What. The. Fcuk?

[Worthy4England]

A responsible society cannot adopt or even passively accept such a viewpoint, or it's propagation.

Wrong.

A society will make up it's own mind regardless of what legislation is in place - the fact that you believe that they might be irresponsible to do so is just your opinion. Soceity can tell you that people are not allowed to discriminate by passing legislation, but all society and life in general is discriminatory, from the minute we're not born equally.

It would be really interesting to see referenda on some of this stuff in a closed ballot situation, where people could vote as they felt, not as "soceity" is conditioning them to respond, (though not cost effective etc.), as the "enlightened" few at Westminster may well not reflect the views of the "masses".

Responsibilty is not empirically provable, hence is always an opinion. I don't agree that allowing people to express views based only on bigotry and ignorance is responsible. There is a very tight rope to walk regarding the protection of people's freedom from abuse, and people's freedom of expression. This in my mind goes way beyond factoring in that. Similarly to your closed ballot, I would like to see one on people's actual views on immigration, and 'repatriation', and would be similarly unastounded to find the views of the masses differ from he official line. It would be irresponsible in my mind to allow such sentiments an open court.

Glad you touched upon the immigration one too, I nearly did myself, but figured it might muddy the waters . I happen to believe like you, that in a closed ballot environment, the "outcome" would not align to the legislation currently in place on either homosexuality or immigration.

If we believe that the majority would vote for something different, why should we be so certain that the "enlightened" minority are correct?

[Worthy4England]

Two lads shared a hug on Oxford Road yesterday morning. The traffic didn't, amazingly, stop.

Is that still counted as "leaving the scene of an accident"? Or is there other legislation in place to cover it?

[Prufrock]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Glad you touched upon the immigration one too, I nearly did myself, but figured it might muddy the waters . I happen to believe like you, that in a closed ballot environment, the "outcome" would not align to the legislation currently in place on either homosexuality or immigration.

If we believe that the majority would vote for something different, why should we be so certain that the "enlightened" minority are correct?

There is probably a sad truth here. I suppose legislation may be designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Heterogeneous societies are interesting and homogeneous ones can be dull. It can be important to protect minorities. The 20th century should have taught us that if nothing else.

[Worthy4England]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

You are assuming apathy here. It may well not be the case...

[Prufrock]

It seems to me that people expressing what others supposedly think as a whole, are usually doing it from a public platform based on everone thinking they've been round and questioned the whole of humanity. How many here don't know some homosexual or lesbian friends or aquaintances? Is any "persecution" these people suffer from those they know or live in their vicinity for actually being homosexual, or is it more because they deliberately camp up their preferences and behaviour? Or is it perhaps that the abuse comes from the same factions who complain mindlessly about eveything on the planet, bigotted idiots of lower intellect who need an outlet for channeling anger for their own limitations? Do homosexuals actually suffer as much abuse as a certain local manager who gets it because a football team doesn't win? The Nazi regime ended in 1945, over sixty years ago. I think we've progressed just a little since then. Two lads shared a hug on Oxford Road yesterday morning. The traffic didn't, amazingly, stop.

None of us are revered and put on platforms by everyone. There's always someone who dislikes your views, personality or even appearance maybe. If it ever changes we'll have attained a perfect world where even Gary Megson gets treated with respect. Now that is a long way off yet,I think .

One of my friends who hasn't come out to his parents hates the uber-campness thing, but like me, thinks that a large part of that is because that's how society defines being gay. Gay people feel pressure to behave in a certain way, because campness and homosexuality are often viewed as linked, when in fact they are not. Like the point I think you are getting at, I think sexuality is a private thing, but people shouldnt publicly be subjected to stuff like this which portrays their sexuality as wrong.

[TANGODANCER]

[. When I was younger I'd sit with a grimace through 'Paki jokes', and sit in awkward silence with my uncle and father whilst the more right wing aspect of my familly talked their politics. .

Pru. I'll give odds that a few years ago there's not one person on here who didn't laugh their bollocks off at a "Paki" joke, just like Irish, Jewish and you name it jokes. The reason was simple, we didn't hate anybody and didn't mind having the mickey taken back in return. It changed, people started observing supposed political correctness, we were integrated much more with a generation of Asian origin people actually being born and living here. Evolvement happened and with it a new and different mode of life. Whether it's actually better in a lot of respects I'm not sure, but we have come on somewhat in the treatment of our fellow men. Total equality is a fine and dandy target as long as it actually doesn't mean role reversal. I always was a bit suspicious of the wording of "We shall overcome", smack a bit of revenge rather than equality. We are judged finally by what we do, not what we talk about. Assholes exist of every colour, not just white.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

[BWFC_Insane]

[. When I was younger I'd sit with a grimace through 'Paki jokes', and sit in awkward silence with my uncle and father whilst the more right wing aspect of my familly talked their politics. .

