Tipping Point - Sexual Harassment In America

[redhill]

As are your MRA-tinged posts.

I wasn't familiar with that organization (until now) but I get the impression that you're being disparaging.

Perhaps, since you've added nothing to the discourse over the last two posts, you can tell me why men's rights aren't as important as women's? Why is that a horrible thing to suggest?

As I see it, women can generally get away with blatant sexual assault while men get skewered simply for being accused of it. I'm sincere in wanting to understand why that double standard is acceptable.

 

[anitram]

I
Perhaps, since you've added nothing to the discourse over the last two posts, you can tell me why men's rights aren't as important as women's? Why is that a horrible thing to suggest?

Seriously? Hard pass.

I've learned it's not worth my emotional labour to discuss "true equality" with a man who is concerned about men's equality and men's rights primarily. Women have had to fight for their dignity and existence for millenia and some of us are really fucking tired to be frank. I don't believe I can have a productive discussion with you based on what you've said and how you've behaved and at 9 months pregnant I really don't feel like testing that theory either.

Feel free to fight your battle for men's rights with others.

 

[redhill]

Seriously? Hard pass.

I've learned it's not worth my emotional labour to discuss "true equality" with a man who is concerned about men's equality and men's rights primarily. Women have had to fight for their dignity and existence for millenia and some of us are really fucking tired to be frank. I don't believe I can have a productive discussion with you based on what you've said and how you've behaved and at 9 months pregnant I really don't feel like testing that theory either.

Feel free to fight your battle for men's rights with others.

I stand for men's rights and women's rights. What I don't stand for is double standards.

 

[DaveC]

I stand for men's rights and women's rights. What I don't stand for is double standards.

 

[zuma]

i stand for men's rights and women's rights. What i don't stand for is double standards.

 

[redhill]

I see what you were going for but it doesn't make sense in this context.

 

[BVS]

I stand for men's rights and women's rights. What I don't stand for is double standards.

No you don't, that's a lie.

You're claim is that women assaulting men is very high, that false accusations are rampant, and haven't responded at to the fact that what you put up with twice in your life women put up with on a regular basis.

Do you honestly believe that men never report and women always do and that somehow the numbers are about even?

 

[redhill]

No you don't, that's a lie.

You're claim is that women assaulting men is very high, that false accusations are rampant, and haven't responded at to the fact that what you put up with twice in your life women put up with on a regular basis.

Do you honestly believe that men never report and women always do and that somehow the numbers are about even?

No, it's not a lie. And this is not the first time you have baselessly called me a liar, either.

Again, how do you know what women put up with on a regular basis? Are you telling me that most women have been grabbed in the crotch in a public place multiple times in their life? And that they would have very little recourse if it did happen? They could call the police and have the man immediately arrested without question. That wasn't an option to me either time I was assaulted. It would have been dismissed.

I never said the numbers are even or took it to the extreme you're suggesting (men never report and women always do). Again, we don't know the numbers.

But I do know that you're up to your old tricks.

Anyone can read this thread and see that you're exaggerating and distorting what I wrote.

 

[redhill]

View attachment 11756

I take your point and understand that women are coming from a disadvantage after having had to fight for years for equal treatment. I'm a man so I have no idea what that's like. I just don't think we should lose sight of reality or allow such a double standard to go unmentioned in the larger conversation.

Beyond that, I was primarily sharing my experiences and hoping to get a better understanding of something I can't wrap my head around.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Defamation is not a crime, it's a civil tort, no matter the motivation. You can't be criminally prosecuted for defamation in America, even if you do it from a "hate perspective."

Again, there are no "hate speech" laws in the US, and there's no "hate speech" exception to the Constitution. In fact it's one of the few things the SCOTUS has pretty much been unanimous on.

