Travesty: Abhisit Vejjajiva charged with 'murder'

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, see...that's not what it is. So I guess it was too subtle for you.

Certainly. That's the only plausible explanation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This might certainly be true for a few people here, but using this as a line of attack while nothing in Lief's posts hinted about such an attitude remains unfair. And no, supporting the legalization of prostitution doesn't automatically make you a misogynist. That's a position I oppose, and one which, we agree, is detrimental to women in society. But it's also a position that can be defended in good faith and with good intentions. I think Politicus has done a great job disproving Lief's point, as Nathan and a few others, me comprised. There's no need to resort to "sarcastic" remarks of this kind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if one says something stupid and inconsistent (and yeah, comparing prostitution to manual labor clearly was), that doesn't make it OK to throw insinuations of the kind you did (and again, it doesn't matter if they're "humorous" or not). Especially because one can say something stupid without being stupid. I think it shouldn't be too hard for you to point out inconsistencies in reasoning without throwing this kind of attacks.

[Gustaf]

I think you really need to lighten up a bit. I obviously don't think supporting legalized prostitution means you're a misogynist. I'm leaning towards that position myself, after all.

You seem to think that I'm as serious in my posts as you are, but I'm not. I wasn't hinting anything about Lief or his positions and if you were to live by your preachy attitude you should perhaps make sure you understand others before you start judging them on their posts?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

[Gustaf]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

There are plenty of ways to make fun of someone's position without bringing up sexism or racism when it's uncalled for.

[ingemann]

I would say that ideally laws should punish customers and pimps, while leaving prostitutes alone (ideally, offering them opportunities for another professional orientation).

Sweden has largely gone in that direction.  Indeed, it generally has chosen throw out the idea that men can do whatever they like sexually with women and not worry about the consequences of their bad behavior, as a certain Australian who is now a guest of the Ecuadoran government has found out much to his displeasure.

Doesn't Sweden has more male prostitutes than female, through?

Probably, but I haven't seen a report on it. I know we do in Denmark and gay prostitution is generally very high in Scandinavian countries.
I don't think it really changes the various ethical dilemmas much whether or not the prostitutes are female or male.

Well I do, and what more I do think it show the whole problematic with this entire discussion.

Don't get me wrong, Thailand style prostitution is an abomination and opedo is pure scum.

But when we talk about prostitution, it always become a discussion between two side, one embracing the hapy whore myth, while the other embrace the prostitutes as poor victims. Both are simplifications of the real world.

Let take male prostitution. It do not compare with standard female prostitution, yes a few do make their money that way, but the vast majority of male prostitutes only get a few money on the side that way. For most male prostitutes it's a way to be introduced into the gay-bisexual milieu while still enabling them to stay in the closet. The problem with being a young person attracted to ones own gender, is that it's very hard to leave the closet, you lack knowledge of the milieu, its norms and models. As such relationships with older men serve to both introduce you to this, while they at the same time serve as models. At the same time the older men usual have more money and they try to use those to show the affection they can't show in public. This is radical different from traded women.

As for the women we have all from high paid escorts to traded women, and treating the former like the later or vice verse, is an insult to both. So let us first stop treating all prostitution as it were the same. It's stupid and it helps no one it only make us feel better about ourselves.

Next let stop talking about how we stop prostitution, it may be the final goal, but it's not what's important. What's important is helping people, not feeliong moral superior. How do we do that, criminalise the buying of sex? It hasn't helped in most societies, in fact it have only succeed in marginalise the prostitutes even more, as they can't met the Johns in public anymore, making them easy victims of both their johns, pimps and other criminals. It have also pushed the trading of women underground, limiting their contact with the rest of society.

If we on the other hand fully legalise prostitution, their position will be improved as they don't need pimps anymore, they have to follow labour rules, can meet their johns in semi-public (in brothels or "clubs") and can get support from the police, if they are victim of a crime. At the same time, it will also limit the trade of women, as they can't work in public and the customers can weight the risk between legal and illegal prostitution, as such much of the customer base for illegal prostitution will fall, resulting in fewer women being traded.

[Gustaf]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

There are plenty of ways to make fun of someone's position without bringing up sexism or racism when it's uncalled for.

That you didn't understand something really doesn't make it uncalled for. You should really tone down the pompous self-righteous act because you are, as I said before, not really in a position of authority to carry that. You can consider it arrogant if you want, but I don't see you as my guru when it comes to proper behaviour or how to joke.