Pru. I'll give odds that a few years ago there's not one person on here who didn't laugh their bollocks off at a "Paki" joke, just like Irish, Jewish and you name it jokes. The reason was simple, we didn't hate anybody and didn't mind having the mickey taken back in return. It changed, people started observing supposed political correctness, we were integrated much more with a generation of Asian origin people actually being born and living here. Evolvement happened and with it a new and different mode of life. Whether it's actually better in a lot of respects I'm not sure, but we have come on somewhat in the treatment of our fellow men. Total equality is a fine and dandy target as long as it actually doesn't mean role reversal. I always was a bit suspicious of the wording of "We shall overcome", smack a bit of revenge rather than equality. We are judged finally by what we do, not what we talk about. Assholes exist of every colour, not just white.

Oh come on TD thats a load of bollocks.

Plenty of people found jokes about particular racists particularly offensive even during the peak of Manning, Alf Garnett etc.

Political correctness may have gone too far, but to paint a picture that there wasn't any racism and that everyone was "jolly good chums" having "jolly good japes with each other" is utter utter nonsense.


Policitcal correctness was originally needed to put some standards to how people spoke and referred to each other primarily in public. It has gone too far as you say, but still lets not go back to where we were!

[Worthy4England]

It seems to me that people expressing what others supposedly think as a whole, are usually doing it from a public platform based on everone thinking they've been round and questioned the whole of humanity. How many here don't know some homosexual or lesbian friends or aquaintances? Is any "persecution" these people suffer from those they know or live in their vicinity for actually being homosexual, or is it more because they deliberately camp up their preferences and behaviour? Or is it perhaps that the abuse comes from the same factions who complain mindlessly about eveything on the planet, bigotted idiots of lower intellect who need an outlet for channeling anger for their own limitations? Do homosexuals actually suffer as much abuse as a certain local manager who gets it because a football team doesn't win? The Nazi regime ended in 1945, over sixty years ago. I think we've progressed just a little since then. Two lads shared a hug on Oxford Road yesterday morning. The traffic didn't, amazingly, stop.

None of us are revered and put on platforms by everyone. There's always someone who dislikes your views, personality or even appearance maybe. If it ever changes we'll have attained a perfect world where even Gary Megson gets treated with respect. Now that is a long way off yet,I think .

One of my friends who hasn't come out to his parents hates the uber-campness thing, but like me, thinks that a large part of that is because that's how society defines being gay. Gay people feel pressure to behave in a certain way, because campness and homosexuality are often viewed as linked, when in fact they are not. Like the point I think you are getting at, I think sexuality is a private thing, but people shouldnt publicly be subjected to stuff like this which portrays their sexuality as wrong.

Don't tell Graham Norton whatever you do.

[TANGODANCER]

[. When I was younger I'd sit with a grimace through 'Paki jokes', and sit in awkward silence with my uncle and father whilst the more right wing aspect of my familly talked their politics. .

Pru. I'll give odds that a few years ago there's not one person on here who didn't laugh their bollocks off at a "Paki" joke, just like Irish, Jewish and you name it jokes. The reason was simple, we didn't hate anybody and didn't mind having the mickey taken back in return. It changed, people started observing supposed political correctness, we were integrated much more with a generation of Asian origin people actually being born and living here. Evolvement happened and with it a new and different mode of life. Whether it's actually better in a lot of respects I'm not sure, but we have come on somewhat in the treatment of our fellow men. Total equality is a fine and dandy target as long as it actually doesn't mean role reversal. I always was a bit suspicious of the wording of "We shall overcome", smack a bit of revenge rather than equality. We are judged finally by what we do, not what we talk about. Assholes exist of every colour, not just white.

Oh come on TD thats a load of bollocks.

Plenty of people found jokes about particular racists particularly offensive even during the peak of Manning, Alf Garnett etc.

Political correctness may have gone too far, but to paint a picture that there wasn't any racism and that everyone was "jolly good chums" having "jolly good japes with each other" is utter utter nonsense.


Policitcal correctness was originally needed to put some standards to how people spoke and referred to each other primarily in public. It has gone too far as you say, but still lets not go back to where we were!

Think I might have said something like that in my post if you read it through. Please don't make an attempt at honesty into racism supporting. That would be very wrong.

[Prufrock]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

You are assuming apathy here. It may well not be the case...

The first round of voting in the 2002 election had a record low turnout. After it was revealed that Le Pen was one of the two candidates for the second and final round, there were mass demonstrations throughout France, including more than a million on a march through Paris. In the second round of votes Le Pen lost to a record landslide. Some argue that this makes a mockery of the two round voting system the French have, suggesting many didn't vote in the first round because they assumed the second would inevitably be a traditional left vs right choice. However this doesn't negate the fact that in the first round Le Pen was only a 1.5(ish) per cent swing from coming in first place, and in a country like ours where we wouldn't get a second chance it worries me that in a first world, pretty similar country, the mentalists can get so close. A similar situation in this country I would suggest would be people assuming one of Labour or the Torries will get in, and the BNP mobilising their supporters well, as the FN did in France. The fact that our turnout is historically lower than that of the French would make this far more possible.

