TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Madgull, with that angry rant you are displaying much of the ignorance, bigotry, racism and extremism which you see in the views of those with whom you disagree, which I’m sure you do not intend. Exaggerations, half-truths, a distorted and selective view of history, and personal attacks (including fallaciously attributing attitudes or statements to them which they have not displayed), do nothing to advance your own particular position in the discussion. I believe you’re better than that.

Where to begin? The Jews? Jews are moneygrabbers? All stereotypes contain a grain of truth, this one probably originating centuries ago in the Jewish practice of usury (moneylending at exorbitant rates) simply as a way to survive, in response to the historical social discrimination and legal restrictions placed upon Jews merely because Jews were a religious minority who dared to be different and ‘alien’. This can be seen in ‘The Merchant of Venice’, for which some misguided people declared Shakespeare to be anti-Semitic. The same misguidedness with which you appear to accuse others on this thread of racism, and with which religious and political ideologues attack anyone who dares to question or criticise or lampoon the prevailing group-think.

It’s ironic that a number of French Jews, fearing for their safety following the latest atrocities in Paris, are fleeing to the security of Israel, a state which, since it’s creation (and before, thanks to Zionist terrorism) has been driving Palestinians from their land and homes to make space for Jewish settlers. As much as anything else, this situation, and the unquestioning support of the USA for successive Israeli Government policies, has created the Arab grievances which have led to the growth of extreme Muslim groups.

As I tried to indicate earlier, to be offensive or insulting, to mock, ridicule and lampoon, even to perpetuate stereotypes, is actually a question of the degree to which one exercises common decency, good taste, courtesy and good manners. A healthy society copes with all this, even responds in kind, without resorting to accusations of extremism, racism, sexism, bigotry or whatever. Where the line is crossed, as all civilised people would agree, is in the making of threats, the inciting of hatred, violence and discrimination, and of course the resulting despicable acts committed by religious and political extremists. It would be a victory for these ideological fanatics if our society resorted to self-censorship, or worse, in order to appease their bullying. If nothing else, history has shown that such appeasement never works.

Can you see the difference? Or (to ask your own question) are you really so stupid..?? I don’t think you are; I hope not. Simply a lack of clear thinking, due to the lateness of the hour and perhaps a little too much imbibing..??

"This week we have rightly seen a dramatic upsurge in those demanding freedom of expression after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. But yesterday Frankie Boyle tweeted: “I’m reading a defence of free speech in a paper that tried to have me arrested and charged with obscenity for making a joke about the Queen”. Therein lies the rub: does freedom of speech mean freedom of all speech? Or must it come from a carefully edited, pre-approved list, like Adolf Hitler’s, al-Qaeda’s or even the BBC’s?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... umour.html

Gullscorer wrote:Madgull, with that angry rant you are displaying much of the ignorance, bigotry, racism and extremism which you see in the views of those with whom you disagree, which I’m sure you do not intend. Exaggerations, half-truths, a distorted and selective view of history, and personal attacks (including fallaciously attributing attitudes or statements to them which they have not displayed), do nothing to advance your own particular position in the discussion. I believe you’re better than that.

1) Nice evocative statement. No examples given of how this is true.

Gullscorer wrote: Where to begin? The Jews? Jews are moneygrabbers? All stereotypes contain a grain of truth, this one probably originating centuries ago in the Jewish practice of usury (moneylending at exorbitant rates) simply as a way to survive, in response to the historical social discrimination and legal restrictions placed upon Jews merely because Jews were a religious minority who dared to be different and ‘alien’. This can be seen in ‘The Merchant of Venice’, for which some misguided people declared Shakespeare to be anti-Semitic. The same misguidedness with which you appear to accuse others on this thread of racism, and with which religious and political ideologues attack anyone who dares to question or criticise or lampoon the prevailing group-think.

2) Funny, people keep saying that it makes you racist to say this, yet they're wrong because...it isn't racist. This is not an argument, this is just disagreement. Please click me. As it happens, 1 also fits into 'responding to tone'.

Gullscorer wrote: It’s ironic that a number of French Jews, fearing for their safety following the latest atrocities in Paris, are fleeing to the security of Israel, a state which, since it’s creation (and before, thanks to Zionist terrorism) has been driving Palestinians from their land and homes to make space for Jewish settlers. As much as anything else, this situation, and the unquestioning support of the USA for successive Israeli Government policies, has created the Arab grievances which have led to the growth of extreme Muslim groups.

I doubt we are actually that far apart on the issue of Zionism, but not really relevant.

Gullscorer wrote: As I tried to indicate earlier, to be offensive or insulting, to mock, ridicule and lampoon, even to perpetuate stereotypes, is actually a question of the degree to which one exercises common decency, good taste, courtesy and good manners. A healthy society copes with all this, even responds in kind, without resorting to accusations of extremism, racism, sexism, bigotry or whatever. Where the line is crossed, as all civilised people would agree, is in the making of threats, the inciting of hatred, violence and discrimination, and of course the resulting despicable acts committed by religious and political extremists. It would be a victory for these ideological fanatics if our society resorted to self-censorship, or worse, in order to appease their bullying. If nothing else, history has shown that such appeasement never works.

Can you see the difference? Or (to ask your own question) are you really so stupid..?? I don’t think you are; I hope not. Simply a lack of clear thinking, due to the lateness of the hour and perhaps a little too much imbibing..??

Let me phrase it succintly:

Believing that different races have 'characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races' is, LITERALLY by definition, racism. Saying that Jews are money-grabbers fits this perfectly. Saying racist things is not okay. That is probably a better way of phrasing my argument :na:

From one inebriated insomniac to another, not a bad effort Madgull ( :~D ), and we are probably not that far apart in some respects. I would add, however, that the definition of racism found in the dictionary does not define which aspects of racism are, or should be, illegal. For that we must look to politics and the law and to questions of ethics and morality.

I would contend that it is only where racism (as defined in the dictionary) in practice becomes prejudice, discrimination, antagonism, violence, or incitement to hatred, that it should be illegal, even criminal. And remember that remedies may be available in civil law as well as in criminal law.

Offensiveness alone, whether racist (such as 'Jews are money-grabbers') or otherwise, may well be 'not okay', but, in the absence of the aforementioned practical effects and despicable motives, is something we should legally be able to accept and deal with, not simply for the sake of free speech, but as part of the normal social discourse which makes for a healthy society.

What is regarded as offensive, and where to draw the line, is a matter of personal opinion. But even if that opinion is a minority of one, if we cannot discuss such things because offensiveness is banned or because opposing or obnoxious views are silenced, if we cannot decide for ourselves, I dread to think who will make the decisions and draw the line for us.

The first act of censorship, even if well-intended (and that, too, is a matter of opinion), is the first step along the road to totalitarianism.

You're not wrong about when it should be illegal.

However, we're not talking about what is and isn't legal, but what is deemed acceptable by the rules of the FA. Spreading racist messages is not acceptable according to the FA, thus he was charged.

What I take issue with is that he has been given a far softer punishment than an offence based around missing a drugs test.