View Single Post
Old 02-03-2013, 04:32 AM
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ping-ponging around Europe, trying to get a publishing concern off the ground
Posts: 718

Originally Posted by ThatGirlInGray View Post
While I see your point, SC, there's a difference between judging someone (or a group) for their sexuality (or race, or gender, or anything that is part of who we are) versus judging someone because they have built their life and belief structure on the idea that another group of people is "inferior" to them and taking actions against that group.

I agree that TiMCbyats is allowed his opinion, but I do not agree that he's allowed to spew his opinion wherever and however he wants, nor to try and convince others that his opinion is "correct" and "valid" (not saying he's done this, just a common occurrence). The laws against hate speech exist for a reason, because extremely negative opinions lead to thinking someone is "less" for one reason or another, which then leads to violence against them.
I read SC's comment and I agreed. Then I read TGIG's and I agreed even more.

I took part in a huge Anti-NeoNazi demo in London at the end of the 70s. We were demanding that they not be allowed to enter local government, that their party be banned. Shortly afterwards, I thought again about those demands and discarded them. I think that people SHOULD be allowed to hear hate-filled rants. Let the violent arseholes reveal themselves for exactly what they are. If people REALLY listen to them, maybe they'll be disenchanted. Of course, it's up to the rest of us to provide an open, caring alternative which is more attractive than the hate.

I agree with TGIG in this VERY important point: a value judgement against someone because of what they intrinsically are DOES NOT EQUATE MORALLY with a value judgement against people who CHOOSE to believe and expouse hate and discrimination. I objected to TiMCbyats' comments because he used words like "make me puke", "disgust me", and "end of conversation" against people who have no CHOICE about being male and straight. I offered him the benefit of the doubt in case he meant that he felt disgusted by people who choose to define themselves in those terms [wear them like badges of honour]. But if people are ASKED to define their gender and sexuality - and this thread deals very intimately with that theme - and they do so, I find the ensuing attack on them to be offensive.

That said, TiMCbyats, fleurisseur (who seems to have abandoned this can of worms that he opened up), et al have all the right in the World to be as offensive as they wish. But they shouldn't attack us and accuse us of misinterpreting them when we understand them very well.
Reply With Quote