liberal/Progressive nation on the planet... take a look at the worst out there today and then consider the Biden Administration saying 'hold my beer'...
Might all be irrelevant... they are trying like heck to escalate the current wars and tensions to the point of no return."If allowed to continue on course for four more years, without being stopped, reversed, and repudiated America risks becoming the most Liberal/Progressive nation on the planet
You are supposed to be a man of the world, there are societies more advanced/progressive than we are. Besides, would it really be a bad thing?The 'war' issue is a risk. It's also becoming worldwide. As for becoming the most progressive, I'm doubtful. I think too many extreme issues were pushed too far and some Progressives know it. The Trump-support backlash shows it. The corporations' efforts were financial disasters, and it looks like many agendas have deemphasized social justice associations. (That's just a perception) *shrug*
As for the "deconstruction of sexual identification," my first thought was of the sci-fi movie Barbarella.
GADon't you believe it. They have just put them on ice for 2024, once we are past the election, they will double down.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8Af2TE5NeGM
Short clip, related, somewhat.
Larry Fink's ultimate goal with ESG/CSR/DEI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelper … 8277c53010
Goal of a United WEF and UN
https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/w … framework/
A new agreement with the World Economic Forum gives multinational corporations influence over matters of global governance.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureco … rtnership/
The problem, as I see it, and as represented in your response, as almost all others in these political forums... is the lack of recognition that this is not merely the Biden Administration VS Republicans/Trump, national politics.
This is UN/WEF/BlackRock(Fink)/Gates/Soros/EU(Brussels)/UK vs. Trump/American Citizens/Nationality.
This is Equity/DEI/CRT/CSR/72+sexes vs. Social Norms/Liberty/Property-Ownership/Merit+EO
The Biden Administration is bringing about the Death of America.
The only option other than continuing down that destructive path, is Trump.
If those choices even manifest themselves in a fair election... there is a lot that can happen in the months ahead. We have already seen some of the things that will be done to maintain control... collusion with the Major Social Media sites to censor opposing views, pushing outright lies through MSM, the weaponization of the Courts, the IRS, etc.
The ultimate goal to these zealots is worth Disney or Target losing billions in the process, the well being of individual corporations mean nothing to the likes of Soros or Fink.
Are Words More Important Than Actions in Evolved Society?
I had been wondering why this heading had been gnawing at me.
Then it came to me... "evolved society".
We are not... that was what would have described us, a decade ago... two?
We are currently a DE-volving society. A DE-constructing society, if you prefer.
It also dawned on me that there is no-one left alive (essentially) that remembers a time when America was NOT the world's leading economic and military super power.
We have been blessed, as Americans, to live in a utopian time/Nation (more wealth and opportunity for more people than ever in history), or as close to utopian as any 'empire' will likely ever attain.
From 1944 to 2024 ... 80 years of uninterrupted dominance is now going sideways, fast.Considering the direction of discussion, when I stumbled across this in my X feed I had to chuckle. Can it be coincidence?
No message is intended. It's just a chuckle because of the timing of its appearance.
GAHere is our 'evolved society' today:
https://twitter.com/FactsMatterRB/statu … 0572749299
$A little wandering . . . seeking clarification for 'myself' I sought what the U.S. Department of Justice says for hate crimes. I was focused on the term - 'hate' which is the core element as I see it. I wandered further.
They say for hate;
"The term "hate" can be misleading. When used in a hate crime law, the word "hate" does not mean rage, anger, or general dislike. In this context “hate” means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics that are defined by the law.
At the federal level, hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
Most state hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of race, color, and religion; many also include crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability."
First, it includes gender, so therefor no need for misogyny as I see it. Also, to be a 'hate crime' there has to be a 'crime'.
So, what is a crime? They explain a crime as;
"The "crime" in hate crime is often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out."
They go further stating;
"Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, people cannot be prosecuted simply for their beliefs. People may be offended or upset about beliefs that are untrue or based upon false stereotypes, but it is not a crime to express offensive beliefs, or to join with others who share such views. However, the First Amendment does not protect against committing a crime, just because the conduct is rooted in philosophical beliefs."
Learn About Hate Crimes by the U.S. Department of Justice
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/lear … ate-crimesYep, your closing blurb sums up what I have been arguing. There must be some action beyond holding a thought or belief.
GA
I understand, the ubiquitous nature of information available through the internet can frighten people, particularly conservatives.
conservatives aren't the ones banning people and making words hate crimes that can land you in jail.
crazy world, rob a store, not worth prosecuting... post something someone else takes offense too, the police will be coming for you.You are the one that has attacked the concept of the internet as denigrating. I like the idea of a free and open forum. It is conservatives that want to control the narrative so desperately. As they are the first to threaten the idea of a free press and free dissemination of opposing ideas and concepts.
Related Discussions
- 97
Is not calling for vigilante justice a form of "hate crime"?
by Jimbo'daNimbo 12 years ago
Should there not be some sort of action by our justice department against the New Black Panthers and Spike Lee for fomenting vigilante justice? This is a crime after all to conspire someones death.I agree action is slow on the other side of this issue but this sort of response is reprehensible.
- 14
Hate Crime Hoaxes Are More Common Than You Realize
by Readmikenow 6 years ago
Wilfred Reilly is a black man and an associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, a historically Black institution located in Frankfort. Reilly is the author of the upcoming book Hate Crime Hoax that covers hundreds of hate crime hoaxes.I wonder why they happen as well as...
- 87
so "punk" is a racial slur now????,... oh no,... please dont do this
by Stclairjack 12 years ago
ok,... I'm watching the news,... brace yourselves cousins,... lets get this straight folks,... what this micro-phallus in Florida did to a harmless young man was horribly stupid evil,... wrong no matter how you interpret it,... he shot and killed in cold blood a young black kid for nothing more...
- 104
Hate Crime: Church shooting in South Carolina
by Liv Carradine 9 years ago
A white man walked into a church and shot down 9 people, including a pastor. Rightfully it is being considered a hate crime. The coward is still at large. Are you shocked that this happened in 2015?
- 5
Are hate crimes bias? Are hate laws just a way to make other ethnic and social g
by R.Cochran 12 years ago
Are hate crimes bias? Are hate laws just a way to make other ethnic and social groups feel better?If you are white and mugged by a group of people from another race, can you claim a hate crime? If you are straight and the mugger is gay, can you claim hate crime? Why should hate crime legislation...
- 94
Gays and the civil rights
by Captain Redbeard 13 years ago
I have heard a lot of the gay rights movements comparing themselves the civil rights movements in the 60's. They say that their struggle for equality is the same as Black people's struggle and women’s equality and such. Is it the same thing?I don't know much about what gay people are deprived of...