There are hate crime enhancements to existing statues, which call for increased penalties for crimes motivated by certain reasons (e.g. racial animus). But it's not the same as a prohibiting "hate speech". In fact, even in crimes with a hate crime enhancement, it's not the speech that enhances the penalty, it's the motivation...the speech can merely be evidence of the hateful motivation. There must be an underlying crime accompanying the hateful motivation, and all the elements of that crime must be met PLUS you must prove hateful motivation (generally, motivated by animus towards someone's sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc).

For example, battery is a crime.

If I hit you with a baseball bat, that's battery.

If I hit you with a baseball and I'm motivated by racial animus, that's battery, with a hate crime enhancement (meaning, you could get a harsher sentence). If I call you the N word while I'm beating you, that's evidence that I'm motived by racial animus, but calling you the name in itself doesn't mean it's a hate crime.

But most importantly, if I merely call you the N word without physically attacking you, I haven't committed a crime at all. Because calling someone a hateful word is as protected under the Constitution as engaging in political speech or any other protected speech.

That's all very different than "hate speech" laws in places like France, where simply using hateful or even antisocial language can be a crime in itself.



Well of course. Private institutions and individuals have their own ways of dealing with what they regard as hate speech, but they don't have the Constitutional limits the government has. So yeah, if I use the N word on Interference, Diemen could bounce me (and rightly so) but the US Government couldn't throw me in jail (and rightly so).

Nick, you know it's quite frustrating when you insist upon trying to make some sort of rhetorical chess out of a side fact. You are detailing what I am referring to, but framing it in a sense of "this is why you're wrong." It's sort of obnoxious. Yes, I am well aware that you can't be criminally charged for words. But hate crime laws are a thing, and they do include speech. Yes, they're "enhancements" to other crimes and suits alike, but that's still the law, whether direct or indirect. Free speech covers pretty much everything that can't harm someone, but at the end of the day, plenty of hate speech can find you either in court or in jail.

 

[mama cass]

I didn't accuse of you lying. I told you that you were wrong. Hate speech is a crime in the US. Hate crimes do get prosecuted. Much like in the US, people in France are still generally more liberal in urbanized centers, and more conservative in suburban and rural populations.

by hate crime getting prosecuted in the US, do you mean actual hate speech? because it seems some real extreme hate speech gets tolerated over there? and how do people get away with saying such extreme things then?? i mean, here in France, surely everyone remembers John Galiano the designer getting prosecuted after going on an antisemitic rant in a bar one night?? Brigitte Bardot has been prosecuted/fined around 5 times for comments inciting racial hatred, the Le Pens all have been fined many times, obvious high profile examples... can you name me some examples of similar in the US? i seriously have never heard of any?

What I was really calling you out on, though, was when you made mention of students and grants and what have you. You painted a picture based upon your own experience that there's a family element in France that contributes to 18+ students that is nonexistent in the U.K. and US. Under what premise can you make such a statement? I've attended universities in all three locations. I'm also a 25 year old who was financially supported by family until age 23, and only chose to take loans to lessen the burden on my family to continue schooling. You seem to have depicted a false picture here.

no, i should clarify - i was talking about the whole State funding system for university which is fundamentally different between between the UK and France, particularly in how it treats the poor... sure there are families who are able to help their kids in the UK - and they're the lucky ones if they can avoid student loans! but the norm for most families is crippling student loans... the tuition fees are soooo high it would be difficult for most families to bear those kinds of costs... not to mention poor families - higher education is only possible for poor families via student loans, which is the opposite in France - that's pretty much the comparison i was trying to make (ok probably clumsily as it was the middle of the night and i was on a deadline!) - the way France and the UK treat their poor - chalk and cheese... that's my main point in this overall...

