Racist, Sexist and other-ist Jokes

quote:

---

So unless we're saying that women don't get violent until they kill, then we must conclude that women are not the victims society makes them out to be. They are quite often the perpetrators, too.

---

[scooby] uuuuurgh? [/scooby]"Society", or elements within it, also say that "the female of the species is deadlier than the male". Part of the dehumanising of women is to ascribe to them an artificial passivity that is nonsense in a pack-hunting animal, and to label women who then do use violence as unnatural and unfeminine.What appears to me misleading in the table you offer is that we do not know the frequency with which each type was employed. That is, for a given couple that reported Yes to male and female use of slaps, and yes to female use of a knife, the ratio of male slaps to female knife-blows may have been 1000:1.It seems essentially unremarkable to me that by the point violence reaches homicidal levels, women are more likely to restort to weapons given the male advantage in musculature. I would suggest rather that this indicates that for men, unarmed violence is sufficiently effective that it achieves their goals.I don't believe this table indicates, as you seem to suggest, that the quantity of violence by gender is equitable; it could however be used to show that the range of types of violence opccurring in domestic disputes is qwuite broad.

contracycle, Explain to me how the Iraqi's are worse off if they have no idea they have been dehumanised.You appear to be conflating a racist joke where no-one take offence with having 10,000 volts up your bollocks. And you accuse me of playing the idiot?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-09-2004 06:25 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

Explain to me how the Iraqi's are worse off if they have no idea they have been dehumanised.

---

Umm, thats the electrodes-on-the-genitcals part.

quote:

---

You appear to be conflating a racist joke where no-one take offence with having 10,000 volts up your bollocks.

---

On this board perhaps, and others like it, and in "pubs clubs and burger bars, breeding pens for pigs" nobody was offended by jokes about sand-niggers. And thus, sand-niggers were dehumanised in the eyes of those Americans. So when those Americans were in Iraq, they already had all the social support and validation needed to confirm to them that Iraqi's are not real people, to whom human rights apply. They are just sand-niggers, and ungrateful at that after being liberated, so it's OK to put electrodes on their testes and hassle them with dogs.Once again you persist in the quaint conceit that the subject of dehumanisation must be present, and must consent. This is arrant nonsense.

mark24,I don't think you can expect much from our buddy contracyamsu here, but you're welcome to ask the question. It's pretty clear that he enjoys only the most rudimentary familiarity with the entire subject of hate-speech, since he can toss around terms like "manipulating social signs" but fails to contextualize the issue in any framework of concerns about freedom of expression. I don't know what's more likely: that contracyamsu is unaware of these facets of the debate, or that he wants to pretend they don't exist.Oddly enough, his claiming the moral high ground on the basis that he's only being an offensive prick and not a racist is exactly the crux of the debate. Despite his assertions that intent is irrelevant, he's manipulating loaded language like "sand-nigger" and none of the so-called racists here have. On the other hand, even the American Civil Liberties Union won't defend what they call 'fighting words,' meaning language explicitly intended to start trouble and not merely to express ideas. So when contracyamsu calls us "scum" and "roaches" (I assume he means Blattodea; he's a pot smoker, after all) he's engaging in exactly the kind of provocation that even free-speech advocates are unwilling to protect.On the other hand, his assertion that intent is irrelevant is difficult to support using the available literature on the subject, with which I assume he's basically unfamiliar. Even Dworkin and McKinnon don't spend much time on humor in their screeds (preferring to focus on porn), since it's a doctrinaire theorist indeed who'd want to lump Swift and Clemens altogether with lamo yucksters in the "racist scum" barrel. Our pal's own attempts to define the cause-and-effect relationship between bad humor and genocide are lacking because this is certainly the most tenuous aspect of the whole debate, accepted on faith because it makes it easier to paint opponents of hate-speech legislation as either racists or Uncle Toms. The Freedmans, who made a brave attempt to delineate 'group defamation' as a legally viable concept, admitted that intent and free speech concerns had to be addressed in the debate. If there is a large body of discussion that has determined that intent is irrelevant in the defining of hate-speech, perhaps contracyamsu could point us to it.The other elephant in the room that contracyamsu is trying to hoover around is the matter that Gates et. al. have pushed to the forefront: that protected freedom of expression has traditionally benefitted the very groups that hate-speech legislation is intended to shelter. That is, the dissent of the disenfranchised depends on the broadening of discourse and not its limitation. Anyone whose opinions differ from those of the power elite has every reason to be suspicious of attempts to narrow public discourse at the discretion of the power elite itself. Again, I don't think our buddy knows or cares who Henry Louis Gates or the ACLU are, but his ignorance of their views doesn't exclude them from the discussion. A similarly devastating critique of hate-speech legislation is the realization of how many anti-bigotry measures have been subsequently used against the very people they were intended to protect. A British Public Order Act passed in the 1930's to muzzle Mosely and the nationalists was later used to send striking workers to jail. It cannot be gainsaid that his sort of well-meaning legislation has been shown repeatedly to be a convenient weapon of the powerful in their war against the disenfranchised in society.Basically, if contracyamsu wants to call us all racist scum and pretend the issue is that cut-and-dried, that's his prerogative. However, there's really no support for his dope-clouded logic in the literature. Most theorists realize that we have much less to fear from those who abuse free speech than from those who oppose it.regards,
Esteban "Roaches" Hambre

contracycle, But since we're talking about racist jokes & their ilk, electrodes on the knackers are neither here nor there. Moving the goalposts. Good grief.So tell me again how the Iraqi's are worse off if they have no idea they have been dehumanised. It's the racist "joke" we're concerned with, not any other nonsense you want to conflate with it.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

/totally agree

[qupte]
So tell me again how the Iraqi's are worse off if they have no idea they have been dehumanised.[/quote]for the Nth time: because they are dehumanised in OTHER peoples eyes, OTHER people who go on to perpetrate violence against them. there has been no shifting of the goalposts excpet by you.Mark, you are clearly not even reading what I'm writing, are you?

quote:

---

It's the racist "joke" we're concerned with, not any other nonsense you want to conflate with it.

---

Yes Mark, exactly.

quote:

---

Basically, if contracyamsu wants to call us all racist scum and pretend the issue is that cut-and-dried, that's his prerogative. However, there's really no support for his dope-clouded logic in the literature. Most theorists realize that we have much less to fear from those who abuse free speech than from those who oppose it.

---

This is presumably why he refused to provide support for his statements and preferred to dodge the issue with an equivalent arguement to "the dog at my homework".Mam "scummy roach" muthus

[qupte] It's pretty clear that he enjoys only the most rudimentary familiarity with the entire subject of hate-speech, since he can toss around terms like "manipulating social signs" but fails to contextualize the issue in any framework of concerns about freedom of expression. [/quote]Freedom of expression is a legal convention; it has nothing to do with techniques of dehumanisation. If you wished, you could protect racist hate speech - as you do - under freedom of expression, and this would not deny the dehumanisaing effects of that speech.Now, you really don't know much about social signs and meaning systems after all, do you?

quote:

---

On the other hand, even the American Civil Liberties Union won't defend what they call 'fighting words,' meaning language explicitly intended to start trouble and not merely to express ideas. So when contracyamsu calls us "scum" and "roaches" (I assume he means Blattodea; he's a pot smoker, after all) he's engaging in exactly the kind of provocation that even free-speech advocates are unwilling to protect.

---

Is there some reason this should be relevant? You are giving me my argument; common or garden abuse <> systematic dehumanisation and racist hate speech.

quote:

---

Our pal's own attempts to define the cause-and-effect relationship between bad humor and genocide are lacking because this is certainly the most tenuous aspect of the whole debate, accepted on faith because it makes it easier to paint opponents of hate-speech legislation as either racists or Uncle Toms. The Freedmans, who made a brave attempt to delineate 'group defamation' as a legally viable concept, admitted that intent and free speech concerns had to be addressed in the debate.

---

Well I'm glad you finally acknowledge the existance of this debate, NoBalls! I wonder if you could kindly advise your buddy Mark, who's adamant that there is no debate, that the case is 100% demonstrable in his favour. Please fire away.

quote:

---

That is, the dissent of the disenfranchised depends on the broadening of discourse and not its limitation. Anyone whose opinions differ from those of the power elite has every reason to be suspicious of attempts to narrow public discourse at the discretion of the power elite itself.

