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

And here's one from the High Prophet himself -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJelU29jeI

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/niqab-ban-france-muslim-veil

Gotta love the French.

Ed, nice to see you again, even if it is in a completely crap thread. There is an even more stupid thread if you'd like that try that, where we compare Nazis to Anglicans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/belgium-burqa-ban?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
And the Belgians, apparently...

"we compare Nazis to Anglicans"

... and find both groups are a LOT gayer than they're comfortable with...

Not the monkey - genus Poecile
<back to abiding by my resolution. sincerest thanks to all who have reminded me that this place isn&#39;t worth bothering about.>

Ah, you're Ed The Bonobo...that explains a lot...

>>
I wonder - did the man she shouted at leave the scene feeling more, or less well disposed towards "ninja women"? Is he more or less likely as a result of that encounter to despise ostentatiously Muslim women on sight? I imagine he'll be sure to keep his mouth shut around them in future. A positive result?
<<


Oh I know. And you know those women who complain about sexual harassment and get called harpies. Or the ones that tell men to cluck off when they're leered at and get told to lighten up. Or the ones that stand up politically on pretty much anything to do with women's human rights and get told they are too aggressive. I mean none of those responses are likely to endear them to the men in question, so they should just shut up, right?.

I know you might find this hard to understand, but sometime it's not actually about the man. There are good reasons for speaking out that may have no intent on the man's behaviour at all.



>>
She had chosen, apparently freely, to dress in a manner she knew to be provocative, then acted all indignant when it provoked a mild verbal reaction.
<<

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

This is *exactly* the argument that is used to excuse the rape of some women. The only difference with your example is one of degree. But you still seem to think that how a woman dresses somehow makes her responsible for any abuse directed at her.

So go on Tiggy. Tell us about the time you were physically assaulted, and we'll tell you how you were to blame.

>>
Harrassment and abuse, hoever 'mild' of anybody for their lifestyle or choice of clothing is unacceptable. That's a line I certainly draw and expect to be drawn by any civilised society. So, I assume you will disagree because this is 'different' somehow? Or do you think that people can be harrassed by others for choosing to look a certain way?
<<

The problem is Robyn, that Tiggy (and others) aren't civilised in this respect. They make accusations of barbarianism towards other cultures, but are in capable of seeing their own lack of civility. Either that or they're disingenuous and don't care.

>>... and find both groups are a LOT gayer than they're comfortable with...<<

Nah, the Anglicans, as least where I live, are embracing their own gayness.

If Went out dressed as Batman I would expect some comments like "Where,s Robin?". Does that make them bigots or racists?
Ivor

I'm not sure how insulting the ninja word is. Personally if I got called a ninja, I'd be more likely to do a humourous but serious ninja style move on the person (not actual contact, but just a show). Like, don't mess with me.

But your comparison isn't valid. As far as I know there's nowhere in the world where people dressed as Batman are physically abused or even killed because of their batman ethnicity.

You obviously think calling someone a ninja is a joke. But what if she'd been called something like that you personally agreed was nasty? Would you then feel it appropriate for her to react?

>it is completely unacceptable to directly or indirectly make unpleasant/nasty/ remarks out loud "

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

>>I'm free to offend you. That's what freedom of speech *IS*. "Freedom of speech" doesn't come with an addendum that says "as long as nobody is offended". There are limits to it, of course - but they're very, very specific and what they DON'T do is protect ninja women from being offended. Ain't freedom grand?

You seem to have confused the right to freedom of speech with the right to abuse people.

There is no right not to be offended, but that's absolutely not the same thing as the right to insult people in the street. When the stereotypical builder shouts stereotypical sexist comments and a stereotypical attractive woman, he's not exercising freedom of speech. If a group of teenagers shout abuse at random passers by, again, that's not freedom of speech. It's loutishness.

Freedom of speech is first and foremost a political (small 'p') right to the expression and free communication of ideas. It's not blanket permission to say what you like, when you like, to who you like, for whatever reason you like, in whatever manner you like. In fact, a whole bunch of other rights depend on there being a duty on other people to stfu.

"But your comparison isn't valid. As far as I know there's nowhere in the world where people dressed as Batman are physically abused or even killed because of their batman ethnicity."
And this is the UK we are talking about for a far as I know no one has been physically abused or killed for dressing as a Ninja.
Are you saying I should be able to dress as a member of the Klu Klux Klan and not expect trouble?

She wasn't dressed as a ninja.

Another stupid comparison. A woman of an ethnic/religious group that is routinely on the receiving end of abuse (remember, we're talking about the UK here). And a member of a group that routinely practices extreme violence against other people based on race.

The reason most people find the KKK abhorrent is because they're violent racists, and their white robes are a symbol of that. The reason that some people abuse veil wearing muslims (or any other people with less power that make them uncomfortable) is because they hold prejudicial views about x, and think that their discomfit about not seeing someone's face (which is a valid discomfit IMO) gives them the right to abuse. In this case of this thread it's prejudice about religion (Tiggy and 3Dots). In other situations it's perceptions of race.

"And a member of a group that routinely practices extreme violence against other people based on race"
And the Crusades were just a jolly boys night out.
Sorry I cant see how you can defend someones right to dress how like and not defend another persons right to comment on what they are wearing?

And a member of a group that routinely practices extreme violence against other people based on race.
And the People who comitted the bombing in London and the 911 attacks were not extreme violent or against people based on race.

>>..cant see how you can defend someones right to dress how (they)
like and not defend another persons right to comment on what they
are wearing? <<

Point and match!


But, any good lawyer might be asking which 'right' came first.
And I believe early man had a spoken opinion before he had
a wardrobe. He also had lions and witches back in the good
old days.


~jwf~

>>..cant see how you can defend someones right to dress how (they)
like and not defend another persons right to comment on what they
are wearing? <<

Point and match!
I thank you

>>..cant see how you can defend someones right to dress how (they)
like and not defend another persons right to comment on what they
are wearing? <<

As ever, it's just not that simple, as I said in post 72. It rather depends on what someone is wearing, and what the comment is, who makes it, how they make it, what their intention is, and all the various other factors in a little thing called 'context'.

Does anyone really think that if an attractive woman goes out wearing a short skirt and a low cut top for a night out, I have a 'right' to pass loud and lewd 'comment'? Or that, if I am offended by her brazen display of flesh, I'm entitled to go over and give her a lecture about it? If I see someone wearing a Liverpool football shirt, do I have a 'right' to go over and laugh at him? If I don't like a businessman's zany Simpsons tie, or if I think that tight clothing doesn't suit someone, or I don't like lip piercings.... I have a 'right' to go over and say so? And not just say so, but say in whatever rude, aggressive, insulting, boorish and derogatory fashion I like? A 'right'? Really?

On the other hand... if someone is wearing a t-shirt with an amusing slogan and I see it and laugh, I don't think that person can have much complaint against me. If the t-shirt has an 'adult' slogan and the wearer is on the school run, it's probably not unreasonable for me to have a word. Wearing swimwear in a shopping centre, at a funeral, or any of the various other places where it's inappropriate could also attract reasonable comment.

So, no. Not 'point and match' at all.

A lot of decisions on this are going to hawkeye, because it's complicated because it involves the balancing of the rights and liberties of different people and because context is everything.

>>
"And a member of a group that routinely practices extreme violence against other people based on race"
And the Crusades were just a jolly boys night out.
<<

Likewise British colonisation and empire building. Oh goody, so I can call current Brits the equivalent of the KKK on that basis of that. I don't know where you live, but I'm assuming from your comment that you will now take responsibility for whatever nasties your ancestors did, as well as the country you were born in.