[Gustaf]

I would say that ideally laws should punish customers and pimps, while leaving prostitutes alone (ideally, offering them opportunities for another professional orientation).

Sweden has largely gone in that direction.  Indeed, it generally has chosen throw out the idea that men can do whatever they like sexually with women and not worry about the consequences of their bad behavior, as a certain Australian who is now a guest of the Ecuadoran government has found out much to his displeasure.

Doesn't Sweden has more male prostitutes than female, through?

Probably, but I haven't seen a report on it. I know we do in Denmark and gay prostitution is generally very high in Scandinavian countries.
I don't think it really changes the various ethical dilemmas much whether or not the prostitutes are female or male.

Well I do, and what more I do think it show the whole problematic with this entire discussion.

Don't get me wrong, Thailand style prostitution is an abomination and opedo is pure scum.

But when we talk about prostitution, it always become a discussion between two side, one embracing the hapy whore myth, while the other embrace the prostitutes as poor victims. Both are simplifications of the real world.

Let take male prostitution. It do not compare with standard female prostitution, yes a few do make their money that way, but the vast majority of male prostitutes only get a few money on the side that way. For most male prostitutes it's a way to be introduced into the gay-bisexual milieu while still enabling them to stay in the closet. The problem with being a young person attracted to ones own gender, is that it's very hard to leave the closet, you lack knowledge of the milieu, its norms and models. As such relationships with older men serve to both introduce you to this, while they at the same time serve as models. At the same time the older men usual have more money and they try to use those to show the affection they can't show in public. This is radical different from traded women.

As for the women we have all from high paid escorts to traded women, and treating the former like the later or vice verse, is an insult to both. So let us first stop treating all prostitution as it were the same. It's stupid and it helps no one it only make us feel better about ourselves.

Next let stop talking about how we stop prostitution, it may be the final goal, but it's not what's important. What's important is helping people, not feeliong moral superior. How do we do that, criminalise the buying of sex? It hasn't helped in most societies, in fact it have only succeed in marginalise the prostitutes even more, as they can't met the Johns in public anymore, making them easy victims of both their johns, pimps and other criminals. It have also pushed the trading of women underground, limiting their contact with the rest of society.

If we on the other hand fully legalise prostitution, their position will be improved as they don't need pimps anymore, they have to follow labour rules, can meet their johns in semi-public (in brothels or "clubs") and can get support from the police, if they are victim of a crime. At the same time, it will also limit the trade of women, as they can't work in public and the customers can weight the risk between legal and illegal prostitution, as such much of the customer base for illegal prostitution will fall, resulting in fewer women being traded.

Sure, there is a range of different types of prostitutes. My problem with the dichotomy you draw here is that prostitution is dominated, by far, by the poor victim type rather than the happy whore. Definitely in a global perspective, but even in, say,  Western Europe prostitution is dominated by poor immigrants who to a large extent are unlikely to be very happy about their situation.

Beyond that I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, but I'm not yet convinced on how to weigh that against the counter-arguments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

There are plenty of ways to make fun of someone's position without bringing up sexism or racism when it's uncalled for.

That you didn't understand something really doesn't make it uncalled for. You should really tone down the pompous self-righteous act because you are, as I said before, not really in a position of authority to carry that. You can consider it arrogant if you want, but I don't see you as my guru when it comes to proper behaviour or how to joke.

I understand you don't like it, but criticizing you doesn't make me "pompous and self-righteous". Considering how often you do engage in criticizing other posters, it's funny you would think so. At least I did recognize that I can be wrong and that my posting style does have some flaws, while you call arrogant anybody who says the same toward you.

[Gustaf]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

There are plenty of ways to make fun of someone's position without bringing up sexism or racism when it's uncalled for.

That you didn't understand something really doesn't make it uncalled for. You should really tone down the pompous self-righteous act because you are, as I said before, not really in a position of authority to carry that. You can consider it arrogant if you want, but I don't see you as my guru when it comes to proper behaviour or how to joke.

I understand you don't like it, but criticizing you doesn't make me "pompous and self-righteous". Considering how often you do engage in criticizing other posters, it's funny you would think so. At least I did recognize that I can be wrong and that my posting style does have some flaws, while you call arrogant anybody who says the same toward you.

I never, or at least rarely, venture to tell others what they should do. Offering a criticism is very different from what you're doing.

You might say that you disagree with what I'm doing and explain why you wouldn't do it. But you're telling me that it is wrong and I have to stop it, which is incredibly pompous.