---

Suspicious, sure. But a discourse of hate speech also supports the elite by triggering mutual conflict among groups in the broader population; so the interests of all groups hostile or potentially threatening to the elite are served by the suppression of hate speech, and the elites interests best served by its propagation.

quote:

---

A similarly devastating critique of hate-speech legislation is the realization of how many anti-bigotry measures have been subsequently used against the very people they were intended to protect. A British Public Order Act passed in the 1930's to muzzle Mosely and the nationalists was later used to send striking workers to jail. It cannot be gainsaid that his sort of well-meaning legislation has been shown repeatedly to be a convenient weapon of the powerful in their war against the disenfranchised in society.

---

Absolutely true. And the first person to be arrested on the crime of racist hate speech was... a middle easterner accused of being harsh to whitey. In other words, the exact argument proffered by Born2Preach, the self-same advocate of racist jokes. See the value to an elite in preserving and protecting hate speech? You get 'em figting amongst themselves.But, where did I call for legislation? Hmm, nowhere. However: the right to free speech does not mandate that a given organ has a responsibility to propagate your message for you. The owners of this board can choose to propagate hate speech, or not to do so, without infringing a right to free speech.

quote:

---

Basically, if contracyamsu wants to call us all racist scum and pretend the issue is that cut-and-dried, that's his prerogative.

---

Actually, I did not: I explained my point of view when asked to do so. If you had bothered to educate my opponents at the outset, perhaps that diversion would be unnecessary.Either way, your grasp of the topic appears rather ivory tower to me.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 11:16 AM

quote:

---

This is presumably why he refused to provide support for his statements and preferred to dodge the issue with an equivalent arguement to "the dog at my homework".

---

Wiull you reciprocate and demosbtrate the basis for your position? I have taken the time to write some substantail paragraphs - thats certainly more respect than you have shown me. So, DO you have any reasons? So far you have only appealed to your own ignorance.

quote:

---

more respect than you have shown me

---

quote:

---

So far you have only appealed to your own ignorance

---

And you are unhappy because you are not getting respect?

quote:

---

I have taken the time to write some substantail paragraphs

---

You have written countless unsubsupported statements laced with insults against anyone who disagrees with you...there is nothing to reciprocate until you yourself substantiate what you claim with independent references.I find it telling that your last response to MrHambre is that it seems "ivory tower" to you...and then accuse others of ignorance. If you cannot be bothered to demonstrate that you are more than a pseudo PC wind bag internet troll who could not recognize a ture racist if he were being beaten to death by one then don't complain that you are greeted with an almost universally hostile response.

contracycle, Like who? Only the Iraqi's and the Americans are there? Oh, the telepathic Ku Klux Klan?You are again trying to conflate things. An -ist/-ism joke does not equal an incitement to violence, because they don't directly implore anyone to make a violent act against anyone. Any more than Tom & Jerry cartoons incite people to smack their cat if the face with a frying pan.That's not to say it couldn't be, just that I've never heard one, & I put it to you that the vast majority of these jokes do not implore the listener to violence.An Englishman, Irishman, & a Scotsman go parachuting. The Irish chap goes first, out he goes, pulls the cord, & out pops a lovely parachute, the Scotsman goes next, same thing, he gets a lovely parachute appear over his head. The Englishman jumps out & pulls the cord. * nothing * , he pulls his secondary. * nothing * He hurtles past the Scotsman. He hurtles past the Irishman. The Irishman begins undoing his harness, "well, if it's a race your wanting".....Please explain the logic by which I am being incited into violence.If someone hears an "Englishman, Irishman, & a Scotsman Joke" & goes out frying their testicles when the joke was about jumping out of a plane without a parachute, then the reason they do so is not the fault of the joke.So, please tell me how someone is hurt by an -ist/-ism joke when they don't feel offended?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

You have written countless unsubsupported statements laced with insults against anyone who disagrees with you...there is nothing to reciprocate until you yourself substantiate what you claim with independent references.

---

Nope, I'm going to play your ball back at you, Mam. I reject yout OPINION that racist jiokes are not dehumanising, and therefore insist that you incontrovetibly prove to academic standard that this is the case.

quote:

---

If you cannot be bothered to demonstrate that you are more than a pseudo PC wind bag internet troll who could not recognize a ture racist if he were being beaten to death by one then don't complain that you are greeted with an almost universally hostile response.