for info, back in the day when i was a student in the UK, we had maintenance grants and NO TUITION FEES and if you didn't qualify for a full maintenance grant, your parents were meant to top it up, but they were under no obligation, but then as grants were phased out, loans became the standard (obviously families can choose to help their kids, but it's not the norm - i have enough family and friends still in the UK who are pretty comfortable, but no longer financially support their kids completely, but of course help here and there, and the kids take out loans for tuition fees and maintenance, even though the families are comfortably off, they just can't stretch to paying their kids' tuition fees, so loans are the only option - obviously for very wealthy families this isn't a problem at all though!) - i was making the comparison with France, in that France is similar to how things were in that respect, i would say, 30 years or so ago in the UK, and that level of State financial support for UK students no longer exists sadly... so, here in France, student loans just aren't very well developed like in the UK (they do exist though, but they are only needed for living costs as public tuition fees are so low, or for private schools with higher tuition fees if parents can't cover the cost), which is why it falls on the parents if the kids don't qualify for a grant (and many parents take out bank loans specially to fund their child's higher education as well)...

it's nowhere near as expensive as in the UK - State tuition fees per year are roughly 450 euros, including health cover, as opposed to thousands (9000??) per year in the UK! the difference is insane!! so pretty fundamental differences between France and the UK i would say!! (i can't really comment on the US education system, aside from the expensive fees, and student debt, but am very familiar with both France and the UK in this respect)

Greek life in the US has a bad reputation. Rightfully so, with the general behavior of hazing, disorderly conduct, and mistreatment of women. You see it in films, and there's something quintessentially American about those fraternities. It has an awful reputation in the U.K., and it has an awful reputation in France. However, guess what? They do the exact same shit over there. They just call it something else. Sports clubs in the UK quite literally participate in the same awful behaviors, they just aren't branded in a movie-like culture. The same behaviors were clearly present with the band at that university. Only in a frat party would I ever imagine someone putting their testicles on a girl passed out drunk and taking a picture.

that's gross - i don't know why, when you mentioned it in your comment a few pages back, i just assumed it was boys messing around being gross among boys, as they can do - it takes on a completely different vibe if they did that to an unsuspecting girl - that's horrible and disgusting omg!! but there are idiots in every culture, but i wouldn't say that's a reflection of French culture

Your notion that french culture is more progressive or more respectful to what's right is bullshit. From nights out, I can tell you that I felt like I was in the US when I went to a bar and the employees were all attractive slim women with big boobs and practically no clothes worth of a uniform. And clearly all around the bar, women were the objects and men were running the show.

i find French people incredibly respectful and polite in day to day interactions... i'm basing this on my experience of living here day to day for so long, but you're just basing your opinions on bars?! and it sounds like you and i definitely frequent different types of bars... in my time in Paris, the bars i went to were awesome, student bars, probably pretty grungy, places i felt comfortable as a woman and could just be myself (for better or for worse ) - definitely very different to your experience anyway... ok, so maybe in my circles, in the places i've frequented, from student days to old lady days, and vicariously thru my kids, i find people respectful and nice mostly - i will stay in my little bubble then - (of course i have had horrid experiences of harassment, getting my ass grabbed by a stranger, being followed relentlessly thru metro stations and on the streets, but i've always stood up to the perpetrators or managed to outwit them), but i've felt strong enough and supported enough and, more importantly, safe enough to do so)

And clearly you've developed into french society (for shunning me for not speaking the language on a two month stay - forgive me). And clearly you have a french bias.

But bottom line, there are the haves, and there are the have nots. Western society is a lot more homogenous than you're agreeing to.

no, not shunning you, but pointing out the fact that by not speaking the language you miss soooooo much!! you can't really even scratch the surface of a culture without the language - and 2 months is a very short time! it's obvious! i am still learning new things every day as we go thru our lives here in French society - the student thing has only been a very recent revelation to me as that's the situation my family is in right now... so yeah there's no way anyone can be expected to have significant insight into the intricate workings of a country after just 2 months... it's too complex

