Sentencing

D

dorihnnt1

New member
Maybe you shouldn't?
How about substituting for the word "ponce"?
Do you call actual people gay or a fag, write it on them and then set them on fire?



No that would be racist. Just because it's very insulting and you are angry and purposefully trying to insult someone doesn't make it somehow magically less racist.
"It's OK I'm not racist I'm just trying to really insult you"
"Well that's OK then...I'm not trying to hurt you I just happen to be punching you in the face"

People get harsher treatment if they attack someone AND use racial, homophobic or hateful language.
It's different to just being angry with an individual.



Here's an idea...how about we try and create a world where that DOESN'T happen?
Where people moderate their behaviour if someone that doesn't want to be involved could end up dead?
That'd be nice wouldn't it?
 
A

AlexisInfectious®

Active member
Which is another insulting word for gay so how is it any better? And I use it still because I think stopping people using a word is what then gives the word power because it becomes a taboo. Words' meaning changes over time. If I call a mate a fag I'm not actually calling him gay as such, my intent is that he's being a twit.

Also why all the issue with fag? The way insults work is that they imply negative connotations or characteristics which means you need to pick some traits to call bad. If I call someone a female dog I'm implying there's something weak or wrong with female dogs. If I call someone a tosser then I'm implying there's something wrong with masturbation. If I call someone any of the synononyms for a vagina I'm suggesting there's soemthing wrong with those or having one. Same if I use any of the many colourful words we have for a penis.

I understand that homosexual terms are a bit more in the spotlight now since they're the current big civil rights topic but, for the reason I just gave, I don't believe in those terms getting special treatment. I certainly don't accept that me using a certain word overules my actual feelings on homosexuality that I've made pretty clear on MAP before.


Its my favourite pass time

Seriously, if we're already going to go down this crappy road where you make points like that then I'll make this my last reply on the subject. The fact I don't accept censorship of certain words does not equate with me agreeing to physically harm the person that word happens to reference. Thought that would of been kinda obvious.


No I accept its still racism but my point is it doesn't automatically make it a hate crime. Legally yes, because its quite easy otherwise to say "Oh I was just saying something in the heat of the moment" but in reality? No. Its possible I just don't understand what a hate crime actually is but to me that's when you commit a crime specifically out of hate. As in if I had attacked someone purely for the reason that he was black or homosexual. Me using a certain word doesn't change the motive for an action or undo any of the previous actions (as in if the other person had actually started the whole thing, not me) it just means I've been quite nasty in my attempts to insult someone.


Insult versus physical harm. Completely different things to me.


I accept that. I don't see what alternative the police have until we can read people's minds.


No its not. If I'm angry at someone and I want to insult them chances are I'll want to insult them in the worst way I can. If they're overweight I'd use that. If I called someone fat before I hit them would it automatically mean it was a hate crime and I just can't stand fat people?


Says in the article the victim was joking along with it. Obviously the fact he was mentally handicapped throws that a bit. I can think of a lot of things in the world that would be nice if they didn't happen but the reality is it does happen. We do have complete idiots in the world and that's not going to change. For all we know the fact he killed someone shocked some sense into the lighter guy. I'm not saying he should escape any form of punishment either. What I am saying is that I don't get the impression from that article that he intended to kill someone and in my mind that seperates him from other murderers who set out with specific intent.
 
R

RichR

Member
My point is that a decent guy like you calling his mate a "fag" because he's tired in training (or however you use it) is different to this story.
I don't agree with how you use it either but I feel you are looking your low level "acceptable" use of the word "gay" (as knock about lad humour) and putting this in the same category.
I'm saying that writing on the dude, putting oil on him and setting him on fire changes it from a casual "Heh you fag" to something more serious.
I made that point badly. Sorry about that.

Obviously I know you aren't a bad sort.
But I still think you should stop using the words fag, gay and nigger. You're better than than.



Ponce has much less gay undertones than gay or fag.
A ponce is a pimp. Someone that doesn't pull their weight. Someone who is wimpy and uses other people.
A ponce is different to being gay.
Popularise it!
 
