Travesty: Abhisit Vejjajiva charged with 'murder'

[Gustaf]

I have never heard that we have more male prostitutes in Sweden than female ones and I'd be extremely surprised if such were the case. We import a ton of Eastern European and Southeast Asian women for illegal prostitution.

And it's always fun to see certain leftists come out in favour of radical free market libertarianism as long as it's sufficiently exploitative of women.

[Gustaf]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

[Gustaf]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

See Gustaf, this is the problem with you.

I find Lief's arguments to be completely wrong, misguided and somewhat silly. But there's nothing in what he posted that in any way suggests he's a misogynist or a racist. You're just bringing out strawmen instead of actually addressing his points (which you don't need to, since Politicus did that excellently).

That's what I said when I mentioned your "disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them". At least get aware of this.

You think that's what I'm doing? I'm not saying he's racist nor misogynist. I'm not arguing against a strawman because I'm not arguing in that post at all.

Maybe you should be aware of the irony in judging someone as being disturbed based on apparently not really understanding their posts. You'll have to forgive me for not really caring much about what you think I need to be aware of because I have never seen a post from you that indicates you having anything to offer me in terms of advice.

[Gustaf]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

See Gustaf, this is the problem with you.

I find Lief's arguments to be completely wrong, misguided and somewhat silly. But there's nothing in what he posted that in any way suggests he's a misogynist or a racist. You're just bringing out strawmen instead of actually addressing his points (which you don't need to, since Politicus did that excellently).

That's what I said when I mentioned your "disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them". At least get aware of this.

You think that's what I'm doing? I'm not saying he's racist nor misogynist. I'm not arguing against a strawman because I'm not arguing in that post at all.

Maybe you should be aware of the irony in judging someone as being disturbed based on apparently not really understanding their posts. You'll have to forgive me for not really caring much about what you think I need to be aware of because I have never seen a post from you that indicates you having anything to offer me in terms of advice.

What you call irony, others would call it being an asshole for no reason.

I defined your behaviour as ironic, if you prefer to label it being an asshole for no reason I won't object.

See, you're trying to lecture me on how I should think and behave to be a better person. Which is both incredibly arrogant and very judgmental. Which is a bit ironic. Or assholeish, but I  prefer to think of it as ironic.

[Gustaf]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

Left-wingers are opposed to working in coal mines? The idea is to remove the aspects that are degrading and exploitative. Legalized prostitution, if implemented properly, achieves this.

No, miners are often exploited and the battle against that exploitation is one of the defining characteristics of the left movement historically. The number of miners still dying every year is pretty high.

You don't think prostitution is in anyway inherently degrading and exploitative? That's fascinating. Do you think it is a coincidence that such a vast, vast majority of prostitutes come from poor backgrounds and/or troubled family backgrounds?

My point here is that while libertarians often argue that, for example, Asian sweatshops are great the left usually argues that certain type of jobs are exploitative and shouldn't be allowed. To see anti-capitalist crusaders suddenly turn around and be totally fine with prostitution, potentially the most exploitative business out there, is amusing.

[Gustaf]

I must say, I do rather enjoy the Antonio vs. Gustaf feuds.

It seems to have become a bit of a tradition by now. I'm beginning to think it's just a cultural difference boiling down to the famous French lack of humour though.

[Gustaf]

I must say, I do rather enjoy the Antonio vs. Gustaf feuds.

It seems to have become a bit of a tradition by now. I'm beginning to think it's just a cultural difference boiling down to the famous French lack of humour though.

I assume this post is another display of your well-known humour, rather than a bigoted ethnic slur. Well done, that's really clever.

I have the feeling you're not enjoying it. And I thought it was such a good tie-in with how all this started!

See, you're assuming that because we've had our disagreements I am pathological or disturbed. Which is a bit on the extreme side. I don't think you're a deficient character, merely that you're wrong.

If you were to actually criticize my style of arguing and doing so from any position of authority I wouldn't think of it as arrogance. I personally rarely lecture people on how they should be because I find it generally arrogant. I have no problem taking advice from people who are superior to me but it'd frankly be a sad reflection on me if a forum mostly populated with 15-year olds was generally superior to me. Maybe that makes me arrogant, but then so be it.

See, I'm not asking you to make some major changes in your character or argumentation style so as to fit my preferences. I only take the right to decide how I'm going to post and I don't think not following your life tips makes me as arrogant as you'd like to think. You're not Dr. Phil, you know.

[Gustaf]

The number of miners still dying every year is pretty high.

Even in the 'West' (where mining has pretty much disappeared as a major occupation group, obviously) there are still semi-regular pit disasters. And then there are the occupational illnesses - respiratory diseases especially - that come with it, many of which are ultimately fatal.

This is without even considering, for example, the coal industry in China.

I thought mentioning coal mining would eventually draw you out of your lair.

