|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 15 2012 09:33 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 09:17 Praetorial wrote:On September 15 2012 08:31 Voltaire wrote:
I will be outraged if the creator of the video is sent to jail. He should be sent back to a liberal arts school in order to get a degree in filmmaking. That movie was terrible in every way possible. HAHAHAHAHAHA Always a critic. I thought the piece was timeless. Although he most likely will be going to jail for an unrelated reason. He was not supposed to use the internet during his parol and making the movie went against this. This was from his parol from his fraud case where he used the internet to swindle people. So he most likely will go to jail but for unrelated reasons. Also jail in solitary would be his safest bet. Poor bastard. Islamic Extremists are crazy fuckers you don't want to pick a fight with.
Kinda went off topic T.T
+ Show Spoiler +I dunno, Israeli's lately are pretty crazy fuckers too but that's hardly broadcasted because they're always the victims. I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? I almost feel like the jews and muslims switched places and now the entire world persecutes Muslims.... Hell there are once again Jewish only roads, but now instead of it being because of discrimination it is the Jews discriminating! History repeats itself so fast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
The video was hilariously bad though, it was such poor taste that it is no surprise a fanatical religious person was behind it.
|
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
|
On September 15 2012 06:43 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:03 ecstatica wrote:On September 15 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:
The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more. Dunno, I remember methodically destroying a phone booth with my friend for a good hour, probably 19 at the time. We were wasted but Id imagine being a part of a herd can net worse results. Islam itself isnt directly responsible for the amount of cattle, Russia is a good example. I don't see how Islam isn't responsible for people feeling like they are in a group. How else would so many come up and protest? Aren't they chanting about how they are defending their faith? Not their literal faith, not defending their books from being stolen by a government, but defending in an abstract sense. Islam certainly isn't the only belief system that forces people to think in terms of groups rather than individuals. There are plenty of political movements that can be even more group-minded. Islam actually does have an element of individualism, but it has become unpopular. It rests in the way people are expected to read the quran. There are two major schools of thought, one argues that you should listen to an expert (imam) because he has spend the most time reading the quran, so he understands it best. The other school of thought argues that each individual should read the quran for himself, so you don't risk listening to a flawed imam. The later school of thought hasn't been very popular of late. It is no surprise that suffi muslims, the one's that focus on the more spiritual aspect of Islam, and interpret the quran more loosely, are prime target for violence by both of the largest sects of Islam (Sunni/Shia). The more individualist denominations have been getting stomped out for a good long time now. I don't think you can split Islam from the collectivists ideas that are inherent in it. For example, one of the central ideas is the Ummah, the community of believers. There is a very powerful element of group > individual, and invasive collective thinking. Perhaps the best examples of collectivism in Islam come from simply observing. Muslims are encouraged to call one another, in an almost Orwellian sense, brother and sister. Strangers, raised with the command to treat complete strangers as brothers and sisters. Might sound nice, but from this sense of kinship comes the legitimacy to agressively dictate behaviour. Surely, I can't tell a random girl in a bar how to behave, but she is my sister in spirit, so surely I have an obligation to tell her how to behave! Collectivism in action can simply be observed during the ramadan. A classmate of mine isn't exactly religious, but he adhered to the ramadan, simply because he knew that if he were to eat, he was going to get adressed on it, even by complete strangers. That is in Holland btw. So, collectivism is a part of Islam, and it certainly isn't a perversion of any kind. In all honesty, I don't blame the religion for it. Considering the time in which it came about, collectivism was the only way to survive in the world. But we aren't living in 600 Arabia, there are more effective ways of organizing society, and a heavy emphasis on individuality is one of those.
Wow! This is perhaps one of the smartest post I've seen on Teamliquid. Well said and intelligently written!
|
On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
|
On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
|
On September 15 2012 12:36 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote:
Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable
1. Criticizing another religion or group of people.
2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable
1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech."
2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line. I can never understand why so many people love to wade in the swamp of relativism in these issues. It's ok if one party is worse than the other. You need to accept where the evidence and facts lead you.
I personally think that the level offense from that video was just about 0. So yes, one party was worse than the other, because one committed murders and the other one goofed off. If anything, that little video is offensive because of how bad it is. “Announcing ‘I’m Offended’ is basically telling the world you can’t control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.”
Insult and mock everything you want to, I say. And I think one has to be really immature to argue that some things should be off-limits just because some people take shit too seriously. It's their fault.
If a similar video made fun of my "beliefs", I'd either have ignored it completely or I'd mock it right back for being the turd that it is. Honestly I don't know why it is that in 2012 people haven't figured out that there's 7 billion of us on Earth and a shitload of those people have access to the Internet. Folks WILL say things that are offensive to others. It's time people start taking it easy, because almost everyone has learned to deal with it by now.
|
On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
His one liner was quite accurate though. Your post was silly.