J

jethrohung

Member
No need to apologise. Joys of the internet. I should of made clear that I was seperating the two and making a general point about the use of language, not defending the specific person in the story.



Nigger I don't actually use unless its in my head after watching a lot of katt Williams and then it just slips in there. Interestingly in my head I've always used it to refer to myself or another white person. I'm weird like that. I also don't tend to use fag in public. Its slips out when I'm rolling now and again if I get frustrated but its not a normal part of my cursing vocab.


That is completely different to how it was used when i was younger. Then it meant a really effiminate male.
 
J

jordanv

Member
How about not using slurs at all?

I am white, straight, cis, male.

It'd be pretty rich for someone like me - who never has and probably never will suffer structural racial abuse - to tell people of colour what is and isn't racism. Ignorance and intent are not magical potions that absolve you of your social responsibility.

"Not meaning it" is not a very satisfactory defence IMHO. :/
 
C

Caponetta

New member
I think you probably should try to pay more attention to your language. The slip you made later in this post, despite not being aimed as an insult and almost certainly accidental, was not minor.

I've heard the argument about 'taboo' words before, but making a word acceptable as a minor insult in the hopes of making it less of a major insult doesn't really work. Instead you make it acceptable to be incredibly offensive.

It's also worth remembering that language leads thought - if slurring someone because of some trait of theirs is acceptable, then it leads cultural thought to believe that the trait itself is negative.
 
A

aajg15

New member
A topic with much difficult vocabulary for a norwegian that only practice his english on forums, but as far as I could tell, I think this clip from Youtube illustrates some interresting aspects of long sentencing vs shorter, and how prisoneers are treated, regarding rehabilitation/not keep beeing a criminal after the sentence:

Norway Vs U.S. Prison System - YouTube

Then you allso have the lovely extra material on Michael Moores sicko-dvd. He is bombastic, and allthough none of what he sais is directly wrong, it's not the whole truth.. (If you want to skip the healthcare-bit, skip to 5:25 Michael Moore in Norway - YouTube

Here's a more informative article about the prison shown in Moores extra-material: A Liberal Prison System - Bastoy Island, in the fjord of Oslo, Norway - YouTube
 
CuriousK

CuriousK

New member
After the person I was talking with had already used it so I assumed it was ok with map tos to use it when discussing that specific word. And since I wasn't using it as a slur it fits into the principle I've been going on about about how intention is everything. If we were talking about racial epiphets towards white people and someone said cracker instead of "the c word" would you care as much?

Appreciate I'm quite close to sounding like a daily mail reader there but meh.
 
T

TShizzle

New member
You don't see a difference between a cultural minority targeting a majority and a cultural majority targeting a minority? There's a context to these things...
 
B

baileyL

New member
Which is why it is so interesting that people have ignored the context that Southpaw used the epithet in question.

The word in and of itself shouldn't be offensive, it's the context that makes it offensive or not. It's crazy that you can't use the N word in a discussion about the N word.
 
M

MaMii

New member
There is no public vote on the matter because sentencing needs to be objective. The public are rarely objective in these cases. Especially where a child is involved. It is in fact this lack of objectivity that often leads to criticism of jury trials.

If the justice system is to be fair and we are to continue the tradition of innocent until proven guilty then those charged with dispensing justice must be absolutely neutral.

However with that said, the public do in a sense get a say. We vote for the MPs we send to parliament. They make the laws and the government sets the sentencing guidelines. The judge simply enforces the laws set by the MPs we voted for. Yes they have some discretion. But there are limits to that.

Sad as it may be. We also have to consider the cost. The financial cost that is. Keeping people locked up is expensive. Even if we cram them 10 to cell it's still expensive. So ultimately there is a limit to the amount of time we can lock people away for.

So we really need to consider the purpose of prison. Purely as a punishment and a deterrent it is not effective. My feeling is people should be locked away only when they are a danger to the public or where they might absconded from other punishments handed out to them.

