[user104658]

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.

If the question is "should people have the right to commit externally racist / sexist / -ist acts or discriminate on those grounds" then the answer is obviously no.

The murky part is whether or not people should have the right to benign(?)ly voice those opinions. That's the only part open to debate. For me personally... I would rather know what ugly thoughts lurk in peoples heads rather than have them pretend to be something that they're not. It's the only way you can ever assess your real opinions of a person .

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.

If the question is "should people have the right to commit externally racist / sexist / -ist acts or discriminate on those grounds" then the answer is obviously no.

The murky part is whether or not people should have the right to benign(?)ly voice those opinions. That's the only part open to debate. For me personally... I would rather know what ugly thoughts lurk in peoples heads rather than have them pretend to be something that they're not. It's the only way you can ever assess your real opinions of a person .

Agreed

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.

If the question is "should people have the right to commit externally racist / sexist / -ist acts or discriminate on those grounds" then the answer is obviously no.

The murky part is whether or not people should have the right to benign(?)ly voice those opinions. That's the only part open to debate. For me personally... I would rather know what ugly thoughts lurk in peoples heads rather than have them pretend to be something that they're not. It's the only way you can ever assess your real opinions of a person .

Couldn't agree more.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.

If the question is "should people have the right to commit externally racist / sexist / -ist acts or discriminate on those grounds" then the answer is obviously no.

The murky part is whether or not people should have the right to benign(?)ly voice those opinions. That's the only part open to debate. For me personally... I would rather know what ugly thoughts lurk in peoples heads rather than have them pretend to be something that they're not. It's the only way you can ever assess your real opinions of a person .

...sorry I’m finding difficulty at bolding with this bit of technology I’m using atm...but with the last paragraph..?...yeah I agree those benign voices should be heard, but then what...I mean our own opinion is surely less important ../ ..just more self indulgent..than our actions in ‘facing’ that ism...and not throwing names at it, like calling it an ist and walking away or repeatedly calling it an ist etc..(...if that makes sense..)...so the all importance is the communication with these things, otherwise the reaction to someone’s beliefs can be too similar to the beliefs themselves...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...sorry I’m finding difficulty at bolding with this bit of technology I’m using atm...but with the last paragraph..?...yeah I agree those benign voices should be heard, but then what...I mean our own opinion is surely less important ../ ..just more self indulgent..than our actions in ‘facing’ that ism...and not throwing names at it, like calling it an ist and walking away or repeatedly calling it an ist etc..(...if that makes sense..)...so the all importance is the communication with these things, otherwise the reaction to someone’s beliefs can be too similar to the beliefs themselves...

Great post Ammi. I think the key is being able to discuss and debate and hope that people will learn to think differently. Just calling people a name for their views is pointless and is as bad as the view in the first place.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Great post Ammi. I think the key is being able to discuss and debate and hope that people will learn to think differently. Just calling people a name for their views is pointless and is as bad as the view in the first place.

If you mean just screaming "YOU ARE A RACIST I WILL NO LONGER DISCUSS THIS" then sure. But that's not the same as saying "In my opinion, what you have said here is racism because ______". People are quick to take the latter as "name calling" when it's nothing of the sort.

When IS it acceptable to call something out as racism? If the answer is "never", then this is completely stifling to any open and honest discussion, and just as much a shut-down as name calling.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.
:.

Oh yeh, there was a thread with people claiming that John from Big Brother was entitled to his homophobic opinion, and I was just like "is he tho?"

I'm still not entirely convinced that I know where I stand on it. Like can you be entitled to hate an entire group of people? Does he have that 'right'? I know it cant be policed, but is it really within your entitlement to hate a group of others?

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh yeh, there was a thread with people claiming that John from Big Brother was entitled to his homophobic opinion, and I was just like "is he tho?"

I'm still not entirely convinced that I know where I stand on it. Like can you be entitled to hate an entire group of people? Does he have that 'right'? I know it cant be policed, but is it really within your entitlement to hate a group of others?

Okay you see this is an example of going too far.

John NEVER said he hated gay people. That's just you putting words into people's mouth again.

I actually thought Shane J's/Courtney's approach was fantastic on it, he called him out on it, listened to his view, told him he disagree, full stop.

He's not going around screaming homophobe so why should other people on his behalf?

It actually drives me mad people getting offended on others behalf.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

Okay you see this is an example of going too far.