Make a video about every black stereotype and you'll be fine, absolutely fine. In fact you can post videos on YOUTUBE that border (and sometimes are) hate speech. There are nazi channels on youtube. Some kid from the UK with a swastika in the background and talks about how Great Britain is not Great anymore and needs to purge all the non pure-blood Brits by force...
Did you watch the video anyway? You think that kind of stuff isn't done ALL the time to others? It's all over the internet, parodies making fun of and mocking Christians and Atheists, who just mostly shrug it off or quietly get angry and don't got in a murdering rage like a psychopath.
|
On September 15 2012 12:57 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
My area of Canada?
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada
I believe it is all of Canada actually.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 15 2012 13:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? His one liner was quite accurate though. Your post was silly. Make a video about every black stereotype and you'll be fine, absolutely fine. In fact you can post videos on YOUTUBE that border (and sometimes are) hate speech. There are nazi channels on youtube. Some kid from the UK with a swastika in the background and talks about how Great Britain is not Great anymore and needs to purge all the non pure-blood Brits by force... Did you watch the video anyway? You think that kind of stuff isn't done ALL the time to others? It's all over the internet, parodies making fun of and mocking Christians and Atheists, who just mostly shrug it off or quietly get angry and don't got in a murdering rage like a psychopath.
See above
|
On September 15 2012 06:43 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:03 ecstatica wrote:On September 15 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:
The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more. Dunno, I remember methodically destroying a phone booth with my friend for a good hour, probably 19 at the time. We were wasted but Id imagine being a part of a herd can net worse results. Islam itself isnt directly responsible for the amount of cattle, Russia is a good example. I don't see how Islam isn't responsible for people feeling like they are in a group. How else would so many come up and protest? Aren't they chanting about how they are defending their faith? Not their literal faith, not defending their books from being stolen by a government, but defending in an abstract sense. Islam certainly isn't the only belief system that forces people to think in terms of groups rather than individuals. There are plenty of political movements that can be even more group-minded. Islam actually does have an element of individualism, but it has become unpopular. It rests in the way people are expected to read the quran. There are two major schools of thought, one argues that you should listen to an expert (imam) because he has spend the most time reading the quran, so he understands it best. The other school of thought argues that each individual should read the quran for himself, so you don't risk listening to a flawed imam. The later school of thought hasn't been very popular of late. It is no surprise that suffi muslims, the one's that focus on the more spiritual aspect of Islam, and interpret the quran more loosely, are prime target for violence by both of the largest sects of Islam (Sunni/Shia). The more individualist denominations have been getting stomped out for a good long time now. I don't think you can split Islam from the collectivists ideas that are inherent in it. For example, one of the central ideas is the Ummah, the community of believers. There is a very powerful element of group > individual, and invasive collective thinking. Perhaps the best examples of collectivism in Islam come from simply observing. Muslims are encouraged to call one another, in an almost Orwellian sense, brother and sister. Strangers, raised with the command to treat complete strangers as brothers and sisters. Might sound nice, but from this sense of kinship comes the legitimacy to agressively dictate behaviour. Surely, I can't tell a random girl in a bar how to behave, but she is my sister in spirit, so surely I have an obligation to tell her how to behave! Collectivism in action can simply be observed during the ramadan. A classmate of mine isn't exactly religious, but he adhered to the ramadan, simply because he knew that if he were to eat, he was going to get adressed on it, even by complete strangers. That is in Holland btw. So, collectivism is a part of Islam, and it certainly isn't a perversion of any kind. In all honesty, I don't blame the religion for it. Considering the time in which it came about, collectivism was the only way to survive in the world. But we aren't living in 600 Arabia, there are more effective ways of organizing society, and a heavy emphasis on individuality is one of those.
I don't think collectivism is any more to blame than individualism is any more of a solution (ask Native Americans about individualism). Collectivism doesn't necessarily equate to violence or irrationality.
I would say that totalitarian thought inherent in religion (see: Christopher Hitchens), magnified with fundamentalist interpretation (see: Chris Hedges) is the real issue. In this case, even the fundamentally secular individualist can be just as potentially volatile as the collectivist.
For your consideration:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fundamentalism_kills_20110726//
|
On September 15 2012 13:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:57 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies. My area of Canada? Show nested quote +In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#CanadaI believe it is all of Canada actually.
But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though.
So mocking people does not = incite hatred.
|
On September 15 2012 13:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:57 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies. My area of Canada? Show nested quote +In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#CanadaI believe it is all of Canada actually.
We're talking about stereotyping. What happened in that case you linked and a video of stereotypes of people are completely different, and you know this.
|
On September 15 2012 13:17 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 13:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:57 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies. My area of Canada? In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#CanadaI believe it is all of Canada actually. But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though. So mocking people does not = incite hatred.