at least here in France, we take care of the have nots - it is the socialist France that i love... i love its values... i just can't say that about my "home" country the UK... here, another example, single mums can get free childcare, from 8am to 6pm, til the child is 3, and then starts school, so they can hold down a job - things like that are unheard of in the UK and single mums are reviled by the UK govt - it's horrible how the poor are treated... plus, in terms of healthcare, there are treatments here that are routinely available (covered by State universal health insurance) that are either not available or only available privately in the UK - one of my family needed treatment a few years ago and the drug cost close on 1000 euros a month - treatment was once a month for 15 months, and the cost was fully covered by the State - thankfully we were living here because we wouldn't have had access to that treatment in the UK (only privately) and no way could we have afforded it, and without treatment, it would have resulted in loss of eyesight... same also goes for some cancer treatments... transplants, jeesus pretty much everything healthcare wise... France is great at prevention, whereas the UK don't treat until you're at death's door, and then the attitude is pretty much meh why bother... also the worst thing about cancer treatment in the UK is that it is a postcode lottery - drugs aren't authorised at national level, just at local level, which means you can be denied life-saving cancer treatment if you live in the wrong postcode, which is shocking to me... (drugs are authorised and available at national level in France, so this situation doesn't happen)

these are the main differences which i appreciate between France and the UK, which to me are fundamental...

 

[DaveC]

Are you telling me that most women have been grabbed in the crotch in a public place multiple times in their life? And that they would have very little recourse if it did happen? They could call the police and have the man immediately arrested without question.

holy shit. i would please like some of the drugs you've evidently been consuming, they must be damn good to send you this far away from reality.

 

[redhill]

holy shit. i would please like some of the drugs you've evidently been consuming, they must be damn good to send you this far away from reality.

By and large, that is the reality in my personal experience. I've never personally seen a woman grabbed in the crotch in a public place. I've seen men try and "dirty dance" with women who weren't interested and walk away. It obviously happens but I like to write about what I've personally seen as that shapes my viewpoint much more than hearsay. That said, I realize that my experiences aren't consistent across all of humanity.

Anyway, are you able to express your opinion apart from posting a cutesy cartoon or making silly accusations?

 

[DaveC]

By and large, that is the reality. Are you able to express your opinion apart from posting a cutesy cartoon or making vague accusations in regards to my mental state?

okay, i'll be less vague - you're absolutely insane if you actually believe that a woman who gets groped in a bar can simply call the police and have anyone arrested no questions asked. like i don't even know where the hell you could have possibly even come up with that. in reality it's basically the exact opposite.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, women who have been raped hesitate to go to the cops for a multitude of reasons. So I really don't know why someone would think it's as easy as "I got groped, called the cops and the guy got arrested."

Also,

Also, why are you always one of the ones to step in and disagree with people?

I mean, he's not wrong, BVS.

 

[redhill]

OK, you're both right I think in that it's not always as simple as I'm suggesting. The difference is that it would be taken a lot more seriously at the very least. And in many cases, if there was surveillance footage and/or witnesses, indeed the man would likely be arrested on the spot. I've seen it happen.

On the flipside, I know it was completely laughed off when it happened to me (and there were cameras in both places).

Beyond that, I really don't want to dominate the thread with this point for any length of time. I was compelled to post due to my experiences. It was a source of frustration at the time and something I've never been able to fully reconcile.

I understand, as much as I can being a man, how infinitely more horrible things happen to women on a regular basis. And I most certainly do not intend to minimize that in any way.

 

[kiwilad]

Rather than the Redhill pile-on that seems to be gathering steam, couldn't this awesome bunch of intelligent and caring fym folk discuss his points... intelligently and respectfully?
I've just read all his posts and he hasn't attacked anyone or tried to diminish the gravity of what women are fighting against. It seemed all he was doing was asking we throw another ingredient in the pot for discussion because this is a complex and multi-faceted subject.
Why does that create such angry responses and condescension?
I've got similar stories and worse. One in particular involving verbal stuff at work that led me to not being able to work in a section of the hospital I worked in. Another at a bar where the aggressor was a very large, very friendly man who I had enjoyed talking to, flirting with even, but hated what happened next.
Adding more layers doesn't take away from the conversation does it?

