How it Works6 mins ago
Hate Crime / Hate Speech
62 Answers
I believe crime is crime, and the laws against hate crime, and in particular hate speech have already begun to undermine our freedoms.
I should have the right to express my thoughts and emotions as I feel fit and not censor myself worrying about the thin skinned being offended.
Just too many people are now finding offence everywhere and in every situation.
Give me the good old days when a committee was run by a chairman, not a chairperson, or even worse, by a chair.
What are your opinions?
I should have the right to express my thoughts and emotions as I feel fit and not censor myself worrying about the thin skinned being offended.
Just too many people are now finding offence everywhere and in every situation.
Give me the good old days when a committee was run by a chairman, not a chairperson, or even worse, by a chair.
What are your opinions?
Answers
Pesky furniture trying to pinch the limelight - look at the trouble with the Cabinet.
20:33 Sat 02nd Jun 2018
Sorry to hear W. T. Stead's lost his life in the Titanic.
He "did time" in order to expose the scandal of sex trafficking. It was at that time, and possibly because of Stead's campaign that the age of consent was raised from 12 to 16.
One of the aims of the new law, I understand, was to disallow "consent" as a defence by someone charged with sex trafficking, the rapists of that time being careful not to prey on girls who were under 12.
He "did time" in order to expose the scandal of sex trafficking. It was at that time, and possibly because of Stead's campaign that the age of consent was raised from 12 to 16.
One of the aims of the new law, I understand, was to disallow "consent" as a defence by someone charged with sex trafficking, the rapists of that time being careful not to prey on girls who were under 12.
//you ought [not] say things which are massive generalisations ( hence it's fine to say I don't like that black guy, but not I don't like black guys) or anything which promotes hate because you are generalising//
Most of us use generalisations all the time in normal speech, Kvalidir. In fact normal discourse (not to mention rhetoric, satire and ordinary jokes) would become impossible if we applied the Kvalidir rule to everything we said.
Can you imagine, for instance, how tiresome a political discussion would be when every time you criticised an opponent you were forced to add the disclaimer "when I say 'Trump supporters' I don't mean ALL Trump supporters, of course"?
Most of us use generalisations all the time in normal speech, Kvalidir. In fact normal discourse (not to mention rhetoric, satire and ordinary jokes) would become impossible if we applied the Kvalidir rule to everything we said.
Can you imagine, for instance, how tiresome a political discussion would be when every time you criticised an opponent you were forced to add the disclaimer "when I say 'Trump supporters' I don't mean ALL Trump supporters, of course"?
“NJ, a bench is also something to sit on so why do folk in a court or tribunal address the bench rather than the person sitting on it?”
Not the same thing at all. It is the use of “Chair” when referring to a person to which I object.
The etymology of “Bench” in legal terms is well established and goes back hundreds of years. It stems from when judges or Justices of the Peace sat on long raised benches overlooking the court over which they presided. It was adopted to address any tribunal and even today’s High Court uses the term as it has a “Queen’s Bench” Division. Importantly it does not refer to a human being but to a court itself or the formation of the tribunal. When addressing an individual presiding over a court one does not use “Bench”. Judges are referred to as My Lord or My Lady (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or the High Court), “Your Honour” (most Crown Court judges); “Sir/Madam (District Judges)”; “Sir/Madam/ Your Worship(s)” (Magistrates).
The history of “Chair” to refer to a person presiding over a meeting is less well established. It began when the quest for gender neutral terms reared its head a few decades ago. I have no objection to “Chairman”, “Chairwoman” or “Chairperson” as each gathering deems appropriate. But the use of “Chair” to refer to a person when suitable alternatives (albeit with an extra syllable or two) exist is just plain daft. I have chaired many meetings during my lifetime and always insist that I am referred to as the chairman and that it is shown thus in the minutes.
“Is it the 'stupid and unnecessary misappropriation of language' throughout the history of our language that offends you, NJ, or is it that you would prefer that the language was frozen at the point you learnt it?”
The former. It is the alteration of language for no purpose and in particular where it is simply incorrect with which I take issue. The annoyance of a female chairing a meeting being referred to as a “Chairman” is perfectly understandable. But those seeking gender neutrality have the term “chairperson” at their disposal. There’s nothing wrong with it, it is perfectly descriptive. And, most importantly, “Chair” grinds on me something rotten.
“Are we talking metonymy here?”
Probably. The evolution of a word to mean something different has always been ongoing. The evolution of “Bench” from a seat to a court is sensible and understandable. The attempted evolution of “Chair” from a seat to a person is not.
On a slightly different tack, it seems that the term “guys” is now used to address both males and females. Lately Mrs NJ has taken to ignoring anybody who refers to her as “guy”. In a shop we were in together recently the assistant said “would you guys like to come with me”. I went, Mrs NJ remained where she was (much to the assistant’s bewilderment). Only when she explained why she had not heeded his call did he (possibly) understand. It’s very odd because many females (quite rightly) object to being referred to in male terms but “guy” seems somehow to have slipped through the net.
Not the same thing at all. It is the use of “Chair” when referring to a person to which I object.
The etymology of “Bench” in legal terms is well established and goes back hundreds of years. It stems from when judges or Justices of the Peace sat on long raised benches overlooking the court over which they presided. It was adopted to address any tribunal and even today’s High Court uses the term as it has a “Queen’s Bench” Division. Importantly it does not refer to a human being but to a court itself or the formation of the tribunal. When addressing an individual presiding over a court one does not use “Bench”. Judges are referred to as My Lord or My Lady (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or the High Court), “Your Honour” (most Crown Court judges); “Sir/Madam (District Judges)”; “Sir/Madam/ Your Worship(s)” (Magistrates).
The history of “Chair” to refer to a person presiding over a meeting is less well established. It began when the quest for gender neutral terms reared its head a few decades ago. I have no objection to “Chairman”, “Chairwoman” or “Chairperson” as each gathering deems appropriate. But the use of “Chair” to refer to a person when suitable alternatives (albeit with an extra syllable or two) exist is just plain daft. I have chaired many meetings during my lifetime and always insist that I am referred to as the chairman and that it is shown thus in the minutes.
“Is it the 'stupid and unnecessary misappropriation of language' throughout the history of our language that offends you, NJ, or is it that you would prefer that the language was frozen at the point you learnt it?”
The former. It is the alteration of language for no purpose and in particular where it is simply incorrect with which I take issue. The annoyance of a female chairing a meeting being referred to as a “Chairman” is perfectly understandable. But those seeking gender neutrality have the term “chairperson” at their disposal. There’s nothing wrong with it, it is perfectly descriptive. And, most importantly, “Chair” grinds on me something rotten.
“Are we talking metonymy here?”
Probably. The evolution of a word to mean something different has always been ongoing. The evolution of “Bench” from a seat to a court is sensible and understandable. The attempted evolution of “Chair” from a seat to a person is not.
On a slightly different tack, it seems that the term “guys” is now used to address both males and females. Lately Mrs NJ has taken to ignoring anybody who refers to her as “guy”. In a shop we were in together recently the assistant said “would you guys like to come with me”. I went, Mrs NJ remained where she was (much to the assistant’s bewilderment). Only when she explained why she had not heeded his call did he (possibly) understand. It’s very odd because many females (quite rightly) object to being referred to in male terms but “guy” seems somehow to have slipped through the net.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Food & Drink7 mins ago
Food & Drink7 mins ago
Food & Drink8 mins ago
