Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 79

Thread: Update on Homophobia and Racism

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reptile2005 View Post
    I have heard a homophobic slur once now but it was used in a joking manner, not in spite
    We may simply have different ideas of what an acceptable homophobic slur might be.

    Daniela

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alia View Post
    I don't know if I would really base my judgement on what is said in public. .
    Surely I can base my judgement on opinions voiced in the public forum on what is said and written in the public forum.

    That people may think differently to how they act or talk goes without saying, regardless of country.

    But to be honest, I much prefer it to be unacceptable to voice homophobic or racist 'jokes', especially in a radio/tv/newspaper, regardless of what the journalist might really think.

    Daniela

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh>Cambridge>Auckland
    Posts
    758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dharder View Post
    Surely I can base my judgement on opinions voiced in the public forum on what is said and written in the public forum.

    That people may think differently to how they act or talk goes without saying, regardless of country.

    But to be honest, I much prefer it to be unacceptable to voice homophobic or racist 'jokes', especially in a radio/tv/newspaper, regardless of what the journalist might really think.

    Daniela
    I agree. I think what people feel comfortable to say in public does reflect what they think/believe. Changing what is acceptable to voice is the first step to changing our culture.

    I also think that the culture in the UK regarding homophobia and racism has changed very quickly. My own wee village in the UK used to be pretty small minded. Last time I was back things had changed a lot with several prominent gay couples. And some humour which made me wince. I think NZ will change even faster. Particularly Auckland which is as close to a melting pot as NZ will get.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    was Berlin, now Auckland
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dharder View Post
    Surely I can base my judgement on opinions voiced in the public forum on what is said and written in the public forum.

    That people may think differently to how they act or talk goes without saying, regardless of country.

    But to be honest, I much prefer it to be unacceptable to voice homophobic or racist 'jokes', especially in a radio/tv/newspaper, regardless of what the journalist might really think.

    Daniela
    You can base your opinion on what is said in public only if everybody is free to say what they think even if it is nasty. That is what I meant. If you have censorship by law or by culture, certain things will not be discussed and the way of thinking in some minds will never be changed.
    I personally was shocked when I lived in the US because of the nasty things that were said. However, I now can see the value of truly free speech.
    Last edited by Alia; 9th March 2011 at 10:39 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Iowa -> NZ, Kapiti Coast
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indianaman View Post
    Wow. This is deflating.
    Hi Indianaman, I'm from Iowa and been living in Paraparaumu for nearly two years. I'm heterosexual so might not be as perceptive on these matters as others. That being said, I would venture to say at least in the Wellington area people are much more receptive to homosexuality than folks back home. In general I find Kiwis to be pretty care free about these kinds of things. In comparison to the mid-west especially. I think you would find the comparison even more striking in the rural areas here compared to those in rural Indiana or Iowa. Not saying those here might not take notice of a gay couple holding hands. But in small town Iowa doing something like that has a good likelihood to land you in the hospital. I don't get the feeling it's like that here.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    36,608

    Default

    But however freely things are discussed, some people will NEVER change what they think. There is no way to check on unexpressed thoughts, or impose different ones. I think there needs to be some repression of talk (and action if it comes to that) in case such people's beliefs are likely to lead to unpleasantness for certain sections of the community.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alia View Post
    You can base your opinion on what is said in public only if everybody is free to say what they think even if it is nasty.
    Not to labour a point here but what I meant was this: I hear a radio DJ say ‘[insert gay slur]’, I judge this to be nasty and inappropriate. So I am basing a judgement purely on what I hear, there is no extension of this to anyone else other than the publicly voiced opinion. But I shall leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alia View Post
    If you have censorship by law or by culture, certain things will not be discussed and the way of thinking in some minds will never be changed.
    I don’t think this is the place to discuss the relative merits of ‘total’ free speech as opposed to free speech with contstraints on inciting hatred and violence.

    However. As in the case of the radio DJ above, I have no interest in his/her personal thoughts about homosexuality. I do not hope to convince him/her of anything. What I do care about is what s/he says on the radio. And in that context, I don’t want to hear derogative remarks.

    I think I have given up on the idea of making people see the light (my light, of course). What I want is for the speech in public and where heard (in school, in the media, at work) to be not hateful, derogatory, stereotyping or full of ridiculous prejudices (I’d love to add ‘stupid’, but I guess that would be too much) to the point where it can cause harm. If it takes the law in some cases to do that, so be it (in the form of broadcasting standards, anti discrimination regulation, etc)

    Daniela

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stanley Bay, Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dharder View Post
    What I want is for the speech in public and where heard (in school, in the media, at work) to be not hateful, derogatory, stereotyping or full of ridiculous prejudices (I’d love to add ‘stupid’, but I guess that would be too much) to the point where it can cause harm. If it takes the law in some cases to do that, so be it (in the form of broadcasting standards, anti discrimination regulation, etc)
    Yes, but then you have other people (me, for example) who believes that tolerence is a two-way street. Just because I don't like what someone says due to it being prejudiced I think that, in a tolerant society, it should be tolerated as that person has just as much right to raise their prejudices as someone else has to point out that they believe them to be wrong.

    I personally want all speech to be free (including the right to shout fire in a public theatre). There is, however, a responsibility to go along with the right to free speech and that is that you must be responsible for your actions (i.e. incitement; injuries in said theatre).
    So preachers of hate should be allowed to preach their hatred (be it anti-capitalism, Islam, "The West", homosexuals etc) but they must accept responsibility for the actions of someone who listens to their hatred and acts upon it.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James 1077 View Post
    Yes, but then you have other people (me, for example) who believes that tolerence is a two-way street. Just because I don't like what someone says due to it being prejudiced I think that, in a tolerant society, it should be tolerated as that person has just as much right to raise their prejudices as someone else has to point out that they believe them to be wrong.
    That's why I said 'to the point of causing harm' (or something). I am not opposed to debate, obviously, and talking about different viewpoints. But saying things on the radio/tv/newspaper, for example, brings with it a responsibility to not just shout 'that stupid f*g*&t'.

    If you say you will hold someone responsible for shouting 'fire' in a cinema, how do you see that working any differently than current regulation does? Same for inciting racial violence/hatred, what practical difference does your suggestion (of taking responsibility) make to the current laws? (not rhetorical questions)

    Daniela

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    edit - ralf
    Last edited by ralf-nz; 10th March 2011 at 01:25 PM.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •