Time to resurrect Rock Against Racism?

[Cornelius_Fudge]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

What was the joke? The reporters disability made him shake and speak funny? Not much of a joke.

OED:

[noun] A person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker:

How did Trump not do this? He used his influence as a Presidential speaker to mock and intimidate a reporter (someone who's  job means they have less power than a business man and Presidential candidate) with a disability, in a room full of his supporters who wouldn't question him. He disregarded the reporters claims against him by using his influence.

He then lied saying he'd never seen the reporter before and he was imitating him speaking 'grovel', which contradicts the fact he said 'poor guy, you should have seen this guy' before his nasty impression, as well as the fact they had met and were on a first name basis.

I never said all of Trump's supporters loved the joke, nor did I say it was the reason his supporters voted  for him. But I disagree that it's a nothing issue, this type of behaviour should be addressed and condemned. A Bloomberg poll listed it as his worst offence according to voters.

There are many forms of jokes and joking. Impersonations are one of them.

Again, I'm not saying I liked it either, but are you saying disabled people are untouchable from ridicule or impersonation? Anyone who likes South Park would say they aren't - which is one of the best things about South Park. They make fun of everyone - just like comedy should be.

The point I was making, which I thought was clear with the Bremner comment, was that just because he makes a distasteful impression of someone, one time, doesn't constitute bullying and/or bigotry against all disabled people. Obviously 62 million people didn't seem to think so. But obviously Bremner is a liberal comic, so you don't get offended by his stuff.

Are you saying that no one can copy or do an impression of a disabled person ever again in any context?

I'll use Bremner again, but just because he does an impression of Michael Howard and makes him out to be creepy and old, is that then bullying too, because it's ageist and anti-old men-ist and makes all old men out to be creepy? Should we start stopping all comedy because a few people might get offended?


 

[Cornelius_Fudge]

10 minutes ago, scrippit said:

Yes. But I didnt mention hate - you attributed that to me. He has made many generalisations before and during his campaign.

 

So, what has he said about all blacks, all Mexicans, all women, then?

Please, show your evidence.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

He called a white lawyer a 'disgrace to his race' after that for working for a black client. And voted against every piece of legislation to promote equality between races.

He is also on record as supporting the muslim ban.

'Clean record' is a push

Like it or not, 'the muslim ban' is a not off-this-planet response to the threat of Islamic terrorism. 

Remember, no one has suggested 'the Muslim ban' just because they don't like Muslims. It's a response to the real existence of terrorism being carried out by some Muslims.

People elect govts to protect them. It's one of the primary purposes of govt. If Muslims can't get in, then terrorists that are Muslims can't get in, and 'the people' are more protected from terrorists. It's a logical argument to construct.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea for all sorts of reasons, but it's still an idea that might fulfil one of the purposes of govt and within itself there is nothing wrong with it as that idea. Whether it's actually a good idea depends on weighing up any benefits against the downsides.

The USA is within its right to ban anyone or everyone it wants from entering the country (except its own citizens, perhaps), as are all sovereign states. Who any country might ban or allow is based only within what they wish to achieve by it. It's about a country's self interest before the interests of outsiders.

We might like the idea of 'citizen of the world' but we're a million miles from it existing even before Trump came along.

[Alex DeLarge]

14 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

There are many forms of jokes and joking. Impersonations are one of them.

Again, I'm not saying I liked it either, but are you saying disabled people are untouchable from ridicule or impersonation? Anyone who likes South Park would say they aren't - which is one of the best things about South Park. They make fun of everyone - just like comedy should be.

No, I  never said that, could you please quote where it was even implied in my post anything or anyone was free from ridicule? South Park don't have enough power to intimidate someone to suppress them. 

Quote

The point I was making, which I thought was clear with the Bremner comment, was that just because he makes a distasteful impression of someone, one time, doesn't constitute bullying and/or bigotry against all disabled people. Obviously 62 million people didn't seem to think so. But obviously Bremner is a liberal comic, so you don't get offended by his stuff.

I don't get 'offended' by Trump's """joke""" either, it was the way he used it to suppress the reporters opinions and make a mockery of him publicly for going against Trump's narrative.

