Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

The problem is not with bigots and hate preachers, those are easy to identify. The problem is with subliminal discrimination. The problem is not with people who think that a woman belongs in the kitchen, it's with people who think that the income bias between men and women exists because somehow there are less women for the job. The problem is with people who think that women are due to their biology, on average, not as good in math as men. the problem is with people who think that men's soccer is more interesting them woman's soccer without even having watched woman's soccer. I think you catch my drift. Now I know you can't forbid all these things, but we can at least make a start somewhere. (don't call me out on that one, I'm still trying to figure out just how. I do however imagine that restricting some of the more persuasive forms of subliminal discrimination could help.)

Why should a "holy" book be above scruteny? Especillay if it's the prime reason for the oppresion of women worldwide?

And it's not above scrutiny.  It's scrutinized all the time.  I hope you're not suggesting that it would be a good idea to include banning of religious texts in any ban on hate speech.

If we're ever going to want to make a serious effort of normalizing gender relations, then having a strongly misogynistic book that claims and is viewed as worth more then all the laws and morals in the world is rather inconvenient, no? I realize very well that it's way too early to actually ban (or rather restrict it, such as Mein Kampf is in Germany IIRC), but one can always dream, no?


Also, as for the freedom of speech bit, the freedom of speech ends when it starts to threaten the basic rights of people. I firmly believe that in the current situation that applies to some of the less obvious forms of anti-woman propaganda, especially since people, me included, often have a hard time identifying it as such.

[Nadaka]

I am rabidly anti-religious, but again. Liberal.

You can't force religion out of people by banning it.

For some religions, this plays right into their persecution complex and feeds them.

You would be limiting what people are capable of thinking by restricting their access to the full spectrum of knowledge available.

That is one of the things I find so absolutely abhorrent in religion. It is a crime against the free will and rationality of the human mind.

[Virex]

You can't force religion out of people by banning it.

Sure you can, why do you think there were no Muslims in Spain for a millennium? Or why there are no longer any Cathars? The question is rather, do we want it? Considering the kind of effort needed I'm inclined to say no, but I do think that we need to change religion in a radical way, a way that it will not adopt on it's own. And I believe it certainly is possible, if only enough people wanted to.

[SalmonGod]

I've had some European friends who have talked about problems with racism enough that I find it hard to believe the laws against hate speech are very effective.

If we're ever going to want to make a serious effort of normalizing gender relations, then having a book that claims and is viewed as worth more then all the laws and morals in the world is rather inconvenient, no? I realize very well that it's way too early to actually ban (or rather restrict it, such as Mein Kampf is in Germany IIRC), but one can always dream, no?

You can see it as an inconvenience or as a challenge that will make us stronger once overcome, and I believe we're getting there.  "Way too early" suggests that the bible's influence is still too strong with too many people for this to be realistically enforceable, right?  After this has changed, what will be the point?  Would it be useful for us to so bury and forget?

My dream is that people continue to test their most preciously held beliefs ruthlessly against one another so that those founded on misinformation and bad intentions can be weeded out and we can all grow up together.

[Phmcw]

Banning a religion would be unproductive. Erasing an aspect is almost easy.

Not all religious people are misogynist, when all religious text are.
For the old testament, you can rape a women provided that you pay the father and marry her afterward. Women are supposed to stay silent before the men...
How many Christians still do it?
How many of them stone women who had sex before marriage?
Some of them. Not the majority. Do not overestimate the power of holly books : religion are before everything the reflect of society.

But simply considering that any member of a minority have the right to get in the public space without being verbally abused seems right to me. 

You can't force religion out of people by banning it.

Sure you can, why do you think there were no Muslims in Spain for a millennium? Or why there are no longer any Cathars? The question is rather, do we want it? Considering the kind of effort needed I'm inclined to say no, but I do think that we need to change religion in a radical way, a way that it will not adopt on it's own. And I believe it certainly is possible, if only enough people wanted to.

So ... who volunteer to make a few hundred pals? I'm talking about pointy pieces of wood used for impalement, not friends.
There is no more Cathars because Catholic genocided them, alongside a lot of catholics who simply lived there.
It's not a ban, it was widespread persecution and slaughter.

[Nadaka]

You can't force religion out of people by banning it.

Sure you can, why do you think there were no Muslims in Spain for a millennium? Or why there are no longer any Cathars? The question is rather, do we want it? Considering the kind of effort needed I'm inclined to say no, but I do think that we need to change religion in a radical way, a way that it will not adopt on it's own. And I believe it certainly is possible, if only enough people wanted to.

Oh? So if you found or even suspected someone with a bible you would have them burned at the stake or drawn and quartered?

Are you trying to be ridiculous? What makes your monstrously oppressive and violent regime any better than the ones imposed in the name of any other goal?

[Virex]

Now you're jumping to conclusions. I have never said that such means should be employed, nor do I believe it would be a humane way to go about things. I even explicitly stated that I don't believe we should take that path.

I've had some European friends who have talked about problems with racism enough that I find it hard to believe the laws against hate speech are very effective.

If we're ever going to want to make a serious effort of normalizing gender relations, then having a book that claims and is viewed as worth more then all the laws and morals in the world is rather inconvenient, no? I realize very well that it's way too early to actually ban (or rather restrict it, such as Mein Kampf is in Germany IIRC), but one can always dream, no?

You can see it as an inconvenience or as a challenge that will make us stronger once overcome, and I believe we're getting there.  "Way too early" suggests that the bible's influence is still too strong with too many people for this to be realistically enforceable, right?  After this has changed, what will be the point?  Would it be useful for us to so bury and forget?

