Liverpool FC Forum

by **RedAnt** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:08 am

Bit of a minefield topic this, but I think it's food for thought.

Why is it acceptable to scream hatred at racists, chant, boo, single them out, hang them out to dry, beat 'em up in the streets?

Why is it unacceptable to be racist, to have strong beliefs and to stand by those beliefs, voice those beliefs, fight for those beliefs, to never conform to the masses? Don't racists have rights too that tehy're at liberty to express? They may often express it violently, but they also recieve the same.

Why is it ok to be gay, but to be homophobic is suddenly immoral biggotry?

What are equal rights and liberty?

Why does liberty only work one way?

Should equality only apply when equality is applicable, or should equality extend to all wether they're equal or not?

I'm not racist, or homophobic, nor do I bear any other predjudice. The questions above (though not very well put) are things I often think about. I think healthy debate can open peoples minds to things they'd not considered before. Anyone else think about this stuff?

by **neil** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:30 am

Hitler, Nazis. An utter evil born out of prejudice that still scars countries, spooks economies, effects think tanks and policy makers, and, probably quite rightly.

by **Boocity** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:20 am

Racism, bigotry, homophobia will never be wiped out around the world (lets not forget that racism is not only one way) and stupid laws like the one JT is being taken to court over do not help, they just inflame the situation further and breed resentment.

by **RedAnt** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:38 pm

It will be interesting to see how the FA deal with Capello's replacement. Someone stated this in the "Capello Quits" thread. The FA may now be morally obliged to interview several 'token foreigners' wether they have any intention of employing them or not. And it can be argued that this in itself is a form of racism, to say 'We are interviewing you because you're foreign'. Of course they'd never say that. Thinking it isn't racist, but to say it would be racist. That seems rather backwards to me.

Political correctness has been a curse for a long time now. When in the eyes of the media, or the public, we have to tread very carefully. Even this thread i'm typing in right now, my mind has to be constantly alert, censoring my thoughts and words.

My personal views on foreign policies, sexual preferances, race, religion..they're watered down by political correctness, at least outwardly. Within me they're much the same as they always were.

The recent Saurez-Evra incident is the perfect example to illustrate that racism isn't an intention. It's a perception. That's to say that whatever we say, wether we intend to offend or not is really quite irrelevant. A person can choose to take offence, even when not offended at all. Political correctness not only allows this, but also encourages it.

I find that rather frightening.

by **dawson99** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:44 pm

You have mobos but no mowos

Graham Norton and other gay comics can be as pervy as they like but straight guys cant

thats just the way it is

by **RedSi35** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:03 pm

Guh a serious topic

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:22 pm

RedAnt wrote:Bit of a minefield topic this, but I think it's food for thought.

Why is it acceptable to scream hatred at racists, chant, boo, single them out, hang them out to dry, beat 'em up in the streets?

Why is it unacceptable to be racist, to have strong beliefs and to stand by those beliefs, voice those beliefs, fight for those beliefs, to never conform to the masses? Don't racists have rights too that tehy're at liberty to express? They may often express it violently, but they also recieve the same.

Why is it ok to be gay, but to be homophobic is suddenly immoral biggotry?

What are equal rights and liberty?

Why does liberty only work one way?

Should equality only apply when equality is applicable, or should equality extend to all wether they're equal or not?

I'm not racist, or homophobic, nor do I bear any other predjudice. The questions above (though not very well put) are things I often think about. I think healthy debate can open peoples minds to things they'd not considered before. Anyone else think about this stuff?

Racism, homophobia, etc are example of prejudice.

Prejudice is the extreme form of judging a book by its cover. It is predominantly based on falsehoods, especially when applied to racism.

The moment racism is proved a valid viewpoint the abuse of racists will stop.

by **RedAnt** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:05 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:Racism, homophobia, etc are example of prejudice.

Prejudice is the extreme form of judging a book by its cover. It is predominantly based on falsehoods, especially when applied to racism.

