Woman fired for reporting racist t-shirt

[FlameFlash]

Go ahead, feel free to assert your smug superiority over people in Alabama

Pretty easy to do isn't it?

And then I realized this post went nuclear so I'm just going to sit bak and enjoy popcorn.

[The Mad Monk]

I have no idea how you can justify the abuse of people going about their everyday lives under a failsafe argument of 'well people should be able to say anything they like'. You don't have freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre because it poses a risk to peoples lives. Screaming racial insults at people in the street does the same, just in a more roundabout way.

Its "the more roundabout way" part of your argument that bothers me. It's like wanting to ban video games because they make shooting people fun.

[grumbler]

I am amused by all the hate speech from people who are so delusional that they think they are against hate speech.

Keep it up. Hypocrisy warms the cockles of my heart.

[kentonio]

Its "the more roundabout way" part of your argument that bothers me. It's like wanting to ban video games because they make shooting people fun.

No its really not. One of them doesn't involve making other people feel under personal attack as they try and just live their lives (unless of course you're daft enough to play CoD or DOTA with voice enabled, in which case both do).

I agree about the dangers of this kind of thing incidentally, but at the end of the day both our countries have limitations on freedom of speech, the only difference is where we've chosen to define that line. If Americans want to argue we've put too many limitations on it then fair enough, that's a reasonable discussion, but for Elok to fall back on slippery slope arguments just makes no sense (unless he considers the US to also be on that same slope).

[Elok]

Ken, you used slippery-slope before I did--if we don't stop hateful speech, it will inevitably lead to hateful action. No time to answer in detail right now, just pointing that out.

[Elok]

Slippery-slope is pretty much the only place we can go, since neither of us views the status quo as all that terrible--I don't think the law needs to crack down on racists merely for talking, and you don't see anything wrong if they do. The discussion's basically done unless we extend it to potential consequences.

[Elok]

I suppose that a lot of my objection to what you're opposing is . . . aesthetic? I had an argument with Imran lately where I tried to explain how revolting I find it when people decide to "punish" social-taboo transgressors. I view most such attempts as a thinly-veiled excuse for bullying a pariah and calling it a social good you can feel a little glow about. The growing trend towards things like "microaggression" is all of a piece with that phenomenon: dressing up unpleasant speech as some kind of violence so you can silence it.

The article I linked to does cite numerous examples, and no, they aren't all trigger warnings. I guess I could see the point of trigger warnings in the abstract, but really it sounds like a lot of fuss designed to give the illusion of Making the World Better. I doubt whether it really does much good in the long run to wince around every potentially troubling subject in that way.

EDIT: Look at what we did to Lancer. I'm still not clear on what he actually did--apparently he just said something that could be viewed, in certain lights, as degrading to women--but he was chased off the site by mobs of people calling him a pimp of children or some ****. People were doing it who didn't even know what he'd done. Why? Because it feels good to smack a goat around.

(see also the BS in this very thread, though the new robust-ignore feature makes it very easy to completely block people who think a hail of insults constitutes a discussion, so it's fine by me)

SECOND EDIT: To be clear, I don't intend to argue that what happened to me, or even Lancer, is somehow equivalent to racial harassment. I cite it as an example of the whip-the-dog mentality in general.

THIRD EDIT, to avoid a quadruple post: Note that you are singling out specific types of personal attack, namely those against a protected category. Given what you've said, is the distinction relevant? Say you have someone who's very unpopular for a different reason, like a conscientious objector during a war most of the population approves of. The screaming would likely make his life miserable, and it could easily escalate into violence against him for his supposed lack of patriotism. Is he entitled to the same legal shield against vitriol? What about someone who went to jail for running a dogfighting ring, served his time, and got out on good behavior?

[Imran Siddiqui]

(see also the BS in this very thread, though the new robust-ignore feature makes it very easy to completely block people who think a hail of insults constitutes a discussion, so it's fine by me)

Indeed, ironic to the max.

[Bereta_Eder]

Having the right to shoplift is less punishable than having the right to speak in a racist way because the damage is less.

[rah]

Some would say that when racist speech is done just in front of other racists that there is no damage done.

[Bereta_Eder]

Yeah but that was not the case here. They took photos with KKK in them (was that in mississippi btw?). That brings memories of people hanged from trees and how that's ok.

[kentonio]

Ken, you used slippery-slope before I did--if we don't stop hateful speech, it will inevitably lead to hateful action. No time to answer in detail right now, just pointing that out.

That's not a slippery slope, thats a direct effect of allowing public racist speech. Which is why racial violence dropped dramatically when we banned it.

I suppose that a lot of my objection to what you're opposing is . . . aesthetic? I had an argument with Imran lately where I tried to explain how revolting I find it when people decide to "punish" social-taboo transgressors. I view most such attempts as a thinly-veiled excuse for bullying a pariah and calling it a social good you can feel a little glow about. The growing trend towards things like "microaggression" is all of a piece with that phenomenon: dressing up unpleasant speech as some kind of violence so you can silence it.

I actually agree with that to some extent. I also hate the social justice warrior types who will pick people up on little crap and make it into an issue, but racially abusing someone in a public place is not little crap, its a direct verbal assault on someone over something they have absolutely no control over, and which historically was used to keep them as second class citizens.

The article I linked to does cite numerous examples, and no, they aren't all trigger warnings. I guess I could see the point of trigger warnings in the abstract, but really it sounds like a lot of fuss designed to give the illusion of Making the World Better. I doubt whether it really does much good in the long run to wince around every potentially troubling subject in that way.

Except as I keep pointing out, it has led to greatly reduced incidents of racial violence in the UK.

THIRD EDIT, to avoid a quadruple post: Note that you are singling out specific types of personal attack, namely those against a protected category. Given what you've said, is the distinction relevant? Say you have someone who's very unpopular for a different reason, like a conscientious objector during a war most of the population approves of. The screaming would likely make his life miserable, and it could easily escalate into violence against him for his supposed lack of patriotism. Is he entitled to the same legal shield against vitriol? What about someone who went to jail for running a dogfighting ring, served his time, and got out on good behavior?

Yes, the distinction is relevant (to this discussion) although harrassment is illegal in the UK anyway. Those protected classes are protected for extremely good reasons, usually because of historical precedents and deep seated discrimination. Also of course because your race, gender or sexuality aren't things you get any choice about. If you want to hold a deeply unpopular view on something, its reasonable to expect people to disagree with that view. It's not unreasonable for people to abuse you because you were born with black skin. That's a pretty striking different.

[FlameFlash]

Yes, the distinction is relevant (to this discussion) although harrassment is illegal in the UK anyway. Those protected classes are protected for extremely good reasons, usually because of historical precedents and deep seated discrimination. Also of course because your race, gender or sexuality aren't things you get any choice about. If you want to hold a deeply unpopular view on something, its reasonable to expect people to disagree with that view. It's not unreasonable for people to abuse you because you were born with black skin. That's a pretty striking different.

Wait, when was being gay not a choice?

[kentonio]

EDIT: Look at what we did to Lancer. I'm still not clear on what he actually did--apparently he just said something that could be viewed, in certain lights, as degrading to women--but he was chased off the site by mobs of people calling him a pimp of children or some ****. People were doing it who didn't even know what he'd done. Why? Because it feels good to smack a goat around.

Humorously, I was just trying to find the original thread and the first thing I stumbled across was this reply to a Lancer post..

Also, much of the "overseas work" is likely a ruse by h u m a n t r a f f i c k e r s working the s e x t r a d e.

[rah]

WAIT, He WASN'T pimping children and other locals. Unbelievable