I disagree with your characterisation of the QUT case as creation of the right wing. The complainant brought suit abetted by the AHRC against 7 students and QUT. The students accused were exonerated and the complainant was required to pay costs by the Federal Circuit Court. Your implication that the outcome of the case was a result of government interference is a serious one.
Are you sure you are right about THOSE laws, because typically... in real actual practice, they work basically like ours. And what you say sounds exactly like the misconceptions less informed locals have about our laws, and exactly like the propaganda spread by (far) right wing and frequently openly racist organizations for the express intention of misleading the uninformed so they will opposed our laws and basically EVERY law very much like ours again and again around the world whichever country you pick. So... how very, very, sure are you that you are definitely right about the shifting goal post of which countries laws it is most convenient for you to decide we are talking about and what they actually are and how they actually apply?
No, the manufacturing was largely in turning it into any sort of media story at all. A complaint was made. It failed. The right wing government and the right wing media freaked the hell out about how utterly oppressive PC laws were. In a case where what was both effectively their side AND effectively the "extremist free speech" side won under our existing laws. Because if a single case that actually makes it to court ever fails after that point the law is clearly unjust and must be railed against in public for months if not years. (I mean remember when we made car theft legal that time after a single case against an accused car thief failed cause that one guy was actually innocent?) That media blitz freak out happened expressly to pretend there was something, anything, to be outraged about in association to our racial vilification laws. That media blitz existed so that you would quote that case right now as if it meant pretty much the opposite of its actual outcome.
Hmn. Not to be that guy, or an asshole, but when Real Life Laws begin to be quoted in an already borderline on-topic discussion, I think it may be time for it to be moved or shut down. Just my opinion as someone who wishes to keep discussions courteous and ontopic. @psychoticstorm Thoughts?
That's some very populist opinions you're voicing there, regarding police work. Addressing those is a full time job, and I've already got a full time job. Takes far too much data. Hate speech as implemented in most countries constitutes speech regarding violence, intimidation and rape against groups of people rather than the laws you speak of which deals with individuals. Both, in my opinion, have become increasingly toothless (in my home country, obviously) and increasingly people can say to and threaten people with whatever shit they want and the worst they'll face is a dedicated Facebook group reviling them.
I agree this has gone off topic thought it is a natural evolution of what was discussed, who agrees to move it to boutique?
Please do. If I want to see depressing things I can do that anywhere. I come here strictly for the monofilament katanas and powerarmour.
What. An. Incredibly. Uninformed. And. Out. Of. Touch. With. Reality. Statement. To. Make. U wot m8? Have you missed the fact that Germany is essentially China, when it comes to policing social media and censoring? Are you unaware of the extremely Orwellian approach the entire UK handles the internet and free speech? Do you know a scottish person literally stands to being jailed because he wanted to troll his girlfriend, by teaching his pug how to "Heil" at nazi videos, just to piss her off and he's under trial for "hate speech" because he put the video up of him doing it? Do you know about the social ostracization and even violence that happens towards people in Sweden, who commits any form of wrong think and are instantly labelled bigots? A homosexual said that gay prides in progressive cities don't mean anything, because they should be held at places that had low tolerance for homosexuals. He made a pride parade, along with an Iranian homosexual, in a ghetto and the media labelled it HOMOPHOBIC AND RACIST PRIDE! I wish I was kidding.
