h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Do you also think that physical violence is acceptable in an otherwise non-violent situation? "

May I suggest you read post 88 again, then attempt to answer that question yourself?

"Ivor, you're free to comment on whatever you like, but you seem to have trouble differentiating between commenting on and abuse. We don't know the context of the ninja comment, despite Tiggy's assertion that he can see through walls and know exactly what happened in that incident. But presumably you (and he) would still think it ok to 'comment' even if it was abusive by your own standards. "
Yes thats is what I am saying I wasnt there and neither were you I dont know what if anything was going through the mind of the person who made the comment.
"
"I guess that makes you an informed bigot then. It's pretty obvious to most people here that you have a high disregard for many humans. Some have argued that you simply hate or disrespect everyone equally so you can't be called racist or misogynist or whatever. I'm not so sure. You are intelligent, and well informed about many things, but not all. I've heard the burka = mask = offenisve (see, you're allowed to be offended) ad nauseum, but I haven't over time seen much in the way of evolution of your thoughts over time. That suggests to me that you don't learn much in these threads, that your knowledge is largely dogma, and that's a shame."
Now who's calling names?

"I don't object to people being offended. I object to them thinking that *because* they're offended, that makes them special, or entitled, or gives them additional rights."

No-one's arguing for a general right not to be offended, and no-one's talking about "additional rights" (whatever those are) to anyone who has been. No-one is, and no-one has been.

The point that's been made over and over and over again is about a strong general presumption towards civility and basic common courtesy. From everyone, and towards everyone. That it's wrong to go around insulting people. It's hardly controversial stuff.

>>...it's wrong to go around insulting people. It's hardly controversial stuff. <<

No one would argue with that.

The problem is that some here can't see that Speech (what we say)
and Dress (what we wear) are both forms of self expression.

Once that is established it is illogical, perhaps hypocritical, to
deny freedom of expression for one form and not the other.

The only distinction is historical, actually pre-historical, when, it
is assumed we developed speech of as a form of self expression
some time before the coming of fashion statements. So, if anything,
freedom of speech is senior to freedom of dress but both are rights
upon which some reasonable limits have been placed because "my
freedom ends where someone else's begins".

Nuns were often compared to penguins. Some lashed out, some wept,
some damned the speaker to hell. I'm just delighted that a modern
muslim woman knows what a Ninja is, even if she doesn't see it as a
compliment.


~jwf~

Ah yes, Dawkins.

How broad minded of him that he would not seek legislation against
the wearing of ball caps backwards which offends him. And yet he
is willing to support action that interferes with the beliefs and
cultural practices of other religions.

A radical muslim will say his religion calls upon him to kill anyone
who insults the Prophet or denies the supremacy of Allah. And Christian
soldiers march onward saying their religion calls upon them to kill anyone
who refuses to allow their daughters to be educated.


~jwf~

I think it's not as simple as that ~jwf~. I don't think the only thing that happened to that woman was that someone commented on her dress (that sounds so neutral). We don't know what really happened, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and taking it that the 'comment' was done in the context of a culture where muslim women get abused for what they wear.

It's possible that the ninja comment was something that I personally would have chosen to ignore or right off as the commenter being a dhead. But what if that comment happened in an area where muslim women are routinely verbally abused, and this incident was the breaking point for that woman? Because it's Hoo who brought it up as an example, it makes sense to interpret the context widely, otherwise Hoo just gets to use a possible innocuous event to support his broad views that muslim women should take abuse because people like him are offended by their dress code.


On the subject of self-expression, there's an interesting case in NZ at the moment. One of the major gangs that wears patches - don't know if you have that in Canada or the UK - patches are symbols of entry into the gang and associated power:

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1252178600/626/2838626.jpg

... the mayor of a town introduced a local body law banning patches (you can't wear a patch in public). That law has just been judged as unlawful by the High Court. Haven't read the reasons yet. Some people want the patches banned because they feel intimidated by the Mongrel Mob and patch banning seems to make the mob less visible (not sure that is actually true).

Other people think that banning patches will further alienate the mob, and create mmore mob related problems, and that it's better to change the reasons why people join gangs in the first place (and personally I'd prefer the mob were visible, so I can more easily avoid them).

And of course, no-one would ever call someone wearing a patch the local equivalent of 'ninja', unless they were wanting a serious physical fight.

I'm sure I have a point somewhere... maybe it's about power and who has it.

I see they've finally added penishead but starting with a D to the filter

>>
"A tiny fraction of all the women in the western world managing to fight their way into a few positions of power and influence does not a revolution make"

Newsflash - the men in positions of power are only a tiny fraction of all the men in the western world.
<< Tiggy

Oh I do love it when Tiggy posts really stupid things

What Robyn means is that women still hold far far less positions of power relative to their proportion of the population. If you had any kind of understanding about women's position in society that would have been obvious to you from her post.

But I wasn't even talking about positions of power-over of the kind that made you list Thatcher etc (who've just been allowed into the boys' club at this particular time, but it's not a given that they always will be). I'm talking about emancipation of all women from the oppression that exists in patriarchal societies. Again, it's pretty bloody obvious. Women don't get equal pay or pay equity, whichever way you want to look at it. They suffer hugely disproportionately in gender related violence. They do most of the world's unpaid work. I could make a really long list.