John NEVER said he hated gay people. That's just you putting words into people's mouth again.

I actually thought Shane J's/Courtney's approach was fantastic on it, he called him out on it, listened to his view, told him he disagree, full stop.

He's not going around screaming homophobe so why should other people on his behalf?

It actually drives me mad people getting offended on others behalf.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

No thats not an example, I'm aware of what John said and didnt say, but that is what inspired the thread.

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Withano

No thats not an example, I'm aware of what John said and didnt say, but that is what inspired the thread.

No, you're backing out now because you said the wrong thing With. You can not ask the question is John B entitled to hate people without inferring that he does when he quite clearly doesn't.

This is where arguments are lost, when people make up ****.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

No, you're backing out now because you said the wrong thing With. You can not ask the question is John B entitled to hate people without inferring that he does when he quite clearly doesn't.

This is where arguments are lost, when people make up ****.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

We can both paraphrase til the other stops making sense. Here for example you just said you lost the argument which is fine and all but its not adding much.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

I'm still not entirely convinced that I know where I stand on it. Like can you be entitled to hate an entire group of people? Does he have that 'right'? I know it cant be policed, but is it really within your entitlement to hate a group of others?

But you're lumping the thought itself in with any action that might be taken based on that thought. Taking direct action motivated by hate of an entire group should never be accepted. Openly directing verbal hate at an entire group is "debatable" (in that it can logically be debated, debate is possible...)

The actual thought attitude itself, though, doesn't logically fall under the banner of rights or entitlements. It has nothing to do with either... It makes no logical sense to try to apply restrictions on inner thought. You could say "no one is entitled to think racist things!" but it's literally not going to stop anyone from thinking racist things... They don't choose to indulge in thinking racist things. They just DO think them. It's like saying to an amputee "no one is entitled to only have one arm" and expecting them to sprout a new one.


So like I said I don't think it's really open to debate whether or not active discrimination, or violent hatred (which would include directed abusive language and aggression, not just physical assault) is ever acceptable. Any civilised person would not accept that behaviour. But also, people's inner thoughts are also not open to debate or possible to restrict. It's just not a thing.

So that leaves the debatable part as simple discussion; are people "entitled" to express those inner thoughts verbally in a calm manner during a debate or discussion. That's the only question and it really comes down to personal preference and again... I would far rather hear those views and form an opinion of the person holding those views accordingly, than have everyone suppress and pretend based on what's "allowed".

I have experienced a quite vivid realnworld example of this. An older customer, who I had liked, on a "bad day" started spouting some really vile opinions about pretty much everything. Race came into it, homosexuality came into it, just a full on rant... Punctuated with "but you're not allowed to say these things any more." Quite clearly demonstrating that he always THINKS these things, he just doesn't say them. This was a customer that I honestly feel like I was "tricked" into thinking was a solid, decent guy... but who is clearly just repressing a whole heap of toxic nonsense. I would rather have known from the start. Surely most people would rather know? My idea of this individual was completely and utterly false.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.

If the question is "should people have the right to commit externally racist / sexist / -ist acts or discriminate on those grounds" then the answer is obviously no.

The murky part is whether or not people should have the right to benign(?)ly voice those opinions. That's the only part open to debate. For me personally... I would rather know what ugly thoughts lurk in peoples heads rather than have them pretend to be something that they're not. It's the only way you can ever assess your real opinions of a person .

Great response.

I agree with this.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

As long as it doesn't translate into action then anyone has the right to be a bigot but everyone else has the right to call them out on their bull****.

Freedom of Speech is not a shield to protect people from being criticised or from having other people form their own opinions on other people's opinions. As I've said for years on this site, Freedom of Speech is a two way street. A person cannot cling to it to justify their opinions but then try to deny someone else from employing their right to freedom of speech to criticise them.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not really something one has the "right" to be or not be... It's just something that someone is, surely? Like saying that a racist person doesn't have the right to be racist isn't going to somehow stop them from being internally racist.

If the question is "should people have the right to commit externally racist / sexist / -ist acts or discriminate on those grounds" then the answer is obviously no.

The murky part is whether or not people should have the right to benign(?)ly voice those opinions. That's the only part open to debate. For me personally... I would rather know what ugly thoughts lurk in peoples heads rather than have them pretend to be something that they're not. It's the only way you can ever assess your real opinions of a person .

Both of these said what I would answer but much more eloquently than I would put it^