I would argue that alienizing an entire religion using stereotypical remarks that are extremely off base from the average Muslim would be something which incites hatred. (such as when it has the man slice down the women at random). You may counter argue and say "well this happens" but generalizing an entire group of people for the acts of a minority would be comparable to generalizing all blacks (or hispanics and to a lesser extent whites/asians) for the acts which gangs perpetrate (note gang initiations such as killing at random).
I remember something in my history course, news papers depicting Jews as rats with big noses or black people with big lips. So now it's "ok" to do similar things and generalize and entire group of people into a single collective alien entity? I think not.
feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? We should note this is the argument I put forward(and what we're disagreeing about), not whether anyone would go to jail for expressing said freedom of speech but my point was that in a similar circumstance at least I would be facing a minor lawsuit from a rights group in Canada but there seems to be no contrast whatsoever.
Also we should note again since my previous link was not sufficient.
http://www.stopracism.ca/content/legislation-combat-hate-canada
Defamatory Libel
Section 298 prohibits the publication of words or symbols that are likely to insult or injure the reputation of a person as a result of exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. The maximum penalty is two years and where the publisher knows the the defmatory libel is false, five years imprisonment.
For example, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act makes it is a discriminatory practice to communicate, or cause to be so communicated, by telephone or on the Internet, anything that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
etc etc etc, you'd be reaching to say the video didn't contrast any of these points.
|
On September 15 2012 12:20 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote:
Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable
1. Criticizing another religion or group of people.
2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable
1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech."
2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line. yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours) you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry.
It's all right. Then I think 1st world countries are wrong on that, sorry. I disagree with you, but glad to hear different opinion.
|
On September 15 2012 13:29 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:20 Silidons wrote:On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote:
Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable
1. Criticizing another religion or group of people.
2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable
1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech."
2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line. yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours) you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry. It's all right. Then I think 1st world countries are wrong on that, sorry. I disagree with you, but glad to hear different opinion.
It almost appears you both are arguing for the sake of arguing. Why not expand your points such that you both get a clear image of each disagreement and then try and meet some middle ground.
It is hard to make so many combining arguments also, why not stick with "freedom of speech" as a conduit for discrimination and then after that is solved move to the consequences and where to place the blame. One step at a time.
|
On September 15 2012 13:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 13:17 Djzapz wrote:On September 15 2012 13:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:57 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies. My area of Canada? In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#CanadaI believe it is all of Canada actually. But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though. So mocking people does not = incite hatred. I would argue that alienizing an entire religion using stereotypical remarks that are extremely off base from the average Muslim would be something which incites hatred. (such as when it has the man slice down the women at random).
That's a misunderstanding of the law I guess. I don't need a law degree to point at all the cases in which Atheists for instance make fun of stereotypical views of Christians and consistently avoid any form of prosecution. So why won't Christians actually stir shit when they get mocked? Why is it fine?
You may counter argue and say "well this happens" but generalizing an entire group of people for the acts of a minority would be comparable to generalizing all blacks (or hispanics and to a lesser extent whites/asians) for the acts which gangs perpetrate (note gang initiations such as killing at random).
Comedians do this shit all the time. Make jokes about blacks being thieves, Arabs being terrorists, Jews being greedy. That's the spirit of the joke, it doesn't incite hate. Whether the jokes are funny or not is not the question.
I remember something in my history course, news papers depicting Jews as rats with big noses or black people with big lips. So now it's "ok" to do similar things and generalize and entire group of people into a single collective alien entity? I think not.
It is. In this particular case, it was just a joke and it's not meant to say "muslims are like this".
at least I would be facing a minor lawsuit from a rights group in Canada but there seems to be no contrast whatsoever.
You could be outright racist on youtube and you would face no such charges. Your video would be flagged for not being suitable to minors and perhaps removed if you were too forward about it. But you could paint yourself in black, steal bikes, eat fried chicken and watermelons and drink grape juice, you'd just get a lot of down votes.
