For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
#1887045
Cessna571 wrote:The end of threads like this…

Creating hostility over sex or gender should be hate crime - report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59554199


.. but with the important gloss:

"..But it did not suggest treating all offences motivated by misogyny - anti-women prejudice - as hate crimes, which has angered campaign groups.. it suggested ministers set up a review into the need for a specific offence of public sexual harassment..." ie, as I read it, the targetted actions would be those 'creating hostility' (not merely somehow displaying it).

And it's a report from an independent Law Commission, not a statement of government policy nor of intended legislation.

Reasonable balance ? Some, obviously (including some Forumites, presumably) may think it goes too far, or not far enough :roll:
#1887047
From my point of view it just means any discussion on threads like this become a risk.

I can’t afford to be convicted of a hate crime, and if I don’t understand the boundaries properly or make a mistake, then I’ll be for it.

So, it’s best to simply stay away completely in social media.

I used a term for a mixed race person once, about 10 years ago, a term which was common when I was young, I didn’t realise had become offensive, maybe it was always offensive? I’m not sure.

Anyway, I was nearly punched in a work situation, so that person clearly found it offensive. I apologised and explained I didn’t realise.

On social media that opportunity wouldn’t be open to me, as we’ve seen for others in the past.

So, for me, best to stay completely away from this topic of discussion if anything in this area is going to be a “hate crime”.

Some of the comments on this thread are definitely displaying hostility, is the posting of this thread creating a platform for hostility?
#1887051
Cessna571 wrote:.., is the posting of this thread creating a platform for hostility?


If Mods think it is I'm sure they'll shut it down, or delete particular posts from any deemed miscreant. Personally I've not noticed anything fairly described as 'hostility', let alone 'creating hostility'. Robust debates on beliefs and principles are not necessarily either.
Rob P liked this
#1887062
On either side, hostility would abate in the presence of civility and good manners. I do think that the occasional Government inspired drive towards 'social cohesion' does more harm than good.

It isn't possible to alter deep convictions or social attitudes. One cannot invent a 'history' that attempts to influence the accepted narrative.
#1887071
Loco parentis wrote:On either side, hostility would abate in the presence of civility and good manners.

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. A minority of people insist on looking for things to object to, on grounds of "offence" and the manners, or intention, of the person being objected to are of no consequence. Government seem bent on pandering to these people because they are very loud.
Nick, Rob P liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887073
Flyingfemme wrote:Sadly, I don't think that's the case. A minority of people insist on looking for things to object to, on grounds of "offence" and the manners, or intention, of the person being objected to are of no consequence. Government seem bent on pandering to these people because they are very loud.


This is the scourge of political correctness which we have noted before. IMHO it is utterly counter-productive but I struggle to see how it can be effectively countered. Tolerance and good manners ought to be enough but as you rightly point out there are contexts where it isn't. The desire to erase history rather than to be reminded to learn from it is also very misguided IMHO.
#1887097
Loco parentis wrote:..
It isn't possible to alter deep convictions ..


.. one sometimes can; my late mother's changed enormously over her lifetime, and I expect mine have. It is easier for others to judge ..

Loco parentis wrote:..

...or social attitudes. ..


.. one often can, over time or generations; examples during my own memory: drink-driving, public smoking, various manifestations of hostility eg to women in senior positions, same-sex relationships, ..

Loco parentis wrote:..

.. One cannot invent a 'history' that attempts to influence the accepted narrative.


But if the 'accepted narrative' is known or shown (eg by recent discoveries or research) to be merely incomplete or simply incorrect, then it is arguably desirable or even imperative to try to retell (not 'invent') history. This may surprise, or even 'offend', those who were and remain convinced that the former 'accepted narrative' was absolutely correct. This has long been apparent to military historians (even 'amateur' ones like me, and even many US ones) of 'Hollywood history', which many in US seem still to believe repreents the whole truth about 20th c conflicts. When 'U-571' came out in the US, one of my US contacts sent me an apologetic e-mail; and I recall Parachute Regiment veterans picketing the local cinema when 'A bridge too far' came out in UK. Obviously, social media has had the effect of making the 'offence' and absolute errors both louder and more widespread. It's even worse in contemporay politics, especially but not only in the US :roll:
johnm, OCB, T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887100
Cessna571 wrote:From my point of view it just means any discussion on threads like this become a risk.

