Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Do you not realise the negative implications of accepting B1027 in the first place?

    1. It set a deplorable precedent since everyone can now submit at least one ‘parody’ per each bill just because one dislikes it. These may be ideologically motivated and used to propagate an ideology (e.g. exempting transvestites and gays from whatever negative effect of the bill).

    2. It is now okay (even according to the CT who replied to my report) to use expressions such as “cis straight white male scum” but then obviously also “trans gay black female scum” and other variations which used to be promptly deleted and carded.

    3. It is permitted to target a group of people defined by sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. as long as it's presented as satire.

    I don't really mind these new rules, but are you sure you're happy to accept ‘parodies’ targeting your ideology?
    It is important to be able to have a laugh at ourselves sometimes, because some of the stuff that gets proposed here is patently ridiculous and would be laughed out of the Chamber if proposed irl. However, the points you're making do make sense from a broader perspective. I found it amusing on first read, but perhaps in hindsight it was something that should have been considered and met with discouragement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I mean, the Bill was very substantially less offensive than a lot of what is said, for instance, about transgender people in MHoC.
    Perhaps to those people, but it's generally not meant to be insulting or ‘funny’ slash satirical. If one takes offence at someone using the other pronoun when referring to them, one should not use expressions such as “cis straight white male scum” in official submissions via the Speaker.

    My two main problems are that a) it was done via official channels rather than as a reaction to the original bill or in the Bar (clearly an attempt to beg for as much attention as possible), and b) it used language that would not have been acceptable if it had targeted minorities instead of normal people.

    Harsh as I am at times, I believe that both B1027 and B1028 should have been considered unacceptable and rejected, and this is simply my last stand since both the Speaker and the CT are taking an unfair stance given their usual reactions to content such as the one presented in this bill.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Do you not realise the negative implications of accepting B1027 in the first place?

    1. It set a deplorable precedent since everyone can now submit at least one ‘parody’ per each bill just because one dislikes it. These may be ideologically motivated and used to propagate an ideology (e.g. exempting transvestites and gays from whatever negative effect of the bill).

    2. It is now okay (even according to the CT who replied to my report) to use expressions such as “cis straight white male scum” but then obviously also “trans gay black female scum” and other variations which used to be promptly deleted and carded.

    3. It is permitted to target a group of people defined by sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. as long as it's presented as satire.

    I don't really mind these new rules, but are you sure you're happy to accept ‘parodies’ targeting your ideology?
    Firstly, I do think there needs to be a sensible limit on joke items - but that doesn't mean banning them outright and we've hardly had a plethoria lately. Secondly, there is a difference between satire and genuinely targettings certain demographics, and a difference again between targetting demographics and targetting, harrassing or abusing individuals belonging to them. In my experience here even targetting certain demographics isn't deemed inappropriate here - I have never seen someone be banned for stating that transgender people are deluded and making it up, or that it is preferable to encourage our society to stay predominantly white, or rather infamously that black African people are genetically incapable of speaking 'proper English' and thus should not be allowed to have certain public-facing jobs such as tube station announcers. Given that, I really don't see how what I submitted could be deemed inappropriate to say in the MHoC. And whilst I may be biased, I do believe I've sufferred more targetting and harassment than the vast majority here: but for the record I would rather things weren't censored unless it's absolutely, unambiguously out of order. It's not a case of me being some Tumblr SJW junkie who can't take what she deals out: I've taken plenty and find it hilariously hypocritical that as soon as I even make a satrical remark it's people calling for me to be censored.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    It is important to be able to have a laugh at ourselves sometimes, because some of the stuff that gets proposed here is patently ridiculous and would be laughed out of the Chamber if proposed irl. However, the points you're making do make sense from a broader perspective. I found it amusing on first read, but perhaps in hindsight it was something that should have been considered and met with discouragement.
    I appreciate that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I would broadly echo LP's words, especially that this should not have been accepted, but neither should 1027.

    I'm also disappointed I was not put down as a seconder

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This is going way too far...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with limiting access to the UK for people from or traveling to unstable/war torn/enemy/barbaric countries, particularly in the ME.

    But discriminating against transgender and homosexuals/lgbt is just wrong imho. They don't pose a significant threat to society.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would broadly echo LP's words, especially that this should not have been accepted, but neither should 1027.

    I'm also disappointed I was not put down as a seconder
    Sorry, I didn't realise you wanted to second this formally.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    I agree with limiting access to the UK for people from or traveling to unstable/war torn/enemy/barbaric countries, particularly in the ME.

    But discriminating against transgender and homosexuals/lgbt is just wrong imho. They don't pose a significant threat to society.
    It's just an internal MHoC squabble in reaction to this nonsense.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    I agree with limiting access to the UK for people from or traveling to unstable/war torn/enemy/barbaric countries, particularly in the ME.

    But discriminating against transgender and homosexuals/lgbt is just wrong imho. They don't pose a significant threat to society.
    Neither do men inherently, or "white cis scum", as this takes the piss out of

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Sorry, I didn't realise you wanted to second this formally.
    You shouldn't even need to ask

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    It's just an internal MHoC squabble in reaction to this nonsense.
    Thanks lol - I did read the comments before posting but it's certainly thought provoking. I've actually heard a lot of people in RL asking for similar... Anyway, didn't have the link to the original, thanks!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    eeeee
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the Speaker's ruling on the matter. I am touched that members of the House remember my time as an independent MP, which seems so long ago.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Neither do men inherently, or "white cis scum", as this takes the piss out of

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Difference is one is a majority who may experience violence and threats but not because they are white/cis/male/hetrosexual (there are very rare cases, but that is all they are rare cases, anomalies), and one is a discriminated against minority who experience daily threats simply for being lgbtq+.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I agree with the Speaker's ruling on the matter. I am touched that members of the House remember my time as an independent MP, which seems so long ago.
    Quite. Whenever I'm too amused when I shouldn't be which may considered inappropriate, I just remember one of your ‘joke’ bills or the Socialist one on football stands. These are guaranteed to calm me down. Yuck!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Difference is one is a majority who may experience violence and threats but not because they are white/cis/male/hetrosexual (there are very rare cases, but that is all they are rare cases, anomalies), and one is a discriminated against minority who experience daily threats simply for being lgbtq+.
    What you mean to say is: “Positive discrimination is okay, they can take it.”
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    What you mean to say is: “Positive discrimination is okay, they can take it.”
    It's easier to take a joke on the internet than actual, real-life discrimination, yes.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who doesn't identify as White British, how on earth do you propose to kick people like me out? Nothing here about how to address current residents who fail to meet the requirements, I see no plan of this at all. Blatantly not thought through!

    Ah, of course, amnesty for all current residents!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    What you mean to say is: “Positive discrimination is okay, they can take it.”
    What I am saying is a white, cis, hetrosexual male can walk down the highstreet, holding their white, cis, hetrosexual female girlfriend's hand and the chances of being subjected to threats or hate speech because of their skin colour, gender identity, sexuality or partner is astronomically low.. Someone who is LGBTQ+ can not walk down the street with that same comfort, especially if they are holding the hand of their partner who is the same gender as them, or if they don't pass or hell even if they 'look gay'.

    I never once mentioned positive discrimination, I simply pointed out discrimination against, prejudice against, hate speech and threats of violence (and actual violence) are a very real reality for LGBTQ+ because they are LGBTQ+. And that is just looking at this Country were we have the equality act 2010, we have same sex marriage, we have legal rights and protections, in some Countries it is illegal to be LGBTQ+ and can be punishable with death.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    LP makes a good point. Ban joke bills.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 10, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.