And, yes, it's been argued in the thread that there is no difference between menial labour and prostitution.

[Gustaf]

I thought mentioning coal mining would eventually draw you out of your lair.

And, yes, it's been argued in the thread that there is no difference between menial labour and prostitution.

I am an incredibly predictable individual, yes.

Presumably the 'selling your body is no different to selling your labour' canard? lol

Yep. The specific example given was that no one minds coal mining so prostitution should be perfectly fine. Which I found a bit amusing.

[Gustaf]

See, you're assuming that because we've had our disagreements I am pathological or disturbed. Which is a bit on the extreme side. I don't think you're a deficient character, merely that you're wrong.

If you were to actually criticize my style of arguing and doing so from any position of authority I wouldn't think of it as arrogance. I personally rarely lecture people on how they should be because I find it generally arrogant. I have no problem taking advice from people who are superior to me but it'd frankly be a sad reflection on me if a forum mostly populated with 15-year olds was generally superior to me. Maybe that makes me arrogant, but then so be it.

See, I'm not asking you to make some major changes in your character or argumentation style so as to fit my preferences. I only take the right to decide how I'm going to post and I don't think not following your life tips makes me as arrogant as you'd like to think. You're not Dr. Phil, you know.

So you only accept advice from people whom you consider superior? That's definitely very mature and not arrogant at all.

I do accept advise from anyone, depending on how convincing their arguments seem to me. You're free to tell me why my criticisms are stupid or wrong, that's smarter than preemptively dismissing them because a stupid kid on an internet forum has nothing to teach to you.

Anyways, no, I don't think you're disturbed or a bad person. After all, you're the one making tongue-in-cheek remarks hinting about the racism/sexism of your opponents.

Huh? Yes? How is it 'mature' to heed an opinion that is misinformed, wrong or stupid?

If you were giving arguments I could listen to it but if you make an assertion, why would I care?

In this case you're wrong because I don't judge people preemptively or whatever. Why would I even want to do that? I judge them based on what they say. You're also wrong because you don't seem to understand the concept of being sarcastic about silly positions of silly people. Arguing with someone like Lief whose basic creed is anti-thinking is a bit pointless so I settle for making fun of him every now and then.

Oh, and I'm not hinting about racism or sexism. I don't think you get this concept. Which is why you should perhaps not be so fast to judge.

[Gustaf]

See, you're assuming that because we've had our disagreements I am pathological or disturbed. Which is a bit on the extreme side. I don't think you're a deficient character, merely that you're wrong.

If you were to actually criticize my style of arguing and doing so from any position of authority I wouldn't think of it as arrogance. I personally rarely lecture people on how they should be because I find it generally arrogant. I have no problem taking advice from people who are superior to me but it'd frankly be a sad reflection on me if a forum mostly populated with 15-year olds was generally superior to me. Maybe that makes me arrogant, but then so be it.

See, I'm not asking you to make some major changes in your character or argumentation style so as to fit my preferences. I only take the right to decide how I'm going to post and I don't think not following your life tips makes me as arrogant as you'd like to think. You're not Dr. Phil, you know.

So you only accept advice from people whom you consider superior? That's definitely very mature and not arrogant at all.

I do accept advise from anyone, depending on how convincing their arguments seem to me. You're free to tell me why my criticisms are stupid or wrong, that's smarter than preemptively dismissing them because a stupid kid on an internet forum has nothing to teach to you.

Anyways, no, I don't think you're disturbed or a bad person. After all, you're the one making tongue-in-cheek remarks hinting about the racism/sexism of your opponents.

Huh? Yes? How is it 'mature' to heed an opinion that is misinformed, wrong or stupid?

If you were giving arguments I could listen to it but if you make an assertion, why would I care?

In this case you're wrong because I don't judge people preemptively or whatever. Why would I even want to do that? I judge them based on what they say. You're also wrong because you don't seem to understand the concept of being sarcastic about silly positions of silly people. Arguing with someone like Lief whose basic creed is anti-thinking is a bit pointless so I settle for making fun of him every now and then.

Oh, and I'm not hinting about racism or sexism. I don't think you get this concept. Which is why you should perhaps not be so fast to judge.

For some reason you seem to think that if a comment is sarcastic, it's of no importance. It's pretty obvious that your jab at Lief was sarcastic. But that does not change the fact it was a baseless and offensive comment. Sorry, it's not OK to slander your opponents, sarcastically or not. Also, for someone who prides himself of having a very subtle humour, making jokes about someone you dislike being a racist and a sexist seems a bit gross.

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

(it also wouldn't really be baseless. The left DOES generally oppose exploitation of workers. And it clear that large parts of the left on this forum don't care for sufficiently far away foreigners or women)

See, if you take a stupid and inconsistent position you might have to suffer being made fun of. If you want to avoid that you'll have to give a better justification or switch to something that makes more sense. 

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.