Quote
Stephen Fry calls for Olympics ban over Russia's anti-gay laws
Broadcaster Stephen Fry has urged David Cameron to support moves to strip Russia of the 2014 Winter Olympics because of its new anti-gay laws.
In an open letter to the PM, the International Olympic Committee and London 2012's Lord Coe, he said Russia was "making scapegoats of gay people".
The government said it was working closely with organisers to ensure the Games were free from discrimination.
In Russia, it is illegal to give under-18s information about homosexuality.
'Honest commitment'
In Mr Fry's letter, which was published on his website, he compared the situation to the decision to hold the 1936 games in Nazi Germany.
He urged International Olympics Committee (IOC) President Jacques Rogge and his fellow committee members to "take a firm stance on behalf of the shared humanity it is supposed to represent".
"It is simply not enough to say that gay Olympians may or may not be safe in their village. An absolute ban on the Russian Winter Olympics of 2014 is simply essential," he wrote.
"Stage them elsewhere in Utah, Lillehammer, anywhere you like. At all costs (Russian President Vladimir) Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world."
He said the London 2012 Games "were one of the most glorious moments of my life and the life of my country" and a Russian Winter Olympics "would stain the movement forever and wipe away any of that glory".
....
:hmm:
Rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23603870 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23603870)
Yeah having Jesse Owens crush the Aryans in their Fortress of Evil was a retarded move.
I don't see anything wrong here but your thread title.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 01:56:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong here but your thread title.
What's wrong with the thread title?
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 01:56:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 01:56:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong here but your thread title.
What's wrong with the thread title?
I haven't seen exactly what Fry said but drawing a comparison to the Nazi games of 1936 doesn't mean that anyone/thing "is as bad as the Nazis."
Seriously, This Is Bad As The Timmay.
this is the olympics with the figure skating in it?
Actually, Jake, now having read that Fry posted, I'd say it is a gross mischaracterization of his remarks.
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2013, 02:08:06 PM
this is the olympics with the figure skating in it?
Yes, hosted by the country famous for its male ballet dancers.
Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2013, 02:08:06 PM
this is the olympics with the figure skating in it?
Yes, hosted by the country famous for its male ballet dancers.
hmm.. maybe they think dressing up in glitter is masculine?
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 02:08:11 PM
Actually, Jake, now having read that Fry posted, I'd say it is a gross mischaracterization of his remarks.
It's an extrapolation, but not really that far out.
Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2013, 02:23:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 02:08:11 PM
Actually, Jake, now having read that Fry posted, I'd say it is a gross mischaracterization of his remarks.
It's an extrapolation, but not really that far out.
The problem is that it is an easy rhetorical way to cheapen/negate his remarks. I think that's unfair as I think his main message is a powerful one - though I don't actually care about the Olympics so don't really care if they are tarnished.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 02:24:54 PM
though I don't actually care about the Olympics so don't really care if they are tarnished.
They're already tarnished. They have curling.
Sounds like both a reasonable comparison (persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany maybe about 1934, got worse after that, and Russia right now seems to be comparable) and a reasonable petition to the politicians. Russia does indeed not seem fit to house what should be festival of humanities diversity, not of discrimination.
Why is this time different? Homosexuality itself was actually illegal in Soviet Union, and yet they hosted Olympics in 1980.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 02:24:54 PM
The problem is that it is an easy rhetorical way to cheapen/negate his remarks.
Sure, but the blame for that goes to Fry for using the analogy in the first place. I like Fry but he overstepped slightly here.
Quote from: Zanza on August 07, 2013, 02:35:21 PM
Sounds like both a reasonable comparison (persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany maybe about 1934, got worse after that, and Russia right now seems to be comparable) and a reasonable petition to the politicians. Russia does indeed not seem fit to house what should be festival of humanities diversity, not of discrimination.
:yes:
What are gay rights like and the life of a gay person worth in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab gulf ?
Not heard of those places, they're where some of the oil and gas we use comes from.
Maybe if life isn't good for a gay person there, then people could organize a boycott of their energy resources. Like cutting back your car mileage by 5,10 or 20 percent ?
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
What are gay rights like and the life of a gay person worth in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab gulf ?