People in the UK who are given a life sentence with a minimum term are normally only paroled on licence. Which means if they break the law again, they can be yanked right back to prison. So in that respect a life sentence really is a life sentence.

The last Labour government tried using indeterminate sentences. But the European Court of Human Rights decided these were illegal and the UK had to stop using them. It was this same court that decided "slopping out" was demeaning to murders and rapists.

So justice isn't about getting what you want and sticking it to the bad people. It's about making sure everybody is playing by the same rule book. And sometimes that has unexpected consequences that don't seem to be fair.

Now we can change the rule book to draw distinctions between law abiding and non-law abiding people. But then again we can also change the rule book to distinguish between Christians, Jews, Muslims and any other faith you care to mention. And indeed the UK has been down that route before. Catholicism was declared illegal for a time as was speaking Scotts or Gaelic.

It doesn't take much for good intentions to turn sour.

Edit: And remember what MPs said when they were caught fiddling their expenses. "We were only following the rules".
 
P

PaganDan

Member
Holy's made the point I would have about that specific post. Now if we take your reply and apply it to the general topic then what you're saying is its cool to use racial slurs so long as its towards the majority? I would of thought if you're against the use of the words full stop it would apply across the board unless you want to argue that racism is less minor if there happen to be more people of that race in the area you're in at the time?
 
M

mcjacobs

New member
Yes, I would actually.

I don't see how it's relevant who the target is.

I'd have the same problem with other words that might be used as a slur to refer to women, men, or any other grouping.

Yes, this does mean sometimes people assume I'm the standard over-sensitive politically-correct fanatic, but frankly I'd much rather be that than someone who lies back and accepts slurs because other people do. That's not a good route to start down.



No, I don't see a difference - other than that one's more likely to happen.



Great, so could I use the f-word in a discussion about the f-word, since it's only the context of its usage that makes it offensive? Obviously that makes it okay for an open, public, family forum.

I don't see any reason that slurs can't be used when sitting in private discussing with other adults those same slurs, but that isn't the situation here.
 
A

AngusBeefhart

Member
Cut the rest of your post because it all comes down to this point really anyway. And in answer, yes, I'd be completely fine with that. I'd be fine with people saying cracker too, I was just curious if your issue with the whole thing was the use of slurs in general or if you were more in line with philosoraptor and just didn't like that specific one.

The issue of it being used on MAP is an entirely seperate one and not what your point was as far as I could tell. Seemed you took issue with use of the word generally, not that I'd used it on MAP specifically. As for how that works in my mind its simply if the word isn't blocked by the filter then I have no qualms with it being used. Plus I'm lazy. I don't see the point of typing out "the n word" and tiptoing round it when we all know exactly which word I mean. Plus that would run counter to my whole point in the first place about how context is everything.
 
D

Daywood

Member
In general I find them to be the sign of a simple mind, and don't like to see any of them used. While I agree context matters, I don't see how context has an effect on a family-friendly forum - so that was a large part of my issue, even if the filter software doesn't pick it up, and even if I didn't make that clear enough for you.

The other half of my point was about your theory about making words acceptable, and the fact that it is nonsense.



There are lots of words which are not blocked by the filter. That doesn't make them acceptable for use.

Since the mods haven't jumped on it, I'd be forced to agree that it must be acceptable, though I'm somewhat surprised about that.
 
D

draggster

New member
Its not a black and white theory that use of a word somehow makes it harmless. That's not the point I'm trying to make, although evidently not very clearly. What I'm saying is that not using the word, or not necessarily not using it, but saying that no one else should ever use it, does seem to make it slide further along the scale.

Take the c word. I know plenty of girls who find it offensive but not one of them actually knows why they find it so. Its purely because they've been brought up with the idea that its a terrible word. The pronounciation of it still sounds harsh so its never going to be a word to mean something nice, but I don't see how it would be nearly as offensive if there wasn't such a taboo about using it. There's plenty of other not very pleasant words for the same thing but none of them get the same treatment or cause the same level of offence.
 
Top