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
|
On September 15 2012 13:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 13:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 13:17 Djzapz wrote:On September 15 2012 13:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:57 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 15 2012 12:52 eight.BiT wrote:On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? Did you think about this before you typed it at all? I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another? Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all? My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies. My area of Canada? In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#CanadaI believe it is all of Canada actually. But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though. So mocking people does not = incite hatred. I would argue that alienizing an entire religion using stereotypical remarks that are extremely off base from the average Muslim would be something which incites hatred. (such as when it has the man slice down the women at random). That's a misunderstanding of the law I guess. I don't need a law degree to point at all the cases in which Atheists for instance make fun of stereotypical views of Christians and consistently avoid any form of prosecution. So why won't Christians actually stir shit when they get mocked? Why is it fine? Show nested quote +You may counter argue and say "well this happens" but generalizing an entire group of people for the acts of a minority would be comparable to generalizing all blacks (or hispanics and to a lesser extent whites/asians) for the acts which gangs perpetrate (note gang initiations such as killing at random). Comedians do this shit all the time. Make jokes about blacks being thieves, Arabs being terrorists, Jews being greedy. That's the spirit of the joke, it doesn't incite hate. Show nested quote +I remember something in my history course, news papers depicting Jews as rats with big noses or black people with big lips. So now it's "ok" to do similar things and generalize and entire group of people into a single collective alien entity? I think not. It is. In this particular case, it was just a joke and it's not meant to say "muslims are like this". Show nested quote +at least I would be facing a minor lawsuit from a rights group in Canada but there seems to be no contrast whatsoever. You could be outright racist on youtube and you would face no such charges. Your video would be flagged for not being suitable to minors and perhaps removed if you were too forward about it. But you could paint yourself in black, steal bikes, eat fried chicken and watermelons and drink grape juice, you'd just get a lot of down votes.
I apologize but nothing you said has any citations once again. The criminal code in Canada (Which is specifically what we are arguing, the United States has no such law and you can do and say anything there without consequence) makes clear points towards discrimination.
If you think the video was quote "a joke and it's not meant to say ("Muslims are like this")" then I fear you either completely missed what was happening or just simply ignored it. Perhaps you deemed it a joke because it was so poorly done but it was a video funded by Israeli's to paint a very specific image on Muslims as savages. We can clearly see this from the police/burning of the building/how women were treated/random killing of the women.
The difference with comedians and discrimination is that on almost every occasion they're poking fun at the ideology of "racism" by being racist. It isn't far reaching to assume Dave Chappelle doesn't hate black people but he bases a lot of his humor on the ignorance of others. We should use a character like Peter Griffin as an example, Seth uses Peter (similar to Homer Simpson) to place someone who is ignorant in specific situations to show that ignorance. Seth isn't racist when he makes an entire episode on Jewish people being good with money he is trying to show it through the eyes of someone who is blissfully ignorant.
But we can say that point does hold some ground but it remains subjective at best to compare comedians and a screen writer... Especially like that. A good example would be when the Donald Trump roast was happening and "The Situation" made obscenely bad black jokes while the entire show was surrounded by the other comedians making racist jokes. You can see the difference between comedy and ignorance very clearly.
That's a misunderstanding of the law I guess. I don't need a law degree to point at all the cases in which Atheists for instance make fun of stereotypical views of Christians and consistently avoid any form of prosecution. So why won't Christians actually stir shit when they get mocked? Why is it fine?
You should note clearly in the text it makes statements with regards to if the comments are "true" then the law does not hold up. Most atheists argue truths or scientific evidence in a mocking tone but to use them as a specific example is rather poorly thought out because they simply can't fall under the radar. I do see what you're alluding to but if you could find a better point I might follow better.
|
On September 15 2012 13:29 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 12:20 Silidons wrote:On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote:
Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable
1. Criticizing another religion or group of people.
2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable
1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech."
2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line. yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours) you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry. It's all right. Then I think 1st world countries are wrong on that, sorry. I disagree with you, but glad to hear different opinion.
I'm sure you think it's okay to tell someone who has the "wrong" religion that they're going to burn in hell though.
|
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons.
Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world.
Goodnight !! :D
|
Alright well I'll just leave this now then. Too tired to think anyways.
Cheers.
|
Northern Ireland25993 Posts
On September 15 2012 13:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons. Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world. Goodnight !! :D
Never liked hatespeech laws myself, or indeed anything that puts an importance on ethnic/racial/sexual identity ahead of other things. The one thing I could make an exception for is the spreading of lies that are likely to harm. For example if you go around saying that 'Group X are eating children en masse' and its patently untrue and liable to increase tension, then yeah that's something that could be looked at. Even with legitimate news media outlets printing falsehoods, in that this has a negative effect on how people perceive the world/certain groups. Kind of hard to enforce anything like that but the media in the West gets away with a ridiculous amount of lazy/straight-up-wrong reporting, often with an agenda behind it.
In essence that filmaker is the kind of guy I never have to meet to know that he is a grade A prick and an idiot. However being smacked down for being an idiot is all the censure that should be required (except of course if he breached his bail conditions as has been reported as possible)
The sad thing is, the reaction by the Muslim world, the subsequent showing of the disturbances in the mass media, often without reference to the many, many moderate and tolerant Muslims is going to result in yet more anti-Islamic sentiment. This is coming from the genuinely hateful, and the people who are just ignorant of the situation through no real fault of their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