It would be scary if you couldn't recognize being wrong, given how often you are.

The "flaw" you've specified here seems to be with your reading of my post. And, essentially, I don't stay up at night worrying over people who can't understand me and want to be all high and mighty about telling me what to do. It might serve you well to also worry less about what others think and say, if I may also offer advice...

[opebo]

Don't get me wrong, Thailand style prostitution is an abomination

ingemann, Thailand style prostitution is probably the freest in the world - the women are the freest, the best paid relative to other professions, and have the least social stigma, and most importantly the least risk of crime/pimping/interference.  (that is, if they are Thai citizens)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I never, or at least rarely, venture to tell others what they should do. Offering a criticism is very different from what you're doing.

You might say that you disagree with what I'm doing and explain why you wouldn't do it. But you're telling me that it is wrong and I have to stop it, which is incredibly pompous.

Oh, so the problem is only semantic? You could have said it before. OK, let me rephrase "you shouldn't bring up racism and sexism for no reason in a political debate" into "I disagree with your bringing up racism and sexism for no reason in a political debate". Now it's not arrogant and pompous, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this certainly doesn't denote any arrogance whatsoever. Apparently it only takes you one sentence to forget the importance of humility you just told me about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a very good advice, actually. I thought I could be helpful in explaining what, in my view, makes your posting style so frustrating for many posters and tends to prevent constructive political debate, but it's pretty clear you think everything is perfect about your posts. So yeah, I got it, I'll leave you alone from now on. Keep on with your "humour".

[Gustaf]

I never, or at least rarely, venture to tell others what they should do. Offering a criticism is very different from what you're doing.

You might say that you disagree with what I'm doing and explain why you wouldn't do it. But you're telling me that it is wrong and I have to stop it, which is incredibly pompous.

Oh, so the problem is only semantic? You could have said it before. OK, let me rephrase "you shouldn't bring up racism and sexism for no reason in a political debate" into "I disagree with your bringing up racism and sexism for no reason in a political debate". Now it's not arrogant and pompous, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this certainly doesn't denote any arrogance whatsoever. Apparently it only takes you one sentence to forget the importance of humility you just told me about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a very good advice, actually. I thought I could be helpful in explaining what, in my view, makes your posting style so frustrating for many posters and tends to prevent constructive political debate, but it's pretty clear you think everything is perfect about your posts. So yeah, I got it, I'll leave you alone from now on. Keep on with your "humour".

Jesus. See, the middle paragraph, with even an added fricking smiley is CLEARLY A JOKE! It is funny precisely because it's an arrogant sentence in a debate on arrogance. I guess I shouldn't complain since this kind of stuff becomes funnier when people take it seriously, but still.

And, yes, giving an order as opposed to voicing a disagreement is not a 'semantic' difference. It is precisely the difference between being arrogant and not. That ought not be too hard to understand.

Now it seems as if you're all upset again. So I suppose I was a bit mean. Then again, I wouldn't have been so hard on you if you hadn't been so presumptuous. If you want to lecture people the way you do, you need to be right a lot more consistently and not so often take up positions on impulses without thinking them through. Our hostile interactions tend to be based on you misunderstanding something I post and then attack me very aggressively over it. Now, you're free to post however you want, of course, but since you seem to end up being very emotionally involved in these things I suspect you'd be better served by thinking things through more before you launch into a flame war over something.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

[Gustaf]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

That's a very Berlusconian way of thinking...

[Gustaf]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

That's a very Berlusconian way of thinking...

I'm afraid the comparison only serves to underline the fact that you don't really get this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

That's a very Berlusconian way of thinking...

I'm afraid the comparison only serves to underline the fact that you don't really get this.

No, your reasoning really has interesting parallels with some of Berlusconi's episodes. He says something incredibly offensive in a humorous tone, and when people get outraged about it, he tells them they can't get a joke.

[Gustaf]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

That's a very Berlusconian way of thinking...

I'm afraid the comparison only serves to underline the fact that you don't really get this.

No, your reasoning really has interesting parallels with some of Berlusconi's episodes. He says something incredibly offensive in a humorous tone, and when people get outraged about it, he tells them they can't get a joke.

The universe of communication is not divided into serious conversation and offensive jokes. I never suggested someone would fit as a Nazi camp guard. Nor was that a joke in the true sense.