Not heard of those places, they're where some of the oil and gas we us comes from.
Maybe if life isn't good for a gay person there, then people could organize a boycott of their energy resources. Like cutting back your car mileage by 5,10 or 20 percent ?
This is a strange post even for you.
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2013, 02:46:28 PM
Why is this time different? Homosexuality itself was actually illegal in Soviet Union, and yet they hosted Olympics in 1980.
Because the world has become more civilized in the past 33 years.
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2013, 02:46:28 PM
Why is this time different? Homosexuality itself was actually illegal in Soviet Union, and yet they hosted Olympics in 1980.
For that matter, also in Atlanta in 1996.
But I think there has been a significant change in public opinion on this topic the last 15 years. You now have many countries where openly gay athletes feel comfortable competing, and there are some ethical issues with forcing them to compete in a place that is intolerant.
Surely gay people can boycott the Olympics.
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:12:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
What are gay rights like and the life of a gay person worth in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab gulf ?
Not heard of those places, they're where some of the oil and gas we us comes from.
Maybe if life isn't good for a gay person there, then people could organize a boycott of their energy resources. Like cutting back your car mileage by 5,10 or 20 percent ?
This is a strange post even for you.
Since Grumblers not in the thread, I see we'll just have to make do with you:
I mean wtf to this sentence - "Not heard of those places, they're where some of the oil and gas we us comes from. "
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:12:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
What are gay rights like and the life of a gay person worth in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab gulf ?
Not heard of those places, they're where some of the oil and gas we us comes from.
Maybe if life isn't good for a gay person there, then people could organize a boycott of their energy resources. Like cutting back your car mileage by 5,10 or 20 percent ?
This is a strange post even for you.
Since Grumblers not in the thread, I see we'll just have to make do with you:
I mean wtf to this sentence - "Not heard of those places, they're where some of the oil and gas we us comes from. "
My suggestion to you is, if you're genuinely concerned about gay rights in other countries, then as an act of brotherly solidarity, you don't use your car on one in twenty or ten of your daily commutes and instead take public transport.
That way you're sending a clear message that you're economically boycotting these regimes and reducing yours and America's reliance on their exports.
Yes the old canard of saying that you have to support every cause otherwise it is hypocritical to support any.
At any rate, I accept your challenge. I take public transport as the general rule. :)
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2013, 02:46:28 PM
Why is this time different? Homosexuality itself was actually illegal in Soviet Union, and yet they hosted Olympics in 1980.
Because they've gone on record as saying that they'll enforce their newly enacted anti-homosexual propaganda laws on visitors and athletes at the games.
Normally with mongers vs garbon I tend to back mongers, but this time I have to give it to garbon.
mongers, you're being silly.
I think this general trend is very interesting. In the old days, say a 100 years ago, Western cultural superiority led to racism against lesser countries. Over time we started to disapprove of all that and "cultural imperialism" became a dirty phrase.
But now it has come back in a new form where feminists and LGBT equality campaigners are in the vanguard of efforts to make some countries more civilised :hmm:
Didn't the Olympics people themselves plan to ban wrestling from the summer games?
That's a poorly conceived boycott mongers. The Gulf states would not know they were being boycotted. If you somehow managed to get the whole world on board, it would impact non-Gulf producers as well. Even more so, since the cheapest oil to pump is in the Gulf.
Besides, what kind of principled message are you sending by cutting consumption of a morally tainted product by 5%?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 03:36:50 PM
I think this general trend is very interesting. In the old days, say a 100 years ago, Western cultural superiority led to racism against lesser countries. Over time we started to disapprove of all that and "cultural imperialism" became a dirty phrase.
But now it has come back in a new form where feminists and LGBT equality campaigners are in the vanguard of efforts to make some countries more civilised :hmm:
Some things never change
QuoteThe White Man's Burden
TAKE up the White Man's burden -
Send forth the best ye breed -
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild -
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden -
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden -
The savage wars of peace -
Fill full the mouth of famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden -
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper -
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead !
Take up the White Man's burden -
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard -
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly !) towards the light:-
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night ?"