---

Listen, pal: I didn't start out abusing people, I quite reasonably posted just the fact that yes I would find racist jokes insulting. And you know what? The poster KNEW they were offensive otherwise he wouldn't have asked that in the first place. So go fuck yourself with accusations of trolling - you and NoBalls are trolling.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-10-2004 05:39 AM

quote:

---

You are again trying to conflate things. An -ist/-ism joke does not equal an incitement to violence, because they don't directly implore anyone to make a violent act against anyone.

---

Isn't it a good thing, then, that I never said jokes were INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE? Readin comprehension is not your strong suit, apparently. What I said was that it was DEHUMANISNG, and facilitated violence, and is often uses as apreperations for violence.

quote:

---

An Englishman, Irishman, & a Scotsman go parachuting. The Irish chap goes first, out he goes, pulls the cord, & out pops a lovely parachute, the Scotsman goes next, same thing, he gets a lovely parachute appear over his head. The Englishman jumps out & pulls the cord. * nothing * , he pulls his secondary. * nothing * He hurtles past the Scotsman. He hurtles past the Irishman. The Irishman begins undoing his harness, "well, if it's a race your wanting".....

---

This in fact is a pefect example of racist and dehumanising joke aimed at the Irish by the English. It is part of the cultural prejudice against the Irish necessitated by colonialism and Empire; and is certainly prejudicial and dehumanising. The Irish character here is the victim of the joke, being showed to be appallingly stupid. This is exactly the kind of joke that conquerors tell each other about the conquored.

quote:

---

Please explain the logic by which I am being incited into violence.

---

I say again incitement to violence are your words, not mine. Britain has had troops in Ireland for 400 years and has a vast array of anti-Irish jokes to reinforce their identity as lesser, subordinate people crushed by their divine right and manifest destiny of their inherent superiors. To reinforce the fact that killing Irish people is not the same as killing real people.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-10-2004 05:47 AM

quote:

---

Nope, I'm going to play your ball back at you, Mam.

---

At least you now admit that you are playing games and have no substantive argument to make.

quote:

---

I reject yout OPINION that racist jiokes are not dehumanising, and therefore insist that you incontrovetibly prove to academic standard that this is the case.

---

Oh everyone run scared...contraceptive is rejecting and insisting now ..or what? You will piss your pants and continue whining? Wow what a threat You are the prissy little wimp who whined in the first place about racist and sexist jokes on the forum. You then claimed the forum is a haven for racist "scum" and "roaches". When called on it you have provided only abuse and meritless OPINION.So you can insist til the puddle of piss you are standing in widens to consume you but it behooves you to substantiate what you have claimed with independent academic sources. All you have done thus far is claimed you have such evidence but are unwilling to show it because you are a lazy pudfuck and that it is unfair to dare to question your OPINIONs...and then like the coward you are, claim I have to prove that what you say is wrong when you yourself refuse to substantiate it. What the hell for? If you lack the intellectual capacity or integrity to support your statements then why should I bother disproving them? MrHambre fed you your ass ( a big meal indeed) with independent sources yesterday and your only response is that it was too "ivory tower"Until you can produce a post with references like MrHambre's from yesterday then I can safely assume your rant is you own personal opinion and you wish to cloak it by claiming to have support which does not exist....you would make a great creationist.

quote:

---

Listen, pal: I didn't start out abusing people, I quite reasonably posted just the fact that yes I would find racist jokes insulting. And you know what? The poster KNEW they were offensive otherwise he wouldn't have asked that in the first place. So go fuck yourself with accusations of trolling - you and NoBalls are trolling.

---

You have been abusive since the get go. You quite unreasonably started posting that you had complained to Mommy..I mean Percy...that you did not like the jokes in the humor thread....this was then followed by your unsubstantiated (and now clearly not even defensible) claims that we are all racist scum....(note, I did not post any jokes in the thread )So you are a troll...to bad for you the description fits...I guess you will now claim that trolls are dehumanized by the comparison..of course you would support the statement with evidence but like Kelis said "my milkshake is better than yours"regards
Mam "comfy in the ivory tower" muthus