The tolerance thread

[bjj hero]

After reading the now thankfully locked "So fat" thread it got me thinking.

Which groups deserve special protection?

Race, gender and, sexuality and more increasingly disability are now protected under discrimination law. You could expect to get the ban hammer for dropping the N bomb... but not for calling someone ginger.

Which groups deserve additional protection? What should the criteria be for discrimination?

Do fat people, ginger people, goths, emo kids, faith groups, political affiliations, furry's, people with big ears, short people etc fit into this group? I read someone being called fat compared to a hate crime today? Is this accurate? Is the term carrot top also a hate crime?

You thoughts please and can we keep it civil...

 

[El Poncho]

Penguins, they come over to represent Antarica in today's international politics, and what do we do? Throw them in a zoo, once they get nukes we are fucked.

unless rape victims count. cause joking about actually rape victims is fucked up.

I c wot u did thar.

 

[Woodsey]

Being called fat isn't a hate crime.

Anyway, I wouldn't say any of the groups listed need additional protection. You're just going to get into every single variation and have to have that set as discrimination law.

If you can't be discriminated against because of race, gender and religion then that's fine by me. I will say that if you're applying for a job and you're a goth (or whatever else) then you will be discriminated against, and I don't actually see much problem with that - especially if you're going for a job that puts you in front of the public.

I don't think we need a law in place to specifically protect gingers.

 

[Omikron009]

No groups should have special protection from discrimination, because if another group didn't have the same protection it would be discriminatory. See why I hate political correctness?

 

[BonsaiK]

Which groups deserve special protection?

None.

Tolerance should be taught, not legislated.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Well, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that calling someone "fat" or calling them "carrot top" was a hate crime. Certainly it's rude, but we live in a world full of so many shitty horrible things that honestly, saying something rude hardly qualifies as a crime. To use the term "hate crime" that way dilutes the term, considering the genuinely serious crimes it ought to be applied to.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we should be rude, or even encourage or allow rudeness in our forums. One of the many things I love about The Escapist forums is that we do have intelligent conversations here, and they don't break down into flame wars all too often. Of course there's some occassional rudeness, but my observation has been that anyone making personal attacks on others tends to suffer moderator wrath, and I'd say that's a good thing. Nonetheless, let's not go comparing rudeness to a hate crime.

 

[Lust]

Yes...............I need protection because I'm 5'9".........people are mean to me. :'(

 

[The Hairminator]

These laws are just silly, you can't protect some and lead the rest to fend for themselves. I say remove all of these laws, and just put a ban on general insults. Or maybe just DELTE FUCKING EVERYTHING AND STOP BEING SO BUTTHURT.

Except handicapped people, you shouldn't be able to insult them since they actually are inferior, and that'd just be cruel. I do however think handicapped faetuses should be aborted as soon as they are discovered.

 

[L4hlborg]

I think they should focus on finding a way to make people more tollerant, rather than forcing people to act like they're tollerant.

 

[Keava]

In ideal environment no one would need additional protection because no one would mess with others beliefs. Ignorance, breeds stupidity, which in turn breeds prejudice. If people could just go about their own business, and avoid harming each other in any way, it would be great.

To achieve such nirvana, however, it is not protection that is needed, but actual eduction, alongside with all the math formulas, chemistry reactions or geology mechanism, educate people in social co-existence. Any form of prejudice is always based on lack of knowledge, all hate speeches are more likely to affect uneducated people that refuse to even try to understand different points of view.

There is a simple rule, to quote once more de Sade from "Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man"
The entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands.

 

[Jack_Uzi]

none. guard one, you must guard them all, or they'll say this, and thus try as hard as they can to break that protection.

it simply won't work.

unless rape victims count. cause joking about actually rape victims is fucked up.

I was thinking on how to formulate my line here, but what you said works fine for me. I also think that puting a group in protection makes the implication that they are weak and can't defend themself and also, as above mentioned, it can cause a form of envy because other groups may think they need it too. This both can lead to more fuel to the fire of frictions.
Everyone has been upset by something said or done that they stand for, but we should either debate about it or rise above it.

 

[Lawyer105]

No groups should have special protection from discrimination, because if another group didn't have the same protection it would be discriminatory. See why I hate political correctness?

This. Personally, I think even the race / gender / religion stuff is going too far. Anybody that plans to discriminate based on those factors will simply find another way to achieve the same goal without directly involving the 'forbidden topics'.

Unless the governments set up some sort of anti-prejudice thought-crime thingy (which is completely unworkable anyway), you're not going to stop people being prejudiced.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I think that people are overly sensitive nowadays. PCness has taken over the world. Obviously there needs to be a line somewhere but the term 'hate crime' is thrown around way too much. Everyone needs to relax a bit and take things with a pinch of salt, especially on the internet.