Take up the White Man's burden -
Ye dare not stoop to less -
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden -
Have done with childish days -
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgement of your peers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 03:37:32 PM
That's a poorly conceived boycott mongers. The Gulf states would not know they were being boycotted. If you somehow managed to get the whole world on board, it would impact non-Gulf producers as well. Even more so, since the cheapest oil to pump is in the Gulf.
Besides, what kind of principled message are you sending by cutting consumption of a morally tainted product by 5%?
Well obviously they'd have to do more, like mount pickets outside embassies, petrol refineries dealing with the 'tainted' product etc :cool:
Oils fine, just some of it comes from politically dubious sources, the 5% figure was just plucked out of the air as my guess at what proportion of gas comes from Saudi.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 03:36:50 PM
I think this general trend is very interesting. In the old days, say a 100 years ago, Western cultural superiority led to racism against lesser countries. Over time we started to disapprove of all that and "cultural imperialism" became a dirty phrase.
But now it has come back in a new form where feminists and LGBT equality campaigners are in the vanguard of efforts to make some countries more civilised :hmm:
It's pretty consistent if you look at it from the point of view that universal human rights are, indeed, universal; and that cultural self-determination is a good (or a right), to the extent that it does not otherwise abridge individual human rights.
Of course, it gets a bit messy when people start using that language for various political, personal, and rhetorical end; life's like that.
I mean, if you want to you can probably crowbar universal human rights into a "white mans burden" narrative, but I'd consider it a little suspect and you'd have to file off some important bits and bobs along the way.
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:48:50 PMOils fine, just some of it comes from politically dubious sources, the 5% figure was just plucked out of the air as my guess at what proportion of gas comes from Saudi.
That's a bit like refusing to accept 5% of the money you're due, on the principle that somewhere down the line it comes from an ideologically unsound entity.
Alex Ovechkin might win something if there is a boycott. Finally.
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 03:48:50 PMOils fine, just some of it comes from politically dubious sources, the 5% figure was just plucked out of the air as my guess at what proportion of gas comes from Saudi.
That's a bit like refusing to accept 5% of the money you're due, on the principle that somewhere down the line it comes from an ideologically unsound entity.
Jacob, I wouldn't say that as with oil its fairly simple to guess were your petrol has come from in terms of proportions. Here in Europe a large chunk of what fills your car tank will come from the Gulf/Saudi, with much of the rest being made up of the light oils from the North Sea fields.
Of course with natural gas it's much easier, perhaps a third of it will come from Putinland; want to protest his regimes bad record, why don't us Europeans turn the down our thermostats by 3-4C ? :unsure:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
I don't agree.
There can be legitimate disagreement about the exact content of just laws, but the basics are simply a working-out of the ethic of reciprocity, which is found in essentially all human cultures.
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
Jacob, I wouldn't say that as with oil its fairly simple to guess were your petrol has come from in terms of proportions. Here in Europe a large chunk of what fills your car tank will come from the Gulf/Saudi, with much of the rest being made up of the light oils from the North Sea fields.
Of course with natural gas it's much easier, perhaps a third of it will come from Putinland; want to protest his regimes bad record, why don't us Europeans turn the down our thermostats by 3-4C ? :unsure:
Sure you can guess that, and you can do that, but it doesn't really address my point.
If you turn down your natural gas consumption by 33% you're not cutting out the stuff you're getting from Russia. You're using 33% less of your total consumption from whatever sources while still getting 1/3rd of your natural gas from Putin's crew.
Thus the number you're proposing is non-sensical.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
I agree.
This is only get more controversial. Sochi, but then the World Cups in Russia and Qatar...
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
This isn't a bad place to start: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
It's a political document, obviously, but with a fairly broad based provenance.
You could go a bit simpler - no one should be persecuted for who they are and for expressing their identity, as long as such self-expression does not hurt others or abridge their rights.
An olympic boycott isn't going to happen. But making a fuss can still have an impact: the Olympic Committee will be reluctant to give the games to such countries in the future.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
I agree.
This is only get more controversial. Sochi, but then the World Cups in Russia and Qatar...
Qatar has already been getting mentions in articles about this, that I've seen.