The moment racism is proved a valid viewpoint the abuse of racists will stop.

This is kind of my point. I must stress, I don't agree with predjudism in any shape or form, but all are entitled to a voice and a defence in liberal countries.

Who claims that a racists views are invalid? The masses? Are we not then guilty of the same bigotry for singling out a minority of racists, or homophobes and targetting them for abuse or refusing to allow them to practise their own beliefs?

There was a case not so long back down in the south somewhere where a Christian couple ran a B&B. Another couple phoned for a room and were accepted. They arrived...two men. The owners of the B&B turned them away. They claimed that homosexuality is against Christian teachings. The two gay men won the case in court. This eldery couple were charged with homophobia and hate crimes for standing by their relgious beliefs. Would the outcome of this case have been the same had the owners of the B&B been Muslims for example? If they HAD been muslims, suddenly the whole situation changes. The courts would have to tread very, very carefully, else they too would be in trouble for those same crimes.

The Suarez-Evra situation is yet again an example that can be used to illustrate how when a situation is poorly dealt with, it simply exasperates the problem. Ever since this case racism has suddenly become a big issue again. And from my own experiences, most are siding with Saurez. (or maybe just going against the FA and Manure

)

by **RedAnt** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:13 pm

This really is a dangerous topic and I understand if the mods wanna close it. But in light of recent events, i'd hoped to inspire deeper thoughts into the roots of predjudice and what it actually means as opposed to how many authorative bodies percieve it.

by **metalhead** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:31 pm

RedSi35 wrote:Guh a serious topic

I'll add my view in this topic when I feel like it..

by **7_Kewell** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:02 pm

RedAnt wrote:This really is a dangerous topic and I understand if the mods wanna close it. But in light of recent events, i'd hoped to inspire deeper thoughts into the roots of predjudice and what it actually means as opposed to how many authorative bodies percieve it.

One of the (many) reasons racism isn’t tolerated is because it preaches hatred, prejudice and intolerance. If we (as a society) openly tolerated racism then it would in a sense legitimise it, which is a dangerous thing as anyone who has studied fascism and its rise in the 1930s will tell you.

In relation to the B&B couple,,,,it wasn’t their views against homosexuality that was wrong...it was running a business and openly discriminating against sections of the public -was illigal. Those laws were brought in to stop the hotel trade putting up signs saying “no blacks, no Irish”, which was common practise 20 years ago.

by **worcester_red** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:41 pm

I think the point is that racism, homophobia or xenophobia are not valid viewpoints as they are hateful but like it or not the vast majority of people are and always will be prejudice, it's just that nowadays nobody dares admit to it.

I find it rather bizarre though though that what passes for comedy these days is far more filled with bile and hate than any of the 70's comics ever did. Take for example Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle who are incredibly cruel and hurtful, directly at specific people, whereas the crude and cringeworthy soft racism of the 70's comics surely didn't do anybody any particular harm although that to was of course wrong.

by **RedSi35** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:45 pm

metalhead wrote:
RedSi35 wrote:Guh a serious topic

I'll add my view in this topic when I feel like it..

I'll add mine when i have something intelligent to say :lookaround

by **dawson99** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:19 am

Is calling something rubbish 'gay' homophobic? I say that all the time, in front of my sister, who is gay. she don't mind... people need to chill out

by **RedAnt** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:50 am

One problem is the media's habit of putting an extreme spin on everything. If someone was to say "I don't like homosexuality" that would be translated as "I hate puffs". Or if someone said "There's too many foreigners in this country" that would translate as "I'm BNP. Get the foreigners out!". We're almost forced to agree with things, and if we don't agree with something, we have to pretend we do or simply never speak of it, and yet those who are FOR it are at liberty to yell it from the rooftops and accuse those who are against it of hate crimes and predjudice.

Liverpool FC Forum

Liberty, equality and predjudice..

Who is online