>>Right about the same time they learn "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

So says Mr white boy privilege. Again your showing your ignorance (just pointing this out because you posted yesterday that you're not prejudiced because you are so well informed). Has it occured to you that the reason you are ok with being verbally abused or harassed is because you're not particularly vulnerable. You still don't seem to understand context.

I've told this story before, about the time I was walking alone at night and a car load of young people pulled alongside. The guys started yelling out how they were going to pull me into the car and take me away and rape me (and the women in the car egged them on). It's unlikely that they would have actually done that. The point of their *words* was to scare me. And it did. You can't really control adrenaline and other stress responses in a situation like that. And you can't separate out that isolated incident from the fact that I live in a world where women are commonly raped.

They didn't take any other action against me other than to use words. It wasn't illegal in any real world sense. Yet their words did damage. The reason they did damage was the context - they easily had more physical power than me in that moment and so the threat was backed up by power.

>>>
"what if you got mugged at home? "

What if my arm burst? Sorry, ridiculously specific cultural reference you have no chance of understanding, unless you watched Knowing Me Knowing You with Alan Partridge in the 90s.

You don't seem to understand my point, otherwise you wouldn't make such a fatuous and irrelevant comeback. If someone breaks into your home and attacks you, OBVIOUSLY you bear no responsibility for that attack. It's not something you could reasonably foresee. It's something you could take reasonable steps to prevent.

Do you really not see a qualitative difference between being violently attacked in
(a) your own home
(b) a dark alley in a known dodgy area, and, just for comedy emphasis
(c) a boxing ring?

You don't make ANY distinction of level of responsibility for what might happen to you in those different circumstances?

Because if you don't, what you're suggesting is that everyone in the world should be free to do whatever they like, and not take the consequences, no matter how obvious and foreseeable they are. You're arguing for a world infantilised to the point of idiocy.
<<< Tiggy

Oh I understand the differences perfectly well. But you don't seem to understand the commonalities. The reason I chose the home example is because I was fairly sure that you would see the home as being a relatively safe place to be compared to the scumhole that you got mugged in. But that's because you're white and male. Most physical violence that happens to women happens at home.

You had earlier said this:

"She had chosen, apparently freely, to dress in a manner she knew to be provocative, then acted all indignant when it provoked a ...."

My point was that how women dress isn't provocative (unless you believe the she was wearing a short skirt and asked to be raped ideology). I then asked you about your mugging. You were mugged in an area that you think you shouldn't have been in. Fair enough, you're call. But my subsequent point was that if I were to try and avoid being assaulted, where would I actually go? There just comes a point where you can't expect victims to take responsibility for their attack. You and I disagree on where that line is because you feel safer in some places than others.

Some muslim women do have free choice about their dress code and the religion they belong to. Many don't, because their choices are overridden by social and political structures. If a woman has children for instance, and her leaving Islam and the burka would mean she would lose custody of her children, that's not a free choice.

That woman isn't provoking *you* in anyway at all, unless you are emotionally incontinent. And surely that is *your* responsiblity not hers.

>>Now who's calling names?

I'm just meeting Hoo on his own ground.

But calling someone a bigot isn't really the same as calling someone an abusive name. It's possible I was just being accurate isn't it? I'd be happy to use another term though. How about someone with prejudices?

Robyn: It is completely unacceptable to directly or indirectly make unpleasant/nasty/ remarks out loud.

Twiggster: So... freedom of speech not a big thing where you come from?



Are you really so stupid that you don't see any distinction between /unacceptable/ and /illegal/?

And I used to respect your intellect.

TRiG.

I'd just like to quote all of kea's post 67 and follow it with this:

"The problem is that some here can't see that Speech (what we say) and Dress (what we wear) are both forms of self expression."

That's true. But I don't know who it is who can't see that.

"Once that is established it is illogical, perhaps hypocritical, to
deny freedom of expression for one form and not the other."

It might be seen as inconsistent. But again, I don't see anyone doing that.

The problem is that there is no way to produce a ranking order of various versions of self-expression in the abstract. Life's just too complicated for that - it's all about context, and there will certainly be some very grey areas in the middle about what's okay and what's not okay to wear/say.

Any minute now, Twaggers is going to claim that since the USA now has a black president, racism no longer exists.

What world does this guy live in? It's not one I recognise.

TRiG.

jwf: The problem is that some here can't see that Speech (what we say)
and Dress (what we wear) are both forms of self expression.

Well yes, but the speech, in this case, was directed at someone. It wasn't a piece of performance art. It was targeted. The dress, despite Twagger's repeated assertions that it was "provocative", wasn't. And there lies a very important difference.

TRiG.

I had to go back and look at what prompted me to ask about his own assault. It was his saying that the woman in the veil 'provoked' the abuse.

It's an interesting choice of word.