Re the millennia men have used power to dominate and control women... this is simply factually correct. Perhaps it wasn't always the case (evidence from Malta suggests a 'mother goddess' society run by women - incredibly successfully it seems).
But it appears the advent of agriculture ties in with the male domination of society. For the worse.
It's a massive conversation. And every step taken to improve the situation is good. But adding nuance to the conversation shouldn't be shunned should it?

 

[BVS]

I mean, he's not wrong, BVS.

Yes he is!

 

[Nick66]

Yes, I am well aware that you can't be criminally charged for words. But hate crime laws are a thing, and they do include speech.

But that's where you're wrong. It's not the speech that's a crime.

You said "hate speech is a crime in the US." But it's not. Hate speech is it's own very real, but distinct thing. And it is completely distinct. And it's not a "side fact". You used the term as a point in response to something Mama Cass was talking about that France has...suggesting that America has the same kind of prohibition, when it certainly does not. It's not a small or insignificant difference, it's a big one. And subject to quite a bit of debate. There's a huge amount of difference between enhancing a penalty for someone guilty of a run of the mill crime already on the books, but was motivated by hate, and making speech itself a crime.

It's fine, it's a common misconception a lot of people have. You'd be surprised at the number of people who think hate speech is illegal in the US (particularly on college campuses of all places). Which is why it's important to point it out.

Are you the one who's a rocket scientist? If I said something wrong about ascending nodes or parabolic orbit or minimum escape velocity I wouldn't double down if you told me I was wrong.

by hate crime getting prosecuted in the US, do you mean actual hate speech? because it seems some real extreme hate speech gets tolerated over there? and how do people get away with saying such extreme things then??.

See my comments above. He's wrong about this.

 

[redhill]

Rather than the Redhill pile-on that seems to be gathering steam, couldn't this awesome bunch of intelligent and caring fym folk discuss his points... intelligently and respectfully?
I've just read all his posts and he hasn't attacked anyone or tried to diminish the gravity of what women are fighting against. It seemed all he was doing was asking we throw another ingredient in the pot for discussion because this is a complex and multi-faceted subject.
Why does that create such angry responses and condescension?
I've got similar stories and worse. One in particular involving verbal stuff at work that led me to not being able to work in a section of the hospital I worked in. Another at a bar where the aggressor was a very large, very friendly man who I had enjoyed talking to, flirting with even, but hated what happened next.
Adding more layers doesn't take away from the conversation does it?

Re the millennia men have used power to dominate and control women... this is simply factually correct. Perhaps it wasn't always the case (evidence from Malta suggests a 'mother goddess' society run by women - incredibly successfully it seems).
But it appears the advent of agriculture ties in with the male domination of society. For the worse.
It's a massive conversation. And every step taken to improve the situation is good. But adding nuance to the conversation shouldn't be shunned should it?

 

[Nick66]

Rather than the Redhill pile-on that seems to be gathering steam, couldn't this awesome bunch of intelligent and caring fym folk discuss his points... intelligently and respectfully?
I've just read all his posts and he hasn't attacked anyone or tried to diminish the gravity of what women are fighting against. It seemed all he was doing was asking we throw another ingredient in the pot for discussion because this is a complex and multi-faceted subject.
Why does that create such angry responses and condescension?
I've got similar stories and worse. One in particular involving verbal stuff at work that led me to not being able to work in a section of the hospital I worked in. Another at a bar where the aggressor was a very large, very friendly man who I had enjoyed talking to, flirting with even, but hated what happened next.
Adding more layers doesn't take away from the conversation does it?

Re the millennia men have used power to dominate and control women... this is simply factually correct. Perhaps it wasn't always the case (evidence from Malta suggests a 'mother goddess' society run by women - incredibly successfully it seems).
But it appears the advent of agriculture ties in with the male domination of society. For the worse.
It's a massive conversation. And every step taken to improve the situation is good. But adding nuance to the conversation shouldn't be shunned should it?

