View Full Version : -isms

9th Apr 2004, 16:07
(Please note, mods, that this is NOT an appeal for the change of the forum rules, merely a topic for discussion).

Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever. Clearly these are based on bigoted opinion and many people find them offensive, but is that a reason to make airing one's views on the subject illegal? I hold many views which other people may or may not find offensive - I'm atheist, I believe that abortion is a matter of choice, I happen to think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and I have no idea about what to do about the Middle East issue as just a few examples. While all of these are potentially inflammatory subjects I don't want to discuss any of those topics in particular here, I merely want to discuss the concept of being unable to discuss them.

Everyone holds different views on such subjects, and these different views go some way to defining us as individuals - our differences make us us. Most of us (I hope) do a little research or fact-finding or critical thought before coming to our conclusions on the thornier issues, but it is a fact that we cannot know everything about the subject, no matter how much googling or whatever we do - we cannot gather all the information on a subject and even if we did we wouldn't know which data to trust.

The question is, do we outlaw the discussion of “politically incorrect” views, no matter how they are peacefully aired (jailing people for burning flags and the like) or do we let them have their say just as we would like our views to be heard?

9th Apr 2004, 16:25
good idea, provided it's properly self moderated and doesn't turn in to another " lets kick the **** out" etc.
The biggest problem with this type of topic is that sooner or later
someone will try and "get a bite" out of everyone else, and it will soon go rapidly downhill from there.

I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing "Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever", as these topics are now a part of everyday life


9th Apr 2004, 17:43
Another consideration, PTT, is that differing perceptions between individuals can easily lead to friction whenever certain subjects are discussed.

For example, I might make a (in my view) perfectly reasonable statement on a subject, which might be right-wing ranting from your point of view, while another equally sensible and reasonable person might accuse me of spouting left-wing luvvie nonsense.

Others still would attack me for holding an opinion that did not fit their worldview - and one or two would instantly hi-jack the thread onto the subject of A Certain Nation.:E

9th Apr 2004, 17:49
True enough, but the question is whether discussing the issues, no matter how belligerent (but non-violent) the protagonists get, is better than allowing such bigoted and uninformed views, often predicated on emotional rather than logical arguments, to cause polarisation and hatred. The basis of any relationship is communication, surely? No-one said that communication had to be quiet!

tony draper
9th Apr 2004, 17:55
The trouble is bigoted and uninformed or luvvie will be anybody that has a opposite view to your own.
It is that very statement, "bigoted and Uninformed" or "Luvvie Liberal" that throws down the gauntlet.


Boss Raptor
9th Apr 2004, 18:18
I too hold what would be considered by some to be 'bigoted' and 'racist' views...not so in my opinion as they are not 'extreme' and are just 'opinions'...and held by many of my peers

However I think as to the question of why such views are made illegal, I believe this can happen when the views addressed become so extreme they encourage or cause hostile/violent action from the 'extremist' and/or provoke hostile action in return from those opposed :cool:

9th Apr 2004, 19:11
No-one said that communication had to be quiet! A fair and reasonable point and, indeed, there have been examples on this very forum where potentially contentious issues have been discussed in an atmosphere of mutual respect and recognition that everyone is entitled to their point of view.

Sadly, however, such debates degenerate all too often and all too rapidly into "loud-hailer" expositions of entrenched positions and "willy-waving" contests.

9th Apr 2004, 19:21
It's an Internet thing, isn't it? Compared to most bulletin boards, and especially to Usenet, JB is an oasis of well mannered calm.

There is something about the detachment and anonymity that you get from posting on the Net that makes otherwise normal people adopt an aggressive and assertive persona.

It doesn't bother me, but it obviously bothers a few people.

It's only a website after all, not real life.

9th Apr 2004, 20:35
One still has an obligation (to oneself) to be good , kind and caring to others.

To insult another because of his/her views is spiritual impoverishment, irrespective of hidden identities.

(I`ll probably get banned now for expressing a religiously aligned viewpoint (Buddhism) despite not being an adherent of same)

10th Apr 2004, 19:36
The -isms listed are all discriminatory.
But in my opinion, discrimination is a good thing. It's choice, and one should enjoy the right to choose.
When I recruit staff, one of the criteria I use is whether I like the person. If I don't they won't get the job. Technically, if someone I appoint is less well qualified than someone I don't like, I've committed an offence.
The answer is for Governments to wind their necks in and stick to what they do best (or get some research done to find out what that is). The law should not interfere in matters of choice.

Onan the Clumsy
11th Apr 2004, 02:08
instead of isms, maybe we should talk about asms

henry crun
11th Apr 2004, 03:18
Ok Onan, what about electoplasms or deuteroplasms ?

Onan the Clumsy
11th Apr 2004, 13:49
I know several people who could be considered a waste of ectoplasm.