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 04:12:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
Jacob, I wouldn't say that as with oil its fairly simple to guess were your petrol has come from in terms of proportions. Here in Europe a large chunk of what fills your car tank will come from the Gulf/Saudi, with much of the rest being made up of the light oils from the North Sea fields.
Of course with natural gas it's much easier, perhaps a third of it will come from Putinland; want to protest his regimes bad record, why don't us Europeans turn the down our thermostats by 3-4C ? :unsure:
Sure you can guess that, and you can do that, but it doesn't really address my point.
If you turn down your natural gas consumption by 33% you're not cutting out the stuff you're getting from Russia. You're using 33% less of your total consumption from whatever sources while still getting 1/3rd of your natural gas from Putin's crew.
Thus the number you're proposing is non-sensical.
Not strictly true as if you reduce total natural gas usage, then I suspect as Putin's Russia gets more unreliable over time, western companies might have a preference for signing long term contracts with non-Russian sources.
Which is another reason why I'm not against shale gas, as it might both reduce costs and our dependency on unsavoury regimes like Russia, Saudi et al.
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 04:14:57 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
This isn't a bad place to start: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
It's a political document, obviously, but with a fairly broad based provenance.
You could go a bit simpler - no one should be persecuted for who they are and for expressing their identity, as long as such self-expression does not hurt others or abridge their rights.
It is a worthy document that I agree with, at least in general. The problem is that most people would seem to disagree with it if we take a global view, so why are we right and they are wrong?
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 04:14:57 PM
You could go a bit simpler - no one should be persecuted for who they are and for expressing their identity, as long as such self-expression does not hurt others or abridge their rights.
This has proven to be problematic in practice.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
I agree.
This is only get more controversial. Sochi, but then the World Cups in Russia and Qatar...
I shall be boycotting them............though this will cost me no pain at all of course :P
Nor will it interfere with them, though these events are staged for prestige, so if enough people are grumpy about it I'm sure there will be some benefit.
My first political action was back in 1968, talking in a debate in class and supporting a boycott of South Africa by the England cricket team over the Basil D'Oliveira affair; I was just stunned by what I perceived as the total injustice of the whole business.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
I agree.
This is only get more controversial. Sochi, but then the World Cups in Russia and Qatar...
I shall be boycotting them............though this will cost me no pain at all of course :P
Nor will it interfere with them, though these events are staged for prestige, so if enough people are grumpy about it I'm sure there will be some benefit.
My first political action was back in 1968, talking in a debate in class and supporting a boycott of South Africa by the England cricket team over the Basil D'Oliveira affair; I was just stunned by what I perceived as the total injustice of the whole business.
You is old. :o
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 04:14:57 PM
You could go a bit simpler - no one should be persecuted for who they are and for expressing their identity, as long as such self-expression does not hurt others or abridge their rights.
This has proven to be problematic in practice.
Yi, you should really not try living in Britain, where everyone now has the right to be offended by just about anything anyone else says. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 04:43:19 PM
Yi, you should really not try living in Britain, where everyone now has the right to be offended by just about anything anyone else says. :bowler:
I've been railing about this central pillar of political correctness forever.
You can't offend people. What's offensive? Whatever the victim says is offensive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:33:40 PMThis has proven to be problematic in practice.
Do you have anything particular in mind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:47:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 04:43:19 PM
Yi, you should really not try living in Britain, where everyone now has the right to be offended by just about anything anyone else says. :bowler:
I've been railing about this central pillar of political correctness forever.
You can't offend people. What's offensive? Whatever the victim says is offensive.
As a politically correct human being, I find your characterization highly offensive. Would you care to apologize or express regret?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:47:02 PMI've been railing about this central pillar of political correctness forever.
You can't offend people. What's offensive? Whatever the victim says is offensive.
I"m sure you and mongers will find this an interesting discussion. For my part, I don't think "freedom from being offended" is considered a universal human right, and I certainly don't think it has any bearing on what's going on in Russia re: GLBTQ issues.
Quote from: Barrister on August 07, 2013, 04:42:19 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
I don't see an obvious way for us to determine a set of human rights that are universal. We have our own opinions about what these rights should be of course, but our opinions are essentially parochial.
I agree.