So, rather than commenting on something, were you can pretend to turn your nose up and claim to be morally superior and label subjects you don't like as "populism", here's why I know for a fact that free speech will always trump speech policing. Enter 'The Danes Party' a political party that began in my home country of Denmark. The political party was essentially the same as what we now know as the 'Alt Right'. For months they had a staunch campaign against immigration and Islam. No media outlet would interview them and social media often shut down their pages and own private outlets for violation of "hate speech". This actually gave them an impressive momentum since they could, rightly so, pull the victim card of being censored and they even gained popularity because many people simply thought, 'they are being censored by political correctness, they only criticize Islam and they get shut down?' Suddenly, despite the constant censoring by the media and government, they spiked massively in popularity and they even got thousands of signatures towards forming their own legitimate political party, there was even talk about them getting several mandates in the upcoming election, simply because they could ride the train of being the "unpopular opinion", which the government and the media only validated. All looked well for 'The Danes Party', until a media reporter, with Syrian parents who immigrated back in the 80's, came and hosted his own show. He asked to have a conversation with the head of the party and broadcast it on the most popular radio station in the entire country. The reporter simply asked him, "how do you define who's Danish and do you consider me Danish? I have a high education and have contributed to my society and embraced all of Danish traditions, while being a muslim also. I like to think of myself as well integrated". That was all he needed to ask. The head of party then, while being on the biggest radio & TV station, proceeded to talk for several, uninterrupted, minutes about how the media reporter was not "ethnically" pure enough to be Danish, had an actual background as a literal Nazi and how he wished for his party to ethnically maintain the Danish DNA, while systematically deport every single "impure" person over time. The head of 'The Danes Party' even hoped that their ethnostate would inspire the rest of Europe to basically envoke a second crussade and deport everyone who wasn't pure enough. The reporter didn't interupt, didn't say anything, he just let the other person talk. Over night, almost instantly, allmost every support or sympathy for 'The Danes Party' simply evaporated, simply because the entire country now had an actual chance to listen directly what that party had to say and everyone could now see the insane ideology and craziness that was behind the entire party, because the people had a chance to listen to them, because they listened to them they had a chance for themselves to consider their ideas and judge them for the insanity that they are. See, @Mahtamori, this is why free speech is important, because you let people decide for themselves what is a bad idea. Otherwise you give that power to the state and suddenly the state decides what is and what is not a a bad idea, which almost always simply end up giving people, who are out of touch with the common person, the power to decide what is offensive or not.
I wish we were at least that competent, the law that was passed basically pushed the responsibility to say what was inappropriate content to the companies operating websites. Whoever can't see that going wrong must run into an awful lot of walls.
Fair points!!!! I just woke up and just needed to reply to somebody expressing bullshit about my fellow men and forgot about Überfallkomando (the others are debatable I believe) and Volksverhetzung, which I haven't associated with hate crimes/speech before, because it doesn't work like a multiply its a own category of crime and it doesn't concern sexual orientation, but yeah you are right, I missed a something! thx!
Anal sex has a much higher rate of STI transmission than vaginal sex, even if it's a guy doing a girl. Has to do with the difference in internal chemistry and cell operations between the vagina and the large intestine. Vaginas do not absorb water or other fluids, while that's the job of the large intestine. The internal chemistry of the vagina is very unfriendly to bacteria and viruses, while the large intestine has immense quantities of bacteria (the so-called gut flora). Add the fact that the vagina is far tougher and more elastic so it's less likely to be damaged during sex and you have a solid, peer-reviewed. The higher rates of abusive or violent relationships is based on self-reporting from the gay community. I believe that it's caused by the oxytocin/vasopressin biochemistry. Humans generally have the same oxytocin/vasopressin interactions as prairie voles and wolves, the overwhelming majority (I'm talking over 95%) are biochemically programmed for long-term monogamy with a female despite their physical attraction. So what this means is that the males will try to drive each other away unconsciously, due to a lack of vasopressin feedback to their oxytocin. The oxytocin/vasopressin interaction is from the Journal of the American Medical Association (and from Nature). The abuse statistics are from a US government report that was attempting to show that gay households were just as good for children as hetero households (the data showed that the most stable gay households were only as good as the average straight household, the report writer violated the first rule of statistics: ONLY compare like with like!). So no, those are most emphatically peer-reviewed and good science, not bullshit.
I came here expecting a spam bot because a forumite mentioned something about a really weird post on the Kempeitai thread Found this ...
It's the usual problem of natural science ignoring a humanities and social science perspective, which should absolutely included into that topic! Everything else is just short sighted and yes I call it absolute bullshit! Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Actually this thread made me interested in what kind of freedom of speech a citizen has in different places of the human sphere. Probably a topic for another thread though.
At least now I know the answer to the question: "How long does it take for a discussion about WW2 atrocities to evolve into a discussion about STI transmission via anal sex." The answer is 16 pages...