I agree with this. I can't say I agree with everything redhill has said in this conversation...he's often not an agreeable person, and some of what he's said is unsupported... BUT, I don't think it's fair to question his motivations for saying it (calling him an MRA type, suggesting he's a liar, etc) absent the evidence that would suggest he's speaking out of bad intent. And as far as I can see he hasn't personally attacked anyone in this thread, just some push back to the way he's being treated.

Seems to me like it's stuff from other threads pouring into this one.

 

[kiwilad]

Seems to me like it's stuff from other threads pouring into this one.

Probably. I'm far too out of the loop to understand all those tensions. Redhill seems fine to me. I note cobl likes to do the condescension countdown for Nick's posts. But the biggest condescension here sure as hell isn't coming from nick.

Is sad to see. The right-of-centre political posters have all vacated fym now. And for a bunch of them that's a good thing. But often there were just these immense pile-ons based largely on differing opinions alone.
Now we're left with a presumably fairly homogeneous group politically. But still the pile-ons and attacks...

 

[mama cass]

This is absolutely untrue. There are no "hate speech" laws, at least criminal laws, in the US. And if some legislature tried to pass one, it would quickly be deemed unconstitutional.



"Western society" is actually among the least homogenous, and most diverse, in the world, depending on how you wish to define homogeneous. But in many places it's really not a melting pot...more like a tossed salad.

Otherwise, I think you make some good points. As much as I agree with many of Mama Cass's comments in this thread, I do think she's painting a slightly rosier picture of France than reflects the situation as i know it. That's not to say it doesn't reflect her personal experiences, and clearly she loves the culture. But from I can see there's a lot of tension there, and a rising anti-immigrant sentiment (like much of Europe). One the whole though I think she's accurate in saying that in many ways it's a more progressive society than the US. Though in other ways, more conservative.

I know a lot of French people who fear that France is losing its identity and culture, and as far as I know it's an ongoing discussion there. But she'd know better than I, I'm in the UK.

that's what i was thinking of re. hate speech/freedom of speech, as i've seen so many times that restricting freedom of speech or prosecuting hate speech would be unconstitutional...

thanks, appreciate your comments Nick66!

there are a lot of tensions here for sure, but it's incredibly complex... for instance, France is big on "assimilation" (i.e. adopting French culture) in terms of its immigration policy - this, in my experience, is soooo different to the UK (and i imagine the US) - it's a very alien concept to me, which it's taken a while to get my head around... for instance, wearing religious symbols in schools and public positions was banned back in 2005 (although this is to do with "laicite" (secularism) rather than assimilation - i am thinking out loud stream of thought and rushing, so my writing is a bit muddled lol)- i struggled so much with this as i couldn't understand why people couldn't just "coexist", but the theory behind it is that it promotes equality, especially in schools, where all kids can take part fully and equally in all activities (sports etc.), unhindered by religion, and in public positions, to avoid discrimination when dealing with the public... i am sure this has its upsides and downsides, but assimilation is huge in France - i get tons of grief (in jest mostly), for being British, but once people realise you're well integrated, speak the language and are willing to be part of French society that's all that matters... it's interesting compared to the UK where "multiculturalism" is promoted, whereas France wants everyone who becomes a French citizen to adopt French culture as their own (assimilation)... i found this really hard to get my head around, but have come to see it as offering a sense of "belonging" which i appreciate... i guess this is where things can clash, where communities reject French culture and the language... so maybe this is what is happening today in some part of French society, maybe assimilation has failed and a new approach is necessary perhaps... (huge subjects/issues really!)

i feel people claiming France has "lost its identity" are so out of touch with reality - they have to ask themselves the question, what is France? who are the French? France goes beyond the mainland and is one of the few former "empires" to have kept some of its colonies, and these French overseas territories are an integral part of France... French former colonies (e.g. Algerie, Indochine, Africa) fought for France in the various wars, many came to France as French citizens and their descendants are rightly French... so France has many faces...