This is only get more controversial. Sochi, but then the World Cups in Russia and Qatar...
I shall be boycotting them............though this will cost me no pain at all of course :P
Nor will it interfere with them, though these events are staged for prestige, so if enough people are grumpy about it I'm sure there will be some benefit.
My first political action was back in 1968, talking in a debate in class and supporting a boycott of South Africa by the England cricket team over the Basil D'Oliveira affair; I was just stunned by what I perceived as the total injustice of the whole business.
You is old. :o
I can remember acting the part of one of the prime ministerial candidate in a debate/lesson in junior school, I must have been ten; That also was some time ago. :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 04:49:30 PM
I"m sure you and mongers will find this an interesting discussion. For my part, I don't think "freedom from being offended" is considered a universal human right, and I certainly don't think it has any bearing on what's going on in Russia re: GLBTQ issues.
Then why the fuck did you bring it up? :lol:
Here's an entertaining case of political incorrectness here in the UK :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23608106
I think it's a shame that people get so uptight and take offence and demand apologies for this sort of thing. I find it convenient when people express their thoughts so clearly, as it helps to work out what they believe in. In this case I rather think that Godfrey Bloom is a racist knobhead :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:54:37 PM
Here's an entertaining case of political incorrectness here in the UK :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23608106
I think it's a shame that people get so uptight and take offence and demand apologies for this sort of thing. I find it convenient when people express their thoughts so clearly, as it helps to work out what they believe in. In this case I rather think that Godfrey Bloom is a racist knobhead :P
Luckily Godfrey Bloom is quite open:
http://www.channel4.com/news/video-ukips-bloom-i-dont-see-why-bongo-bongo-is-racist :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:47:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 04:43:19 PM
Yi, you should really not try living in Britain, where everyone now has the right to be offended by just about anything anyone else says. :bowler:
I've been railing about this central pillar of political correctness forever.
You can't offend people. What's offensive? Whatever the victim says is offensive.
I don't think it's even what could be called PC, unfortunately it's a cultural shift.
You could also say people are now afraid to speak their mind.
Very few people stand up to this lowest common denominator approach to public life/discourse.
One notable exception is the gay right campaigner Peter Tatchell who support peoples 'rights to offend others'.
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2013, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:47:02 PMI've been railing about this central pillar of political correctness forever.
You can't offend people. What's offensive? Whatever the victim says is offensive.
I"m sure you and mongers will find this an interesting discussion. For my part, I don't think "freedom from being offended" is considered a universal human right, and I certainly don't think it has any bearing on what's going on in Russia re: GLBTQ issues.
Jacob, myself and Yi are talking about another issue, not related to Russia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 07, 2013, 04:54:37 PM
Here's an entertaining case of political incorrectness here in the UK :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23608106
I think it's a shame that people get so uptight and take offence and demand apologies for this sort of thing. I find it convenient when people express their thoughts so clearly, as it helps to work out what they believe in. In this case I rather think that Godfrey Bloom is a racist knobhead :P
Luckily Godfrey Bloom is quite open:
http://www.channel4.com/news/video-ukips-bloom-i-dont-see-why-bongo-bongo-is-racist :lol:
I think he must have a time machine :cool:
Certain types of old guy were like that 40 years ago but were considered reactionary even then. Think of the "Major" in Fawlty Towers, depicted as a completely irrelevant dinosaur.
He just seems a lot like a slightly drunk golfer.
Hmm, seems odd that we've veered away from the tougher subject of people being attacked and what to do - and into when people say not nice things. :D
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 05:03:31 PM
One notable exception is the gay right campaigner Peter Tatchell who support peoples 'rights to offend others'.
God I love Peter Tatchell :lol:
I disagree with him on so very many things but he's great.
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 05:03:31 PM
I don't think it's even what could be called PC, unfortunately it's a cultural shift.
You could also say people are now afraid to speak their mind.
Very few people stand up to this lowest common denominator approach to public life/discourse.
One notable exception is the gay right campaigner Peter Tatchell who support peoples 'rights to offend others'.
I think it's entirely to do with political correctness.