Although I don't agree with how abusive people can be towards obese people I don't think it should be in the same category as race, gender, sexuality and most disabilities. Apart from a very rare number of cases obesity is self inflicted so I think that's why they become an easy target. Also those who do attack people purely for being obese obviously have some serious insecurities themselves so it's shouldn't be something to get to excited over. In probably 90% of cases I doubt it reaches 'hate crime' level.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Do fat people, ginger people, goths, emo kids, faith groups, political affiliations, furry's, people with big ears, short people etc fit into this group? I read someone being called fat compared to a hate crime today? Is this accurate? Is the term carrot top also a hate crime?

Hate crime is a pretty stupid idea. The ideal future is one where we can all take the piss out of one another in a friendly way without screaming accusations of hatred. It'll never happen, of course, but I don't think legislating what is (and is not) hatred is the way to go.

 

[Lucifron]

None. No group deserves or requires any sort of special attention. As was said, guard one, guard all. Anti-discrimination laws/sentiments catering to specific groups are one of the worst facets of today's constantly offended society. Blech.

 

[Valksy]

You know, we wouldn't need any anti-discrimination laws if people would keep a fucking civil tongue in their head and restrain themselves from acting like a fucking fuckwit.

Honestly, I don't get the ginger thing cited by the OP. So someone's hair is a different colour, it isn't my hair, it isn't anything to do with me so I just don't fucking bother making an issue of it.

 

[Epitome]

I thought the general rule of thumb was the degree of control a person has over what ever sets them apart, with additional emphasis on traditional racisim/percieved threat/highlighting of tormenters insecurities or shortcomings.

As for the degree of control, its the race/gender problem, in teh eyes of all civilised laws all people are born equal. So we shouldnt allow blantent bigotry to occur because it undermines the principles of our society. Even if you have a right to say undervalue women, you can think that all you want. But to actively punish or deprive a woman of any rights (ie right to work) by say not hiring her because she is a woman should not be tolerated because it violates the principles that we as a society agreed upon.

Then you have teh level of control problem, ie "emos" or "faith groups". For me it depends on how these groups try and impose themselves upon other groups. Take fringe religeons like scientology who allegedly funnel funds from their members, or die hard catholic groups that advocate "abstinence only" education or radical practicioners of religeons who warp texts to try and advocate some kind of holy war. By their own destructive nature these groups need to be highlighted and targeted. There is a difference between peddling opinion and pushing misinformation. I had a faith group come to my school before and tell us as horny teenagers that if we dared use a condom we were defying Gods will and would go to hell. That the ONLY way was to wait until marrige. While abstinece may be a noble goal for some its simply not realistic on a grand scale in modern society and teaching kids not to have safe sex is destructive. So these groups get targeted, their opinions can remain their own but their information must be corrected before it is parroted by the unsuspecting.

Then you have the groups that get targeted for what they make their oppressors feel. Fat people who make vain people insecure because they could never be comfortable no matter and wish they could be happy with how they look. This goes on into bullying, when one group is trodden down by egocentrics who get some sense of accomplishment or ego boost from pointing our percieved "flaws" in others and then declaring themselves superior. These people are douches, they have a right to their opinion, but I am entitled to think your a dickhead if you are predisposed to not like somebody because they have ginger hair or are 20lbs overweight.

As for who deserves protection no groups should have an automatic entitlement, but all people should be protected by the laws within teh principles for which they exist. Hypothetically denying a ginger person a right is on par with denying a black person their rights, therefore if a black person refused to give a ginger person a job because he/she was ginger then they are guilty of discrimination. I would enjoy a system that was truly equal. Still its a pipedream I fear.

 

[Ekit]

Race, gender and, sexuality and more increasingly disability are now protected under discrimination law.

There is seriously a discrimination law?

OT: No group deserves special protection because that would be discriminating towards the groups that don't get special protection.

 

[Borntolose]

Either No one should get special protection, or everyone should. And if everyone does, then it's effectively the same as no one. So I'm gonna go with no one should get special protection.

 

[Twilight_guy]

How about instead of tolerance and defending groups we learn to all just accept each other for the messed weirdos we are. Additional protection for one group implies a lose of protection for another. Aren't all people equal? don't we all deserve equal protection and acceptance? I think someday people will understand that we are all the same, with different origins and histories but in essence the same. Now I have to go sing "we are the world" and finish my day by punching kittens for a few hours to even out the balance of the universe from my spewing all of this sappy nonsense.