It would be a reminder that the kind of ideas portrayed by some books (don't think of the bible alone here) are completely unacceptable to anyone who wishes to carry the predicate "human", something some people apparently need to be reminded of through rather harsh means.

My dream is that people continue to test their most preciously held beliefs ruthlessly against one another so that those founded on misinformation and bad intentions can be weeded out and we can all grow up together.

A lofty goal, and one I would wish could one day become a reality. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever come to be, because men are jealous and wrathful and when presented with a view that's obviously better then the one they hold, their natural reaction is not to adapt it but to reject and even suppress it (note that the inverse is not necessarily true).[/quote]

[G-Flex]

If we're ever going to want to make a serious effort of normalizing gender relations, then having a strongly misogynistic book that claims and is viewed as worth more then all the laws and morals in the world is rather inconvenient, no? I realize very well that it's way too early to actually ban (or rather restrict it, such as Mein Kampf is in Germany IIRC), but one can always dream, no?

No, it's not inconvenient. What's inconvenient is the millenna-old culture built up around it, and you aren't going to get rid of that overnight, and you sure as hell aren't going to do it by banning a book.

But simply considering that any member of a minority have the right to get in the public space without being verbally abused seems right to me.

Verbally abusing people in public is not the same thing as spouting racist or otherwise harmful ideas. A person who runs a racist newspaper, or holds racist meetings of a racist organization, or puts up racist videos on Youtube, is not the same as that same racist harassing someone on the street.


You don't maintain a society that is at all free or democratic by attempting to exert mind control on them. The key is more communication, not less. If you stifle ideas that you (or rather, the government) has deemed "wrong", you're making ideas illegal. Can you not see why that very concept is harmful? Even if it weren't used in a corrupt fashion (and let me tell you, if it were legal, it would have been by now; it's been attempted), it goes against the very notion of free choice in what one believes, how one votes or acts as a consumer, etc.

[Virex]

You don't maintain a society that is at all free or democratic by attempting to exert mind control on them. The key is more communication, not less. If you stifle ideas that you (or rather, the government) has deemed "wrong", you're making ideas illegal. Can you not see why that very concept is harmful? Even if it weren't used in a corrupt fashion (and let me tell you, if it were legal, it would have been by now; it's been attempted), it goes against the very notion of free choice in what one believes, how one votes or acts as a consumer, etc.

The problem here is that the "free choice" that some men have appropriated themselves severely limits the free choice of women worldwide. You may remember the saying "the freedom to move my fist ends where your nose starts"? Same thing applies here.

[Nadaka]

Virex: you explicitly DID bring up the Muslims in Spain and the Cathars. The reason they were not present is that they were exterminated as vermin.

[Virex]

Virex: you explicitly DID bring up the Muslims in Spain and the Cathars. The reason they were not present is that they were exterminated as vermin.

I did, to show that it is indeed possible. I also immediately added that we should not employ the same means, nor that the end goal should be the same.

[Phmcw]

I'm sorry, but I think I explained succinctly why I think forbidding some kind of public speech is actually acceptable.
Could you please acknowledge my argument, if only to debunk them?

[SalmonGod]

Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever come to be, because men are jealous and wrathful and when presented with a view that's obviously better then the one they hold, their natural reaction is not to adapt it but to reject and even suppress it (note that the inverse is not necessarily true).

I hate appeals to supposed features of human nature, especially when on the subject of prejudice.  Men (which I assume you meant as the human race) are not jealous and wrathful any more than women are bad at math.  I've been debating on the internet from what is widely seen as a wide-eyed idealist platform for roughly 14 years, and "that's impossible because people are -insert negative personality trait here-" is always the first shot fired at anything seen as too lofty.  It never ceases to amaze me how that claim comes most often from people who are otherwise rigorous about backing up claims with data and attacking biases, and who rarely give a nod to the fact that they are describing a set of entities that happens to include themselves.

[Nadaka]

Virex: you explicitly DID bring up the Muslims in Spain and the Cathars. The reason they were not present is that they were exterminated as vermin.

I did, to show that it is indeed possible. I also immediately added that we should not employ the same means.

And the early soviet union also forbid religion, pushing it underground for decades, murdered many, and the Russian orthodox faith still exists. Now look at the war on drugs and see how well that has gone. Banning religion is fundamentally wrong and pointless unless you plan on exterminating everyone. With reading and books common, even that becomes incredibly difficult. In the internet age of invisible cryptographic partitions and global instantaneous communication it is utterly impossible.

I really can't believe I am actually defending religion.

[G-Flex]

Trying to restrict the flow of information, especially ideas, in such an authoritarian manner is pretty freaking backwards, and pretty freaking impossible in the days of the Internet.

You don't maintain a society that is at all free or democratic by attempting to exert mind control on them. The key is more communication, not less. If you stifle ideas that you (or rather, the government) has deemed "wrong", you're making ideas illegal. Can you not see why that very concept is harmful? Even if it weren't used in a corrupt fashion (and let me tell you, if it were legal, it would have been by now; it's been attempted), it goes against the very notion of free choice in what one believes, how one votes or acts as a consumer, etc.

The problem here is that the "free choice" that some men have appropriated themselves severely limits the free choice of women worldwide. You may remember the saying "the freedom to move my fist ends where your nose starts"? Same thing applies here.

Yes, the same thing applies, which is why it's illegal to discriminate against women in the workplace or as consumers, for example. There are many ways you can discourage prejudice without having to explicitly ban people from being sexist.