In the old paradigm we arrived at a culture-wide consensus on what is and is not good manners. Then with women's lib, civil rights, and the gay movement, people began protesting that what was acceptable to the majority/establishment was not acceptable to them. So we ceded control over public discourse about women, minorities, and gays to women, minorities, and gays.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 05:10:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 05:03:31 PM
One notable exception is the gay right campaigner Peter Tatchell who support peoples 'rights to offend others'.
God I love Peter Tatchell :lol:
I disagree with him on so very many things but he's great.
Yes. :)
I probably agree with him on a lot more things than you do.
Agreed, his personal bravery alone is sufficient to merit respect, but he is also a person with high principles.........bloody irritating at times of course :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 05:11:14 PM
In the old paradigm we arrived at a culture-wide consensus on what is and is not good manners.
I think the obvious question is who was 'we'?
I always think of Martin Amis on Larkin when it comes to PR:
QuoteP.C. begins with the very American--and attractive and honorable--idea that no one should feel ashamed of what he was born as, of what he is. Of what he does, of what he says, yes; but not ashamed of what he is. Viewed at its grandest, P.C. is an attempt to accelerate evolution. To speak truthfully, while that's still O.K., everybody is "racist," or has racial prejudices. This is because human beings tend to like the similar, the familiar, the familial. I am a racist; I am not as racist as my parents; my children will not be as racist as I am. (Larkin was less racist than his parents; his children would have been less racist than he.) Freedom from racial prejudice is what we hope for, down the line. Impatient with this hope, this process, P.C. seeks to get the thing done right now--in a generation. To achieve this, it will need a busy executive wing, and much invigilation. What it will actually entrain is another ton of false consciousness, to add to the megatons of false consciousness already aboard, and then a backlash.
Of course it would take monumental effort for Martin Amis to be more racist than Kingsley Amis, but I think he's actually right. But, largely it's worked so far.
QuoteAgreed, his personal bravery alone is sufficient to merit respect, but he is also a person with high principles.........bloody irritating at times of course :P
Yep. Almost the exact opposite of Simon Hughes. I'm glad, though, that Hughes won that election.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 04:54:24 PMThen why the fuck did you bring it up? :lol:
I didn't, though in retrospect I guess I expressed myself unclearly.
When I said "as long as it does not hurt others" I meant just that - hurt - not offend. I.e. I was referring to such self-expression as "my sexuality involves fucking 5-year olds", which if engaged in would hurt others - namely the 5-year olds getting fucked.
Or, "I believe in that god only sanctions gay marriage" - feel free to express that belief, as long as you do not hurt others by abridging their right to get married to someone of the opposite sex.
I.e. "hurt" = "abridge the human rights of others"; not "hurt" = "I'm upset about what you said"
10-4.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 05:33:03 PM
10-4.
So I guess we're on the same page re: "freedom from hearing things that I disagree with" as a human right :cheers:
I still contend that that has little to nothing to do with what's going on in Russia.
Here's the view from Russia Today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyhOlvUocN8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKyhOlvUocN8&nomobile=1
When I was at Stonewall Inn last week, someone tried to order stoli and got told that vodka wasn't available because of the boycott.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 05:28:45 PM
I think the obvious question is who was 'we'?
Bigoted, sexist, gay-hating white men.
But it doesn't follow from that that the current way of doing things is incapable of improvement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2013, 06:04:47 PM
But it doesn't follow from that that the current way of doing things is incapable of improvement.
No. I wouldn't agree with your characterisation of it. But it's certainly an improvement.
Stockholm Pride was reported to the police for racism. There was allegedly one guy in the parade in blackface.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 05:49:59 PM
When I was at Stonewall Inn last week, someone tried to order stoli and got told that vodka wasn't available because of the boycott.
Homos :rolleyes:
I'm sure Latvians hate fags too.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 05:49:59 PM
When I was at Stonewall Inn last week, someone tried to order stoli and got told that vodka wasn't available because of the boycott.
Don't they have any non-Russian vodka? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 05:49:59 PM
When I was at Stonewall Inn last week, someone tried to order stoli and got told that vodka wasn't available because of the boycott.
I've been boycotting Stoli ever since I had a shot of it. :)
I like Ketel One.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 11:15:22 PM
I like Ketel One.