Quote

Are you saying that no one can copy or do an impression of a disabled person ever again in any context?

No. I think it's disgusting to use someone's disability to shame and mock them publicly for disagreeing with you.

Quote

I'll use Bremner again, but just because he does an impression of Michael Howard and makes him out to be creepy and old, is that then bullying too, because it's ageist and anti-old men-ist and makes all old men out to be creepy? Should we start stopping all comedy because a few people might get offended?

Does it feel good fighting an imaginary war with those who want to take way freeze peach?  Because I think it's disgusting Trump bullied a reporter by mocking his disability, therefore I must agree with censoring comedy if someone gets offended. You need to cut the 'le SJW's!!!' arguments which go nowhere. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Alex DeLarge
as always, shit spelling

[zahidf]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Like it or not, 'the muslim ban' is a not off-this-planet response to the threat of Islamic terrorism. 

Remember, no one has suggested 'the Muslim ban' just because they don't like Muslims. It's a response to the real existence of terrorism being carried out by some Muslims.

People elect govts to protect them. It's one of the primary purposes of govt. If Muslims can't get in, then terrorists that are Muslims can't get in, and 'the people' are more protected from terrorists. It's a logical argument to construct.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea for all sorts of reasons, but it's still an idea that might fulfil one of the purposes of govt and within itself there is nothing wrong with it as that idea. Whether it's actually a good idea depends on weighing up any benefits against the downsides.

The USA is within its right to ban anyone or everyone it wants from entering the country (except its own citizens, perhaps), as are all sovereign states. Who any country might ban or allow is based only within what they wish to achieve by it. It's about a country's self interest before the interests of outsiders.

We might like the idea of 'citizen of the world' but we're a million miles from it existing even before Trump came along.

So a ban for all africans (i.e, black people) if there is a 1% chance of them being violent (more than the percentage of muslims who are terrorists) is also reasonable, all people who vote for it and those who propose it are reasonable, and if you protest, YOU are the real facist.

Gotcha

 

And a Muslim ban would disproportinately effect brown people.

 

Again NOT RACIST AT ALL

Edited November 22, 2016 by zahidf

[scrippit]

Neither Rory Bremner nor SouthPark were running for President. My daughter can make jokes about her disability with her friends, strangers can't. Especially those running for office. 

4 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

So, what has he said about all blacks, all Mexicans, all women, then?

Please, show your evidence.

I did. It was all in the Huffpost article. You are skimming everything and not considering your responses carefully.

Constant references to liberals and lefties are a dead give away when you are trying to understand the views of someone who you have never met. 

 

[Cornelius_Fudge]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

No, I  never said that, could you please quote where it was even implied in my post anything or anyone was free from ridicule? South Park don't have enough power to intimidate someone to suppress them. 

I don't get 'offended' by Trump's """joke""" either, it was the way he used it to suppress the reporters opinions and make a mockery of him publicly for going against Trump's narrative.

No. I think it's disgusting to use someone's disability to shame and mock them publicly for disagreeing with you.

Does it feel good fighting an imaginary war with those who want to take way freeze peach?  Because I think it's disgusting Trump bullied a reporter by mocking his disability, therefore I most agree with censoring comedy if someone gets offended. You need to cut the 'le SJW's!!!' arguments which go nowhere. 

You imply it because you say it's completely unacceptable for anyone to do. If that's not calling for a ban on something, then I don't know what it is.

Yes, I agree that it was bad taste - but he also did the same impersonation for Ted Cruz and someone else, with the gammy hands things. Again, I didn't say I liked it, but I wouldn't call it bullying, far from it.

But you understand the point I'm getting at that if you get offended by a joke and can have someone fired by it, then everyone realises all they need to do is get offended by it and get what they want. Exactly like those annoying SJW types who are in their college/university bubble.

Also, I know plenty of disabled people and they just want to be treated like anyone else - which means making jokes about them from time to time. 

Another point... There's a possiblity that my children might be blind one day because of a genetic disease from my wife, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sugarcoat everything and treat them differently and not make jokes about being blind.

They'll be treated like everyone else.

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

So a ban for all africans (i.e, black people) if there is a 1% chance of them being violent (more than the percentage of muslims who are terrorists) is also reasonable, all people who vote for it and those who propose it are reasonable, and if you protest, YOU are the real facist.