Hoo walked through a poor part of town and provoked someone to assault him simply by walking there. We don't know how he provoked that attack. Maybe he provoked it by being white. Or looking rich (yeah, I bet that's it, he was wearing new clothes, how stupid of him to complain about being attacked in that case when he could simply have worn different clothes). He asserts it was because of location, he chose unwisely to walk there. What about the people that live there. Are they provoking being attacked too?

Ever heard the term date rape Tiggy? If assault is about location then surely women shouldn't go on dates anymore, because they're obviously provoking an attack by doing so.

Or women in abusive relationships. They obviously provoke every beating because they live in the same house as the abuser. They should just leave, even if it means they might end up poor, dead, homeless.

It never ceases to amaze me the people who rush to tolerate intolerance, to make excuses for mysogyny, to rationalise religious f'wittery.

The burkha is just as much a statement as flicking the bird. It spits in the face of women's lib and farts in the general direction of Western liberty.

As the Muslim writer Tarek Fatah put it - "There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world." http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/04/tarek-fatah-veil-of-ignorance.aspx

The short article is well worth the read.

Post 117 seems to be waiting moderation.

OK, we've managed to agree that Dress and Speech are both
forms of self expression. I would say then, that 'in principle'
they deserve to be treated in the same way. IE: individuals
should not generally need to conform to any set of standards
or regulations or restrictions, except in specific situations.
Or as many have said here, the variable is in the 'context'.

Nudity is not generally acceptable.
There's a time and many places.
Sunglasses at night are just silly.
Ties are required in some clubs.
Deck shoes are necessary on yachts.
Hardhats must be worn.

And, equally,
Blasphemy is a capital offense in Pakistan.
There are 705 words you can't say on television
and more than 1,000 you can't post to a BBC website.


Besides, I like a woman in uniform.
And if I don't have to look at her face...

~jwf~

"women still hold far far less positions of power relative to their proportion of the population"

Undeniable. But there are reasons behind that other than the simplistic feminist narrative of patriarchal male oppression. Reasons which mean a world where women are proportionately represented at the top is not achievable even in principle.

"the reason you are ok with being verbally abused or harassed "

I'm not "OK with" it. I don't like it. If it happened to me a lot, I'd take steps to stop it, just like I take steps to avoid being mugged.

"It wasn't illegal in any real world sense"

Perhaps not in NZ. In the UK, what they did constitutes a legal assault. They don't need to touch you to assault you, in our legal system. They don't even need to SPEAK, if by NOT speaking they put you in fear of violence - silent phone calls officially constitute assault. So, sorry, but you were assaulted, not merely commented to. There is a legal difference.

"I was fairly sure that you would see the home as being a relatively safe place"

Hmm. You really did miss the point. The point is NOT that, for me, the home is "safe". The point is that the home is somewhere where one has the reasonable expectation of safety. Whether that expectation is met is a different argument.

"how women dress isn't provocative"

Yeah. Men's behaviour is in no way influenced by anything they see, ever. Whether it SHOULD be or not is a debate you can have. Whether it IS, well, that's not something we can debate about. Unless you're living in a fantasy world.

Which is where we came in, sort of - at what point do you stop living in a fantasy world of how things SHOULD be, and start dealing with them as they ARE?

"if I were to try and avoid being assaulted, where would I actually go?"

What, here in the UK? Plenty of places. This isn't a jungle.

"If a woman has children for instance, and her leaving Islam and the burka would mean she would lose custody of her children, that's not a free choice. "

Er... yes, it is. It's a HARD choice, but it's a free one, assuming she lives in a civilised country. And that's all we're talking about. If you're a Muslim woman, or man for that matter, and you want to walk around looking like a black sack with eyes, in a place where everyone does that, knock yourself out, why would I care? If you want to do it here, get used to getting stared at and occasionally insulted.

"Any minute now, Twaggers is going to claim that since the USA now has a black president, racism no longer exists"

Why would I make such an obviously false and easily disproven claim? You really shouldn't put words in people's mouths. What I CAN say, and you'll have a hard time arguing this one I think, is that racism is NOT, in today's world, the barrier to success that it was even just a generation ago. Things are changing for the better. That's a GOOD thing, isn't it? Why pretend it's not happening?

"What about the people that live there. Are they provoking being attacked too?"

You're not aware of the territorial nature of the average teenage working class English yob? I provoked them by not being someone from there, by not dressing like them, by not having their accent, and by being on their turf. It's a common mistake.

"They should just leave, even if it means they might end up poor"

Er... again, yes. Are you suggesting they should NOT leave?

"Ever heard the term date rape Tiggy? "

Yes. Tricky one. Don't want to get started on THAT one.

"Not quite the same in civilised countries i.e. ones that don't punish the victim."

Yeah, because it never happens that the way a rape victim dresses or if she ever went out with more than one guy in a year will be used against her at the trial, by the defense.


I live in Los Angeles, and it's a fairly cosmopolitan city. I see women in niqab and veils, dressed in muslim dress every day. I can't even remember when I consciously noticed it. I just don't give a rip. But I'm not threatened by much, if anything.

As to the discussion about profiling -- at the bare minimum, 85% of all serial killers are white males. Next time they're looking, would you feel "victimized" if they used that very real data to stop you?