By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Belgian man convicted for sexism, will be jailed if fine isn't paid, Under new law.

 

I find this...

Funny. 10 16.39%
 
Absurd. 20 32.79%
 
Scary. 16 26.23%
 
Sexist. 7 11.48%
 
Indifferent/comments... 8 13.11%
 
Total:61
o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
DarthMetalliCube said:
o_O.Q said:
what also baffles me about this is that am i really supposed to believe that the guys in this thread championing what happened to this guy have never had a disagreement and cursed severely at someone else?

Same, along with the fact that a few people here are seriously lumping in talking back to a female police officer with ACTUAL crimes, which is not only wrongheaded it's potentially dangerous. Just glad certain people here aren't in charge of things, of we'd be living in a very scary society indeed.. :/

Fascinating how some will so willingly give up their power to authoritarian governments. I always found it difficult to believe that Fascist and Communist governments can get enough support of the masses to rise to prominence, but then I see something like this, and suddenly it becomes easier to believe..

well its all in the spirit of making everything "safe"

of making interactions between imperfect people perfect

because apparently we are living in an era where no one wants to be responsible and retain some degree of their individuality when facing the challenges of life so therefore they need a daddy above them to handle things for them

"a guy catcalls a woman? well since she's a female she's too much of an infant to handle the situation herself, so we need laws to take that responsibility away from her"

and i seriously wonder if the people pushing this are aware that this is essentially their argument?

that's not to say that we don't need to limit risks with laws, but what i'm saying is that there's a reasonable balance between the two and that fining or jailing people for speech that is not threats is way too restrictive



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

"because there is still sexism that exists"

are you going to treat your girlfriend the same way you treat the men in your life?

well if that's not the case then you're part of the "problem"

 

sexism is never going to be something that is eradicated... i'm not even sure that it can be reduced because a lot of the so called "solutions" for sexism involve discrimination against men

furthermore even if we ignore the fact that its not going away... sexism is not something that the majority of people even want to be eradicated since you have to discriminate between the two sexes to choose a sexual partner for example

these discussions are framed in such a ridiculously simplistic delusional way that i shudder to think of where we'll be in a decade or so

I don't have a girlfriend so I can't answer that question.

let's imagine that you did, would you treat her the same as you do the men in your life?



o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
John2290 said:
o_O.Q said:

well its all in the spirit of making everything "safe"

of making interactions between imperfect people perfect

because apparently we are living in an era where no one wants to be responsible and retain some degree of their individuality when facing the challenges of life so therefore they need a daddy above them to handle things for them

"a guy catcalls a woman? well since she's a female she's too much of an infant to handle the situation herself, so we need laws to take that responsibility away from her"

and i seriously wonder if the people pushing this are aware that this is essentially their argument?

that's not to say that we don't need to limit risks with laws, but what i'm saying is that there's a reasonable balance between the two and that fining or jailing people for speech that is not threats is way too restrictive

They are aware. Follow the money that is funding leftist protests across the US and groups like black lives matter and it leads to some very high places, some of the richest people in the world or people who own the largest corporations. I wish I hadn't looked into it because it leaves only three scenarios, these people are trying to better the world (unlikely), they are bored and playing games or they have an agenda to which this benefits them.

i'm aware of what you're talking about, but i'm actually referring to the foot soldiers that simply follow the ideological nonsense that trickles down from the top

and no its not to better society, its about control and that's why critical thinking is under such an attack



o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
John2290 said:
o_O.Q said:

let's imagine that you did, would you treat her the same as you do the men in your life?

There's no point in following that along, he has stated before that he is a virgin and hasn't been in a relationship. There's no way he can know how he would interact or see women after the fact without doing so. 

his experience is irrelevant, the point i'm trying to make is that just in being a man he's going to view women differently than men

specifically being attracted to members of the opposite sex is sexist inherently because it shows discrimination based on sex and that's the thing everyone is sexist

its not something we can ever eradicate from human interaction and that so much discourse in society is now about how we HAVE to put a stop to it soon is to say the least extremely concerning

and i've only just slightly touched on how sexism plays a part in interaction 

why does don't we pit rhonda roussey against brock lesner?

usain bolt against felix?

the fact that these things need to be said is so unbelievable lol



o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
John2290 said:
o_O.Q said:

i'm aware of what you're talking about, but i'm actually referring to the foot soldiers that simply follow the ideological nonsense that trickles down from the top

and no its not to better society, its about control and that's why critical thinking is under such an attack

They could be just playing games though, think about it, they are most likely pathological as that's what it takes to amass so much money (disregarding the tech billionaires, but they seem at least sincere in wanting to better the world), So take a psychopath, sociopath or just a general dick head and give him everything he's ever wanted and all the money he could ever spend. What is he most likely to do? Play around with his power for the trip of it, wouldn't be beyond the pale of reason albeit it has the same outcome for the middle class as you said. 

Anyway, might as well bite the pillow and let it happen. Denial is bliss.

well i've done a lot of research and ultimately i just don't know for sure, but one thing i'm sure of is that all of this nonsense is not being done to help people, even though its constantly framed that way



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 19 March 2018
o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

I don't have a girlfriend so I can't answer that question.

let's imagine that you did, would you treat her the same as you do the men in your life?

Well, that's hard to say, are you trying to imply that if I have sex with my girlfriend but not my male friends that I'm sexist?



VGPolyglot on 19 March 2018
John2290 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, that's hard to say, are you trying to imply that if I have sex with my girlfriend but not my male friends that I'm sexist?

I think he's trying to imply that you could be called sexist, not that you are. Any interaction between the opposite sex can be labeled as sexism and he is totally right on that therefore these are blanket laws that should not exist. It's not long ago that men were allowed to beat there wives under the same kind of blanket law making.

Nah, it's just you guys coming up with absurd definitions of sexism in order to denounce feminist movements.



o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

let's imagine that you did, would you treat her the same as you do the men in your life?

Well, that's hard to say, are you trying to imply that if I have sex with my girlfriend but not my male friends that I'm sexist?

of course, sexism is discrimination based on sex

if you disagree please tell me your definition of sexism



VGPolyglot on 19 March 2018
o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, that's hard to say, are you trying to imply that if I have sex with my girlfriend but not my male friends that I'm sexist?

of course, sexism is discrimination based on sex

Well, here's my Trump card then: I've had oral sex with males before.



kirby007 on 19 March 2018
VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

of course, sexism is discrimination based on sex

Well, here's my Trump card then: I've had oral sex with males before.

pics or it didnt happen



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.