Gotcha

I'm saying it's quite reasonable to weigh up how advantageous a ban might be for a specific problem. :rolleyes:

If there was a big increase in violence and that violence could be pinned down to (invented situation) 80% of Norwegians being violent, then it would be quite reasonable to consider a ban on Norwegians.

What have you got, aside from your prejudicial view that I was coming from an only-racist angle? 

The racism here is all your own.

[Cornelius_Fudge]

4 minutes ago, scrippit said:

Neither Rory Bremner nor SouthPark were running for President. My daughter can make jokes about her disability with her friends, strangers can't. Especially those running for office. 

I did. It was all in the Huffpost article. You are skimming everything and not considering your responses carefully.

Constant references to liberals and lefties are a dead give away when you are trying to understand the views of someone who you have never met. 

 

And if your daughter pissed one of her friends off and they weren't strangers , would they be allowed to make a joke? Because believe it or not, you don't have that power to stop it either way.

You really like using the word all There was nothing in that Huffington Post article you posted that said all blacks, all Mexicans, all latinos etc - you're literally lying through your teeth and to yourself.

Just accusations and opinions. Nothing more.

[clarkete]

5 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Yes, I agree that it was bad taste - but he also did the same impersonation for Ted Cruz and someone else, with the gammy hands things. Again, I didn't say I liked it, but I wouldn't call it bullying, far from it.

 

"mock

mɒk/

verb

1. 1.

   tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner."

    

    

    

   Sounds like bullying to me. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by clarkete

[waterfalls212434]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Like it or not, 'the muslim ban' is a not off-this-planet response to the threat of Islamic terrorism. 

Remember, no one has suggested 'the Muslim ban' just because they don't like Muslims. It's a response to the real existence of terrorism being carried out by some Muslims.

People elect govts to protect them. It's one of the primary purposes of govt. If Muslims can't get in, then terrorists that are Muslims can't get in, and 'the people' are more protected from terrorists. It's a logical argument to construct.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea for all sorts of reasons, but it's still an idea that might fulfil one of the purposes of govt and within itself there is nothing wrong with it as that idea. Whether it's actually a good idea depends on weighing up any benefits against the downsides.

The USA is within its right to ban anyone or everyone it wants from entering the country (except its own citizens, perhaps), as are all sovereign states. Who any country might ban or allow is based only within what they wish to achieve by it. It's about a country's self interest before the interests of outsiders.

We might like the idea of 'citizen of the world' but we're a million miles from it existing even before Trump came along.

It would be pretty laughable if american enacted a so called `ban` because of this,.....there is more right wing terrorism in the us then any other kind....only they dont call it terrorism its always a `lone gunman` or a `mentally disturbed loner` or a `militia member`

Its lazy politics anyway cant be bothered to think of a solution where the good are distinguished from the bad so just `ban everybody`......and its as stupid as if Christians had been banned in such a way during the 70s because of the fear of them being ira members, you dont punish the majority for the actions of the minority.....if you do then the terrorists have won anyway, because such division is exactly what they aim to accomplish. 

Thats what all these anti immigrant anti muslim preachers dont seem to understand, they may as well be promoting isis propaganda as they are helping these people accomplish exactly what they want to accomplish, they want people to turn on one another, they want muslims to feel stereotyped and abused as that aids in their recruitment, they want to create division and cause predjudice, hate, fear and mistrust.

Edited November 22, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[Cornelius_Fudge]

1 minute ago, clarkete said:

"mock

mɒk/

verb

1. 1.

   tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner."

    

    

    

   Sounds like bullying too me. 

Mocking sounds like mocking.

Alex Baldwin did a great mocking impression of Trump once. Maybe he should get sacked too.

But that wouldn't suit your argument I guess

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 minute ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Mocking sounds like mocking.

Alex Baldwin did a great mocking impression of Trump once. Maybe he should get sacked too.

But that wouldn't suit your argument I guess

Out of interest how would you feel if if he mocked someone's race or sexuality in the same way? perhaps by putting on a voice, maybe an African or Indian accent, or camp hand gestures? that fair game too in that context?

