b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Prejudice » Post 684894 | Search
This is a question Prejudice

"Are you prejudiced?" asks StapMyVitals. Have you been a victim of prejudice? Are you a columnist for a popular daily newspaper? Don't bang on about how you never judge people on first impressions - no-one will believe you.

(, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 12:53)
Pages: Latest, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, ... 1

« Go Back

Gets my goat
People who bang on about freedom of speech, freedom of expression, their socialist credentials - and in the next breath condemn someone else for expressing an opinion they disagree with.

And before anyone comes out with the old `with freedom of speech comes responsibilities' I would ask them `Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who decides what is beyond the pale and what isn't?

I don't trust MYSELF to do that, so when someone self appointed turns up and starts shouting the odds I am liable to take the piss. I'm right of centre, have mates with views ranging from near-facist to near-communist and guess what? They're mates. And funny enough they will happily take the piss out of someone mercilessly and then defend them the next if someone else tries to shut them up.

If you don't like what someone is saying, take the piss. Show how their beliefs are ludicrious. Or ignore them. Try to understand how they come to the view they do - understand even though you don't agree.

Start shouting `racist', `facist', `sexist', etc. and you've automatically lost the argument in my books.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:20, 17 replies)
If you ask most people `Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' they won't know what the fuck you're on about
Meaning you're better than them and that they shouldn't have the vote anyway.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:25, closed)
It means Who Will Watch The Watchmen.
And the correct answer is "Not me ta. It's too long."
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:07, closed)
I know, but the povvers won't because they're too scummy to afford an education that included Latin.

(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 16:10, closed)
the only reason i know what it means
is that i read terry pratchett's discworld books
(, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 2:27, closed)
Absolutely right.
I cannot abide the BNP, but where do all these anti-BNP protesters get off? Apparently people are only allowed to have an opinion - no matter how misguided it may be - if it happens to agree with them. That really gets my goat.

This is a democracy. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind, and everyone should have the right to point and take the piss if they disagree. But you cannot ban someone from voicing their opinions just because you don't happen to agree with them.

These same protesters are often the same people who then carp on about civil liberties and freedom of speech in other countries. Crazy.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:27, closed)
Entirely this.

(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:40, closed)
agreed...kind of
freedom of speech...freedom to protest.

as voltaire said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:53, closed)
And, as he should have appended...
"and also defend to the death my right to take the piss out of it once you have".

Kudos to Audax Victor for pointing this out. It's the British way - don't shut up people you disagree with, take the piss out of them. Embarrass them into shutting up of their own accord.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:31, closed)

voltaire Evelyn Beatrice Hall
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:08, closed)
As in prejediced against faces?
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:54, closed)
Does that involve using the Force, Obi Wan?
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:12, closed)

(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:04, closed)
I am actually still pretty ambivalent on this issue.
I absolutely agree that throwing around serious accusations of fascism and racism as if the words were punctuation marks is utterly stupid but when it gets down to the more complex and practical aspects of a right to freedom of speech I, personally, am unable to see the issue in any sort of certain terms.

Firstly: the vast majority of rights are in conflict with one another, freedom to and freedom from is another grey area. In the majority of cases Mill's harm principle is a good measure of how to restrict, and therefore balance, different freedoms and rights however even he found it difficult to subscribe a clear cut off point. For example, should my right to say that 'followers of Islam are all evil and they should be driven out of the country' supersede a muslim family's freedom from the carrying out of my words? Am I responsible if my words are put into action?

Secondly: I like your view of the proper place of piss taking in debate. Excellent stuff. I would love to be able to properly have faith in the idea that debate will always dialectically provide us with the best answer but that is predicated on the understanding that all parties will be properly reasoned, reasonable and will be seeking resolution. So often this just is not the case.

I'd like to say that I am not supporting those who seek to stifle others' expression, I believe that it's most often a dangerous and deeply destructive road to go down. I just wanted to suggest that they may not be quite as contemptible as you seem to think, merely the other side of an argument which is fraught with contradictions, difficulties and uncertainties... as so often is the case with questions and decisions that go to the root of our very being as individuals in society. I certainly can't say I've worked it out yet.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:04, closed)
"Firstly: the vast majority of rights are in conflict with one another, freedom to and freedom from is another grey area."
Nicely put.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:08, closed)

There are those that are tied up completely in being 'right-on' and find themselves in a confused position of defending those they see as the underdog or as a minority while also wanting everything done their way which is some kind of pained pseudo-intellectual, juvenile morality. You can spot them by feeding them terms like 'Israel', 'George Bush' or 'BNP'.

You can usually safely ignore such people's ideas.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:06, closed)
He once amused me by once saying he wanted an article in the papers announcing all abattoirs were being knocked down to build motorways through the middle of them just to see the reaction.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:15, closed)
I once played the drinking game of 'bullshit bingo' at NUS annual conference.
It was really rather messy.
(, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:27, closed)

« Go Back

Pages: Latest, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, ... 1