:hug: That's the best one out there.
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2013, 11:13:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2013, 05:49:59 PM
When I was at Stonewall Inn last week, someone tried to order stoli and got told that vodka wasn't available because of the boycott.
I've been boycotting Stoli ever since I had a shot of it. :)
Stoli is by far my favorite vodka.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 05:10:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 07, 2013, 05:03:31 PM
One notable exception is the gay right campaigner Peter Tatchell who support peoples 'rights to offend others'.
God I love Peter Tatchell :lol:
I disagree with him on so very many things but he's great.
Shelf, here's Peter Tatchells take on Russia and the Olympics, a 4-5minute bbc world news interview, worth a watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ1p2e4yGnE&feature=youtu.be&a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ1p2e4yGnE&feature=youtu.be&a)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2013, 05:28:45 PM
I always think of Martin Amis on Larkin when it comes to PR:
QuoteP.C. begins with the very American--and attractive and honorable--idea that no one should feel ashamed of what he was born as, of what he is. Of what he does, of what he says, yes; but not ashamed of what he is. Viewed at its grandest, P.C. is an attempt to accelerate evolution. To speak truthfully, while that's still O.K., everybody is "racist," or has racial prejudices. This is because human beings tend to like the similar, the familiar, the familial. I am a racist; I am not as racist as my parents; my children will not be as racist as I am. (Larkin was less racist than his parents; his children would have been less racist than he.) Freedom from racial prejudice is what we hope for, down the line. Impatient with this hope, this process, P.C. seeks to get the thing done right now--in a generation. To achieve this, it will need a busy executive wing, and much invigilation. What it will actually entrain is another ton of false consciousness, to add to the megatons of false consciousness already aboard, and then a backlash.
It is interesting that, in the UK, PC seems to be viewed as a matter of "race." That's not the way it started in the US. Of course, everyone in the US isn't racist, as Amis argues everyone in the UK is, but I think he got that bit wrong.
That's part of a piece that was a scathing defence of Larkin. After an acknowledged great writer dies there's always a reaction against them, if they survive then chances are the deserve to be acknowledged as a great writer. The reaction against Larkin was extreme. He was accused of many personal failings largely on the basis of his letters and subsequent biographies. A lot of it was overreaction, I think from the first PC generation so there was a year zero quality to it, against a man who was born in 1922 and doggedly seemed to always be a man born in 1922. I mean A.N. Wilson called him a 'really rather nasty, prematurely aged man' and 'really a kind of petty-bourgeois fascist' and 'really a nutcase' - that piece was entitled 'Larkin: The old friend I never liked'. People were comparing him to David Irving and saying there was a 'revolting sewer' running underneath the national monument that Larkin had become. It burned out and I think time's vindicated Martin Amis's defence - who remembers Tom Paulin's letter, or Andrew Motion's biography now?
So it's more about race because he deals with the accusations of misogyny elsewhere and was, in that part, dealing with the accusations of 'race hatred'. Part of Amis's argument is that I think everyone's racist to some extent, but that our kids are generally less racist than us and maybe one day we'll reach a point of absolute colour-blindness and that PC was trying to speed the process up.
But for what it's worth I think PC's a really baggy and kind-of useless phrase. I remember it being used largely to denote 'modern' alternative comedians like Ben Elton and Jo Brand over the old club comedians who'd make jokes about 'Pakis'. It seemed to be a good thing and part of it was, ultimately, censorship when TV companies decided that even if racist jokes made them money they probably shouldn't show them - 'a busy executive wing'. At the time it was cancelled the black and white minstrel show was the highest rated in this country. There's other sides to it but, broadly, I think it was positive.
Similarly in my own memory the shift on attitudes to gays has been incredible. The Sun went from a frontpage on whether we were run by a Gay Mafia (there were I think three gay ministers at the time) to celebrating Elton John's civil partnership ('David's taking Elton up the aisle') and supporting gay marriage.
Now PC seems to be mainly used for people announcing breathtakingly conventional opinions. They preface an outstanding statement of conventional wisdom with 'now may not be politically correct but...' It seems to mean all sorts of things including, say, the environment. See the Telegraph here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8513876/The-A-Z-of-political-correctness.html
I think it's a form-fitting and immensely useful phrase.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
I think it's a form-fitting and immensely useful phrase.