You're essentially assuming that there is a category of jokes that offend people that should all be treated the same. (Or rather, I suspect, jokes that offend you, since that is typically the case). When in the company of friends I tell plenty of jokes that are actually offensive. On here I keep myself very restrained. And if I were a prime minister I wouldn't call a German politician a Nazi for rather obvious reasons.

This is all a bit moot since the type of joke Berlusconi was running is in a whole other category than the one I was making.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

That's a very Berlusconian way of thinking...

I'm afraid the comparison only serves to underline the fact that you don't really get this.

No, your reasoning really has interesting parallels with some of Berlusconi's episodes. He says something incredibly offensive in a humorous tone, and when people get outraged about it, he tells them they can't get a joke.

The universe of communication is not divided into serious conversation and offensive jokes. I never suggested someone would fit as a Nazi camp guard. Nor was that a joke in the true sense.

You're essentially assuming that there is a category of jokes that offend people that should all be treated the same. (Or rather, I suspect, jokes that offend you, since that is typically the case). When in the company of friends I tell plenty of jokes that are actually offensive. On here I keep myself very restrained. And if I were a prime minister I wouldn't call a German politician a Nazi for rather obvious reasons.

This is all a bit moot since the type of joke Berlusconi was running is in a whole other category than the one I was making.

I don't think bringing up sexism/racism is a lot much better than bringing up Nazism, personally. I don't think that considering offensive the jokes that rely on this sort of themes is that much of a stretch.

However it's pretty clear you won't change your mind and I won't change mine, so let's finish this. Merry Christmas, Gustaf.

[Gustaf]

See, that's exactly my point. 'Bringing something up' is a very vague term. I don't find Mel Brooks movie the Producers to be offensive because it brings up Nazism for example. I don't believe in banning mentions of racism and sexism from discourse. I think it's a very poor general principle. I suspect you probably agree with that if you think about it. Have you never made fun of a racist or sexist person or politician?

I can't force you to discuss with me so if you don't want to, Joyeux Noel (if I remember my French studies). But I think open discussion is good. It's the only way to make progress.

It seems to me that you think I was making fun of racism or sexism and that I was hinting that Lief holds such views, in a jocular manner. I think that's potentially the problem here because I wasn't doing any of these things.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males."

There's no need to be an English major to realize that this sentence suggests, whether jokingly or not, that someone has sexist and racist tendencies. Whether or not you actually think Lief is sexist/racist is irrelevant: your "joke" was nonetheless based on allegations of sexism and racism. You can put it however you want, but you can't change that.

[Gustaf]

"I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males."

There's no need to be an English major to realize that this sentence suggests, whether jokingly or not, that someone has sexist and racist tendencies. Whether or not you actually think Lief is sexist/racist is irrelevant: your "joke" was nonetheless based on allegations of sexism and racism. You can put it however you want, but you can't change that.

No, it's not. I was making fun of mindless identity politics, because that's what Lief represents to me.

I'll grant that I was also interested in seeing anyone try to rationalize making this difference but I wasn't holding my breath.

Anyway, I don't think the problem when person A favours exploiting primarily women of colour  is person B pointing this out. In fact, even if it weren't true, discussion and especially jokes is seldom a problem. If you can't take a joke about your opinions it will be hard to engage with those who differ from you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males."

There's no need to be an English major to realize that this sentence suggests, whether jokingly or not, that someone has sexist and racist tendencies. Whether or not you actually think Lief is sexist/racist is irrelevant: your "joke" was nonetheless based on allegations of sexism and racism. You can put it however you want, but you can't change that.

No, it's not. I was making fun of mindless identity politics, because that's what Lief represents to me.

I'll grant that I was also interested in seeing anyone try to rationalize making this difference but I wasn't holding my breath.

Anyway, I don't think the problem when person A favours exploiting primarily women of colour  is person B pointing this out. In fact, even if it weren't true, discussion and especially jokes is seldom a problem. If you can't take a joke about your opinions it will be hard to engage with those who differ from you.

Except I don't think Lief (or anyone else supporting the legalization in this thread) "favours exploiting primarily women of color", nor you have any reason to believe it. That is the point I'm desperately trying to make. Supporting the legalization of prostitution is a misguided political stance, but that does mean those who defend it do so out of some conscious or unconscious prejudice or because they only care about white males. I think Lief has made clear (albeit quite absurd) arguments to defend his position based on what he thinks is best for everyone. You could focus your sarcastic skills on rebuking these arguments, rather than on baseless assumptions about Lief's consideration for colored women.