[Cornelius_Fudge]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Out of interest how would you feel if if he mocked someone's race or sexuality in the same way? perhaps by putting on a voice, maybe an African or Indian accent, or camp hand gestures? that fair game too in that context?

Are you joking? Is that sarcasm?

Because no one has ever mocked or done an impersonation of an accent before?

I'm sorry, I really can't tell if you're being serious.

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm saying it's quite reasonable to weigh up how advantageous a ban might be for a specific problem.

If there was a big increase in violence and that violence could be pinned down to (invented situation) 80% of Norwegians being violent, then it would be quite reasonable to consider a ban on Norwegians.

What have you got, aside from your prejudicial view that I was coming from an only-racist angle? 

The racism here is all your own.

But there hasnt been a big increase in violence. % wise, muslims from abroad havent caused a massive increase in violence.

Sessions knows this. So i consider his and trumps support of a muslim ban to be based in racism. Much like the 80's sus laws

[Zoo Music Girl]

Just now, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Are you joking? Is that sarcasm?

Because no one has ever mocked or done an impersonation of an accent before?

I'm sorry, I really can't tell if you're being serious.

Genuine question. just wondered if you'd consider a racist or homophobic impression bullying when done in that context. I guess not?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

It would be pretty laughable if american enacted a so called `ban` because of this,.....there is more right wing terrorism in the us then any other kind....only they dont call it terrorism its always a `lone gunman` or a `mentally disturbed loner` or a `militia member`

I agree, it would be laughable if the USA implemented a ban on Muslims entering the USA because of the threat of terrorists being amongst them.

But only because the threat of that is very low, and the measure is extreme against that low threat. If 90% of Muslims entering the USA were terrorists, it would start to look like a much more justified measure.

I'm accepting that a ban in response to a threat is a reasonable consideration, not that this suggested ban is a good idea.... but a ban that no one seems to think is going to happen, I'll point out. The register perhaps, but not the ban by the look of things.

 

2 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Its lazy politics anyway cant be bothered to think of a solution where the good are distinguished from the bad so just `ban everybody`......and its as stupid as if Christians had been banned in such a way during the 70s because of the fear of them being ira members, you dont punish the majority for the actions of the minority.....if you do then the terrorists have won, because such division is exactly what they aim to accomplish.

It's not about "punishment". All countries have the right to control who enters, and they do so for their own protection. It's part of what being a sovereign state is about.

It's a stupid measure, if it were implemented. It's not about "punishment".

[scrippit]

3 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

And if your daughter pissed one of her friends off and they weren't strangers , would they be allowed to make a joke? Because believe it or not, you don't have that power to stop it either way.

You really like using the word all There was nothing in that Huffington Post article you posted that said all blacks, all Mexicans, all latinos etc - you're literally lying through your teeth and to yourself.

Just accusations and opinions. Nothing more.

My daughter is growing up with a very realistic view of the world and the difficulties she will undoubtedly face. Most of her friends are also disabled and yes, they can have a joke. She will, however, meet many 'innocent joke' apologists like you and I am preparing her for that.

The article by Huffpost has a whole chapter titled 'He treats racial groups as monoliths'. You are trying to attribute stuff to me incorrectly. I have not mentioned hate in connection with the quote you keep returning to. 

I am clear about where you're sympathies lie. Let's leave it at that. There is room for different views, provided those views do not promote hate and injustice against a specific group. In which case I reserve my right to call them out.

[waterfalls212434]

Just now, eFestivals said:

I agree, it would be laughable if the USA implemented a ban on Muslims entering the USA because of the threat of terrorists being amongst them.

But only because the threat of that is very low, and the measure is extreme against that low threat. If 90% of Muslims entering the USA were terrorists, it would start to look like a much more justified measure.

I'm accepting that a ban in response to a threat is a reasonable consideration, not that this suggested ban is a good idea.... but a ban that no one seems to think is going to happen, I'll point out. The register perhaps, but not the ban by the look of things.

 

It's not about "punishment". All countries have the right to control who enters, and they do so for their own protection. It's part of what being a sovereign state is about.

It's a stupid measure, if it were implemented. It's not about "punishment".

It may not be about punishment to the nation involved but it does punish those who have done nothing wrong yet pay for the actions of those who did.