:lol: It's the right-wing version of 'neo-liberal'. There may be a useful meaning under there somewhere but it's long got swallowed up.
Neo-liberal has a relatively clear cut meaning, referring to the position that if you fuck with market mechanisms you pay the price. Neo-conservative might work better for you, which has about as many varied meanings as Tea Party does.
I'm actually fuzzy on what PC actually means. Could you clue me in, Yi?
I think neo-conservatism's now around the level of fascism, it just means 'something bad' :lol:
Neo-liberal's an agenda that encompasses Maggie, the IMF and New Labour. As I say I think there's a meaning in there somewhere (though not one those three would agree on) but it's just generally a Guardianista term of abuse.
Much like on that A-Z list from the Telegraph. Political correctness means everything from Halal fast food to dodgems.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 08:46:32 PM
I'm actually fuzzy on what PC actually means. Could you clue me in, Yi?
As Shelf alluded to, part of it is just being nice. No more fag jokes. No more nigger jokes.
Which is all well and good, but as i already explained where political correctness went off the rails was in handing off to the various oppressed victim groups that had the good fortune or political wile to achieve that status the ability to decide for themselves what is and what is not offensive. Another failing is to deny members of these groups agency. They do not make bad choices, they only respond to oppression and victimization. So all evil in the world is caused by oppressors, i.e. white men.
A good example of the former is the burgeoning intra-black discussion on black culture, responsibility, etc. I.e. it doesn't help things when young black men act like thugs. No way a non-black can advance that argument. But other blacks can, and that was the carefully couched, deeply qualified point that Obama made during his "personal response" to the Zimmerman verdict which I applauded.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 08:49:15 PM
Neo-liberal's an agenda that encompasses Maggie, the IMF and New Labour.
That's what I said. An understanding that if you fuck with the market the market will fuck with you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2013, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 08:46:32 PM
I'm actually fuzzy on what PC actually means. Could you clue me in, Yi?
As Shelf alluded to, part of it is just being nice. No more fag jokes. No more nigger jokes.
Which is all well and good, but as i already explained where political correctness went off the rails was in handing off to the various oppressed victim groups that had the good fortune or political wile to achieve that status the ability to decide for themselves what is and what is not offensive. Another failing is to deny members of these groups agency. They do not make bad choices, they only respond to oppression and victimization. So all evil in the world is caused by oppressors, i.e. white men.
A good example of the former is the burgeoning intra-black discussion on black culture, responsibility, etc. I.e. it doesn't help things when young black men act like thugs. No way a non-black can advance that argument. But other blacks can, and that was the carefully couched, deeply qualified point that Obama made during his "personal response" to the Zimmerman verdict which I applauded.
Yet I see the term consistently applied to other things. For instance there is a whole set of books called "The politically Incorrect guide to _____". Concerning various topics including Capitalism, the South, The Civil War, Darwin and Founding Fathers. These books do not seem to all concern themselves with oppression, politeness or victimization. Unless you use the terms very broadly.
You've lost me Raz.
Raz is pretty Razztastic this early in the morning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2013, 12:34:35 AM
You've lost me Raz.
I'm suggesting that PC is a vague and useless term.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2013, 09:25:46 PM
For instance there is a whole set of books called "The politically Incorrect guide to _____". Concerning various topics including Capitalism, the South, The Civil War, Darwin and Founding Fathers. These books do not seem to all concern themselves with oppression, politeness or victimization. Unless you use the terms very broadly.
Those cracked me up. The points on the book covers were so non-sensical. Things like 'the left-wing communist establishment has told you the Founding Fathers were liberals well we are going to explain to you they were CONSERVATIVES!!111'.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2013, 12:34:35 AM
You've lost me Raz.
You are discussing PC. You offered up a reasonable definition of PC and its usage.
Raz contends the term is vague, fuzzy, and over used. Example evidence to back this up are the prevalence of books such as "the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers" which appear to use a different definition of PC than the one you offered (one that's closer to "pejorative for American liberal"); hence vague, fuzzy, and over used.