Regarding our secret ballots, are you saying you think a majority would vote against gay rights, or immigrant rights? If so I'm not sure I agree. It is of course pure conjecture, but I'd have no doubt that more people would vote that way than one might expect, but I'm not sure it would be a majority. The crucial bit for me would be the question asked regarding immigration. Whilst I don't agree, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with arguing against immigration on an economic level saying the country can't support enough people. What I do think is wrong is suggesting as the FN did that people of other races are genetically inferior, or proposing as the BNP do repatriation which again implies a similar thing, particularly towards second and third generation, or even open minded first generation immigrants, who's only difference with a white brittish person might be their personal faith. I don't see an economic argument against homosexuality, and so must come to the conclusion, that since I believe sexuality, like religion and heritage to be a private thing, it is wholly wrong to discriminate against people because of it.

Monty sums it up perfectly for me when he says the 20th century has taught us minorities need protection. It is widely accepted the Wall Street Crash and subsequent global recession played a huge part in Hitler's rise to power. We are told we are entering into a recession to rival if not surpass that one. When things go wrong societies seek scapegoats. Do I think it's probable or even likely that the same things could happen again? No. But I certainly don't think it impossible.

[BWFC_Insane]

[. When I was younger I'd sit with a grimace through 'Paki jokes', and sit in awkward silence with my uncle and father whilst the more right wing aspect of my familly talked their politics. .

Pru. I'll give odds that a few years ago there's not one person on here who didn't laugh their bollocks off at a "Paki" joke, just like Irish, Jewish and you name it jokes. The reason was simple, we didn't hate anybody and didn't mind having the mickey taken back in return. It changed, people started observing supposed political correctness, we were integrated much more with a generation of Asian origin people actually being born and living here. Evolvement happened and with it a new and different mode of life. Whether it's actually better in a lot of respects I'm not sure, but we have come on somewhat in the treatment of our fellow men. Total equality is a fine and dandy target as long as it actually doesn't mean role reversal. I always was a bit suspicious of the wording of "We shall overcome", smack a bit of revenge rather than equality. We are judged finally by what we do, not what we talk about. Assholes exist of every colour, not just white.

Oh come on TD thats a load of bollocks.

Plenty of people found jokes about particular racists particularly offensive even during the peak of Manning, Alf Garnett etc.

Political correctness may have gone too far, but to paint a picture that there wasn't any racism and that everyone was "jolly good chums" having "jolly good japes with each other" is utter utter nonsense.


Policitcal correctness was originally needed to put some standards to how people spoke and referred to each other primarily in public. It has gone too far as you say, but still lets not go back to where we were!

Think I might have said something like that in my post if you read it through. Please don't make an attempt at honesty into racism supporting. That would be very wrong.

Fair enough TD. I don't for one minute think you were supporting racists.

Just thought you were downplaying somewhat how certain sections of our culture were/are inherently racist. "Paki" jokes for me are something that should never be tolerated and I never have tolerated them.

[Prufrock]

[. When I was younger I'd sit with a grimace through 'Paki jokes', and sit in awkward silence with my uncle and father whilst the more right wing aspect of my familly talked their politics. .

Pru. I'll give odds that a few years ago there's not one person on here who didn't laugh their bollocks off at a "Paki" joke, just like Irish, Jewish and you name it jokes. The reason was simple, we didn't hate anybody and didn't mind having the mickey taken back in return. It changed, people started observing supposed political correctness, we were integrated much more with a generation of Asian origin people actually being born and living here. Evolvement happened and with it a new and different mode of life. Whether it's actually better in a lot of respects I'm not sure, but we have come on somewhat in the treatment of our fellow men. Total equality is a fine and dandy target as long as it actually doesn't mean role reversal. I always was a bit suspicious of the wording of "We shall overcome", smack a bit of revenge rather than equality. We are judged finally by what we do, not what we talk about. Assholes exist of every colour, not just white.

Although it was I who first brought up the subject of race and immigration, I'd like this thread not to veer too far down that path. I brought it in that quote as an example of people not speaking out and becoming implicitly supportive of those views. Jokes between good friends are not the same as jokes told in a public environment where anybody could overhear and feel offended, or alternatively use that joke to form actual racist/homophobic opinions.

[TANGODANCER]

I've actually forgotten what the thread was all about.

[Prufrock]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I've actually forgotten what the thread was all about.

I think the original point has long gone.

But I think in a roundabout way Prufrock trying to tell us he's a poofter.

[Prufrock]

I've actually forgotten what the thread was all about.

Hmmm I know. Tis largely my fault, but racism and homophobia are easily comparable. What it was about is an American doctor who reckons he can 'cure' being gay and is coming to give a talk on it. My view which may not have been immediately apparent is that that is WRONG WRONG WRONG

[superjohnmcginlay]

I've actually forgotten what the thread was all about.

Hmmm I know. Tis largely my fault, but racism and homophobia are easily comparable. What it was about is an American doctor who reckons he can 'cure' being gay and is coming to give a talk on it. My view which may not have been immediately apparent is that that is WRONG WRONG WRONG

Yeah we gathered that.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

In your opinion. They believe their thinking is right.