re. the banlieus, of course there are problems there, as anywhere where there is a high concentration of young people and high levels of unemployment, but i stand by my statement that education is key... even if children aren't academic, there are other more vocational training programmes open to young people, apprenticeships etc. Drug-related crime in the banlieu is also a huge problem - it's a whole local economy of its own, and i wonder if say cannabis at least was legalised here, maybe this could help somehow... also, i feel more support is required at community level and for families... but this is happening - i saw a great report after New Year, about one of the roughest Paris banlieu with high crime rates, and clashes between young people and the police - a group of mothers came together to create an association, and they worked closely with the council, the fire brigade and police, and got organised, and went on patrol new years eve to stop the kids getting out of hand and setting fire to things, cars, rubbish etc., so as to avoid escalation between the young people and the police - and i thought that was amazing! and it was effective - there were no cars set alight in that estate that night, compared to other areas of Paris... it just brought it home so much, that these women and the dads too don't want the violence, and they're terrified of things getting out of hand and their kids landing in real trouble with the police when things escalate... and their aim was to encourage respect... and the presence of these mums and friends' mums on patrol was really powerful, and i think community/family interventions like this, from within the communities themselves are a fantastic approach...

 

[LuckyNumber7]

But that's where you're wrong. It's not the speech that's a crime.

Jesus, you're the worst type of troll.

You just quoted me saying hate crimes are a thing (they ARE, contrarian trollman). Hate crimes can include speech if the speech is not protected by the first amendment. There's a wide array of speech not protected by the first amendment.

You said "hate speech is a crime in the US."

And when I said that, I was speaking very generally to a non-American, who doesn't need a fucking nuanced description of our legal system. It's convoluted enough as is. Stop being an asshole.

But it's not. Hate speech is it's own very real, but distinct thing. And it is completely distinct. And it's not a "side fact".

It's not "distinct" in any facet. It's very broadly described and can refer to a wide array of topics. And fuck off for telling me what my argument was and wasn't.

You used the term as a point in response to something Mama Cass was talking about that France has...suggesting that America has the same kind of prohibition, when it certainly does not.

And if you've been keeping up with our discussion, it's been made clear... by god I'm not going to go and quote it, you can go read it yourself... I have already described the difference in culture to be far less so societal and far more so in the form of government and legislation. So, yes, it's a "side fact" reminding mamacass that we in the US do have our own form/take of what she's describing. It just doesn't work the same way, legally. But typically, in most cases where it matters, justice will find similar lengths of reprimanding (via private, civil, or criminal means) depending on what was said.

It's not a small or insignificant difference, it's a big one. And subject to quite a bit of debate. There's a huge amount of difference between enhancing a penalty for someone motivated by hate and making speech itself a crime.

In the context of whether or not people are racist homophobic in France, it's a small difference. If I called someone at work a "lazy good for nothing illegal spic" or something equally egregious, I would societally face about the same penalty as I would in France. If I said "I'm going to kick your dirty [repeat slur] teeth in if you don't go back to your country," there's just as much chance that I spend time in jail in the US as I do in France. And, after writing that, I think it's quite clear that you probably don't understand their hate speech laws at all, anyways.

It's fine, it's a common misconception a lot of people have. You'd be surprised at the number of people who think hate speech is illegal in the US (particularly on college campuses of all places). Which is why it's important to point it out.

Boy, do you know how obnoxious it is to sit on your fake chair of knowledge and proclaim "oh, it's a common mistake?" People tell you off for shit like this all the time.

Are you the one who's a rocket scientist? If said something wrong about ascending nodes or parabolic orbit or minimum escape velocity I wouldn't double down if you told me I was wrong.

You're right, I'm a "rocket scientist" and you're a contrarian. I shouldn't have attempted to respond, as I would be trying to out-contradict a contrarian.

