(September 14, 2011 at 6:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I find the golliwig image offensive. I guess I'm of an age to know the history. If there are people around that are offended, then it would be responsible to respect their feelings.
There was an uproar in my home town when asians first displayed the swastica everywhere at festival time - to them a respected religious symbol had been stolen and abused by the nazis. There was some healing there.

Their intention was not malicious, so why should they have to go and pussyfoot around people's feelings who take more meaning from something, where there isn't any?

Well take Adrian... from what I understand, the (racist, nazi) joke to him is because some people find it offensive. I can get sick humour. I do. There are no comparables to these two I don't think. While some old timers might understand a generation not understanding the grief they went through, that generation taking the piss is another league altogether.
Let me stand and piss over you. Please don't be offended. I found it humerous. Other people did too. We were splitting our sides actually. Your humiliation and shame are your own guilt trip. Deal with it. Don't whinge at us please. We're innocent here.

Do we know about this lady. Is she a known racist?

There was a guy in my town in Alaska. Little town called Houston. A guy had a black looking straw man hanging from a tree on the side of the highway. Should that be allowed to stay, its only his free speech? Fuck no. Free speech has limits. Why can politicians lie, why can the media lie, why can corporations lie? Free speech is too free, I think its original intent was protect citizens from criticizing their governments, it should not be use to allow legal racism, or legal "lies".

All racists should be educated on human biology, if they do not conform, medically create them as those who they are racism against and see what happens : ) joking of course.

---

(September 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Alright bozo, I see. Fine.

Is naming a teddy bear "Mohammad" harassment?

Religion and biology are 2 different beasts. You can ridicule religion because it is a choice, color of skin is not.

People can become atheists, you cannot undo the color of your skin.

I think speech should be completely free, and I understand that people will abuse it and people will get offended by other people... But, policing peoples ideals and words is wrong to me...

(September 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm)bozo Wrote: The court will decide whether the charge is proven. It may go my way, it may go yours. That's life and how our justice system works.

Yes, you keep saying this. However a court decision does not make something wrong or right. Indeed, some court decisions have been very wrong indeed, which has led to protests, referendums, and sometimes the odd revolution.

It is not "life". It's how the government attempts to control the will of the people. I don't know about anyone else, but I support freedom of speech, even hate speech, because at the end of the day, these are just people expressing their ideas, and ideas cannot harm people. Ideas can upset people, they can distress people, but they cannot cause physical harm. It is actions that do this, and only actions which must be made criminal by the law.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well take Adrian... from what I understand, the (racist, nazi) joke to him is because some people find it offensive. I can get sick humour. I do.

That said, I do try to be a bit tactful with my humor. If someone has a genuine reason to be offended by it, I'll apologize. Simply "not liking that sort of humour" is not a genuine reason for me.

Then again, thesummerqueen is Jewish and is fine with my nazi jokes, as is my half-Jewish girlfriend.

'Policing' would be wrong IMO too. It's a personal responsibility thing.
I do think that you Adrian are responsible with your humour.. you usually check first, and explain your lack of sensitivity with the golliwog thing.
We all know that there are limits to free speech: Incitement to hatred > violence seem legitimate reasons. To me, and to others in society, the golliwog is something we want burried. We won that battle already.

Incitement to violence is a command onto another in proxy of oneself. We punish people for planning murder, ergo, by extension, we can also punish people for planning murder by proxy of someone else. Seems pretty clear to me.

However, I see no incitement to violence here. The only thing "harmed" is someone elses feelers.

True, free speech has limits like when it communicates actions, not ideas.

But this matter seems to be more over "Does the complainer have the right to be not offended over perceived insults to race?"

---

(September 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Do we know about this lady. Is she a known racist?

Does it matter? Why should her views be on trial?

As far as I know, she has not incited anyone to violence or shown a history of harassment against any set of individuals, except for this current event against a nebulous "race" of people. Hardly befitting on the same regard that we reserve for those disgusting Ku Klux Klan mobs.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm)paintpooper Wrote: All racists should be educated on human biology, if they do not conform, medically create them as those who they are racism against and see what happens : ) joking of course.

All atheists should be "educated" on Christianity. If they do not conform, they should be medically adjusted...

(September 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Religion and biology are 2 different beasts. You can ridicule religion because it is a choice, color of skin is not.

People can become atheists, you cannot undo the color of your skin.

So one possesses the "Right to be not offended" over things that one cannot change?

I wasn't citing the subject of this convo as incitement to violence, I was pointing out a limitation to free speech that society would accept. Indeed in the UK riots recently a few ppl were jailed for a few years for posting incitefull messages on facebook. Controversial, but it demonstrates the principle.

The Golliwogg was a 19th century invention,in a children's book .A jolly fellow and companion,who went around doing 'nice' things. An interesting character,nowhere near the wet twat of Noddy.

Goli came from era of casual racism,where white people were not even aware of the gross offence they gave.

I grew up in the 1950's. It was common to say use aboriginal stereotypes in advertising.We had a brand of licorice here called "Nigger Boy" (I kid you not). I remember there was a brand of pancake mix called "Aunt Jemmima's" featuring a drawing of a jolly ,fat, black 'mammy'. My sister had a golliwogg, and you can again buy them here. Children are not racist,they have to be taught.

Quote:The "Golliwogg" (later "Golliwog", "golly doll") was a character in children's books in the late 19th century and depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children's toy called the "golliwog", and had great popularity in North America, the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia, into the 1960s. The doll has black skin, eyes rimmed in white, clown lips, and frizzy hair, and it has been described as the least known of the major anti-black caricatures in the United States.[1] While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy.

The full Wiki article is worth reading.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg


Am I offended by them? No I am not,but I can fully understand how a black person could be. The incident in question seems have been a deliberate racial slur.

(September 14, 2011 at 7:25 pm)padraic Wrote: The incident in question seems have been a deliberate racial slur.

How?!? All she did was have it on display in her window...

Nothing in the report stated why she had it in her window, or whether she'd used it to attack another race.