[Cornelius_Fudge]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Genuine question. just wondered if you'd consider a racist or homophobic impression bullying when done in that context. I guess not?

If it was an Indian guy, I guess for authenticity he would have to put on an Indian accent, yeah.

If it was a gay guy with a high pitched voice, then I guess he would do the voice as high as possible, yeah.

If it was a redneck straight white guy, I suppose he would try and sound like a redneck, straight white guy, yeah.

Why make special allowances? Either all jokes are okay, or none of them are. Which isn't the same as finding them funny or not. You're obviously free enough to know your own sense of humour.

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 minute ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

If it was an Indian guy, I guess for authenticity he would have to put on an Indian accent, yeah.

If it was a gay guy with a high pitched voice, then I guess he would do the voice as high as possible, yeah.

If it was a redneck straight white guy, I suppose he would try and sound like a redneck, straight white guy, yeah.

Why make special allowances? Either all jokes are okay, or none of them are. Which isn't the same as finding them funny or not. You're obviously free enough to know your own sense of humour.

Thanks for answering. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But there hasnt been a big increase in violence. % wise, muslims from abroad havent caused a massive increase in violence.

There's no question about there being a threat to the USA.

There's also no questoin about some Muslims from outside certain countries are bringing terrorism into those countries. That part of things is 100% true.

Govts control their borders to protect their citizens from external threats. That's what sovereignty and govts are all about.

The question specifically about the USA in reaching a conclusion over whether a ban on Muslims entering is all about whether the measure actually brings about better protection.

There's no question about there being a threat.

 

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Sessions knows this. So i consider his and trumps support of a muslim ban to be based in racism. Much like the 80's sus laws

The 80s sus laws weren't based in racism. Long existing anti-vagrancy laws were applied in a racist manner.

If Trump's support for a Muslim ban was solely racist he'd have no need to give the context of a terrorist threat, a threat that only an idiot would say wasn't real.

The size of that threat is something that could be endlessly argued over, but the fact of a threat is real.

Americans do not have to accept that threat if they don't wish to. That's how the world works and will always work.

Whether or not responding to this current level of threat with a ban is a reasonable thing to do is something else entirely.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

It may not be about punishment to the nation involved but it does punish those who have done nothing wrong yet pay for the actions of those who did.

yep, but as far as Americans within America are concerned - or any countrymen within any country - their safety as citizens is a higher priority than outsiders who have no rights to come into the country.

It's then all down to a consideration of whether the benefits make the measure worthwhile.

if you think that's unreasonable, I guess your house is open to all-comers and not just those you already know and trust.

[Cornelius_Fudge]

25 minutes ago, scrippit said:

My daughter is growing up with a very realistic view of the world and the difficulties she will undoubtedly face. Most of her friends are also disabled and yes, they can have a joke. She will, however, meet many 'innocent joke' apologists like you and I am preparing her for that.

The article by Huffpost has a whole chapter titled 'He treats racial groups as monoliths'. You are trying to attribute stuff to me incorrectly. I have not mentioned hate in connection with the quote you keep returning to. 

I am clear about where you're sympathies lie. Let's leave it at that. There is room for different views, provided those views do not promote hate and injustice against a specific group. In which case I reserve my right to call them out.

That's good about your daughter. I hope she's never bullied for real.

Once, again, I've said each time I don't like the joke either, but I'm merely explaining that it's an impersonation and what one might find funny, another won't.

Comedy is like that and we all have different senses of humour.

You said it like it was your own comment so no wonder I thought you had said it. If you just copied it from the Huffington Post then I apologise, but I still think it's a lie and a cop out to think that. And obviously you were using it in a negative way so the implication that you think it's because he hates certain groups wasn't a hard connection to make.

Of course call out them out - but just try and call the true bigotry out. Like the National Policy Institute.

A joke is a joke, not an ideology.

And also, if you think you can sum someone's character up on the basis of a few posts on a forum, then I'd be surprised. I don't think you know anything about me

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Cornelius_Fudge

[Cornelius_Fudge]

14 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Thanks for answering. 

Are you not going to do the polite thing and answer too?

Edited November 22, 2016 by Cornelius_Fudge