See my comments above. He's wrong about this.

Troll.

 

[BVS]

Again, how do you know what women put up with on a regular basis? Are you telling me that most women have been grabbed in the crotch in a public place multiple times in their life?

They've talked to me about it, seen it with my own two eyes. I remember a particularly eye opening experience in college when I realized that almost 60% of my close female friends had been assaulted, raped, or molested in their lifetime, and those were the ones willing to open up.

And that they would have very little recourse if it did happen? They could call the police and have the man immediately arrested without question. That wasn't an option to me either time I was assaulted. It would have been dismissed.

The facts don't back this up.

 

[Nick66]

You just quoted me saying hate crimes are a thing (they ARE, contrarian trollman). Hate crimes can include speech if the speech is not protected by the first amendment. There's a wide array of speech not protected by the first amendment.

Again, this isn't correct.

For example, you mentioned earlier "incitement to violence." Indeed, incitement to violence is generally not protected speech under the Constitution.

If someone said "Everyone go out and attack some people right now"...that would probably be incitement (but it's not entirely that straight forward).

And if someone said "Everyone go out and attack some Jews right now"...that could also be incitement to violence. But it's the incitement that would be illegal, unprotected speech...mentioning "Jews" isn't the illegal part in terms of speech. The racial motivation in making the comment is what gives the crime...incitement...a hate crime enhancement. But it's not the motivation even that's illegal...it's the action taken from that motivation that's illegal.

So insulting Jews or anyone else is protected under the Constitution. Hating Jews or anyone else is protected under the Constitution. Having racial animus is protected under the condition.

But if you commit a violent crime against someone and it can be proven you were motivated by that animus, you'll get an enhanced penalty for acting under that motivation. Not for the motivation itself. Not for the speech. For the hate motivated action you took. That's it.

Jesus, you're the worst type of troll.

Stop being an asshole.

And fuck off for telling me what my argument was and wasn't.

Troll.

Wow.

 

[mama cass]

If I called someone at work a "lazy good for nothing illegal spic" or something equally egregious, I would societally face about the same penalty as I would in France

what penalty would you get for that in the US? in France, you could get a suspended sentence and a hefty fine at the very least... (racism doesn't have to be inciting violence to be an offence here)

 

[mama cass]

Wow.

 

[Nick66]

France is big on "assimilation" (i.e. adopting French culture) in terms of its immigration policy

what is France? who are the French? France goes beyond the mainland and is one of the few former "empires" to have kept some of its colonies, and these French overseas territories are an integral part of France... French former colonies (e.g. Algerie, Indochine) fought for France in the various wars, many came to France as French citizens and their descendants are rightly French... so France has many faces...

I've recently got into binge watching Scandi Noir. I've never been big on police procedurals, but theres's something about the cold, remote locations and the language that I find incredibly compelling.

Anyway, I recently watched one called "Midnight Sun" that featured a French police officer participating in the investigation of the murder of French national in the far north of Sweden. She was French, spoke perfect French, and acted like a Parisian cop, but was actually a North African immigrant as a child. Anyway, one of the local Swedes ask her what her nationality is, guessing Egyptian or Algerian, and she said "I'm French" and that shut the conversation down. She's French, that's it.

Loved that moment, and I think it sums up what you're saying.

 

[mama cass]

I've recently got into binge watching Scandi Noir. I've never been big on police procedurals, but theres's something about the cold, remote locations and the language that I find incredibly compelling.

Anyway, I recently watched one called "Midnight Sun" that featured a French police officer participating in the investigation of the murder of French national in the far north of Sweden. She was French, but was actually a North African immigrant as a child. Anyway, one of the local Swedes ask her what he nationality is, guessing Egyptian or Algerian, and she said "I'm French" and that shut the conversation down. She's French, that's it.

Loved that moment, and I think it sums up what you're saying.

that's exactly it!