I can’t afford to be convicted of a hate crime, and if I don’t understand the boundaries properly or make a mistake, then I’ll be for it.

So, it’s best to simply stay away completely in social media.


Join the Free Speech Union. A lot of the stuff seems specious but they have got a number of people "uncancelled". Nice to have a small something in the back pocket in case you say something "controversial" like only women have vajayjays. :cyclopsani: :lol: How DARE You!?!

It should all be specious but a vocal minority of people are so afraid of opinion now, it's pathetic. Grow a thicker skin, also forgive & perhaps counter to the start of the sentence, on all sides "have no opinion". You don't need to have an opinion on everything. Pyramid of needs, too much time to think about taking offence rather than being pitted against nature & focusing on not dying. Not enough adversity so we invent it.

https://freespeechunion.org/newsletters/

Civilisation up the stairs in clogs, down in pampered soft silken slippers. In the last 5 years we are definitely going down the stairs. Which is stupid as life & the world has never been better. But people can't stop talking themselves into disaster, perceived oppression & conflict.

There is also a theory about the growth in extreme sports being because life is too safe these days. Screw the bleeding "safe space", especially at uni's that is the place to have thoughts challenged... and breathe :lol:

I think it will pendulum the other way soon. One can hope.
#1887109
Loco parentis wrote:It isn't possible to alter deep convictions or social attitudes


Forgive the levity, but my mother, well into her nineties changed from the CofE and became a Methodist.

I asked her why

"They have better coach trips"

Rob P
StratoTramp, JAFO, kanga and 5 others liked this
#1887387
Flyingfemme wrote:
Loco parentis wrote:On either side, hostility would abate in the presence of civility and good manners.

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. A minority of people insist on looking for things to object to, on grounds of "offence" and the manners, or intention, of the person being objected to are of no consequence. Government seem bent on pandering to these people because they are very loud.


Something I picked up on a Guardian comments posting many years back (when I actually bothered to read the comments, and before certain troll factories took over) was the term "the professionally offended" - which I think has become a more profound observation over the intervening 10 or 15 or so years.

I've viewed from afar the media kerfuffle over "un-woke" speakers at certain British academic institutions, and the "cancelling" of various academics/authors/celebs for challenging a certain narrative.

I honestly find it worrying, not because I necessarily disagree with various "woke message" - but I most certainly disagree with using the law + economic, social and media pressure to shut down/criminalise/censure intelligent debate.

The term "useful idiots" jumps to mind, and I doubt we have to look much further to figure out where some of the real drivers of this "social uprising" are geographically and politically based.

Adding a bit of political/historical nuance - and answers on a postcard please, posted back to 1982 - "which non-NATO countries are now known to have funded or in other ways supported the British CND movement" :roll:
Rob P, StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887395
OCB wrote:I've viewed from afar the media kerfuffle over "un-woke" speakers at certain British academic institutions, and the "cancelling" of various academics/authors/celebs for challenging a certain narrative.

I honestly find it worrying, not because I necessarily disagree with various "woke message" - but I most certainly disagree with using the law + economic, social and media pressure to shut down/criminalise/censure intelligent debate.


This is the thing for me I'm against almost all forms of compulsion / coercion. The twitter mobs are like the struggle squads under Mao. This tool being added to the arsenal of "acceptable" speech weapons is bad for everyone - as all sorts of people, with all sorts of views / preferences are being cancelled now by people all over the place - mostly by those who haven't read the whole context :lol:

Guido got a "Q&A with a witch" event cancelled in the civil service. (There is the added dimension of it being a waste of tax payers money I suppose). But if people want to listen to 'Witches' let them. At the same time also let me believe the idea is insane (yet I would still probably be polite to them in person).
#1887401
@StratoTramp - personally, I will say publicly I think you are a bit of a knob and your best scientific arguments are as intellectually incontinent as a chipmunk on diuretics , but your opinions are as valid as mine.

Closing down discussions, no matter how "uncomfortable" or "off message" rings of various "isms":

Communism
Fascism
Socialism
Theism
Wokeism
Multiculturism
National Socialism

I've genuinely never found an "ism" for "democracy"...which makes me sound like crazy car-15 welding nutter :(

Yes, 50% of those in a democracy are at or below average intelligence - but at least we get to debate with those of lesser intellectual capacity openly and honestly without fear.

Cancel culture - at a philosophical level is.... [answer on a postcard, stick them in a box for a few years]
StratoTramp liked this
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13