... issues and tissues with a touch of the spicy from the spirit hag ...
(aka the anti-discrimination farce)
Published on June 21, 2004 By mignuna In Current Events

the anti-discrimination act came into being as legal direction for people who don’t know how to treat other people ... people who would knowingly discriminate against others unless it were actually illegal.

the mindsets of such people are not difficult to imagine ... this world is full of so-called superior beings who would happily take any “advantage” they had over someone they consider “inferior” ...“inferior” being based entirely on grounds that most decent people would now call “discriminatory”, of course.

removing what “supremacists” consider to be their natural “advantages” via legislating against discrimination may bring about a turn in behaviour, but it’s like waving a red flag at a bull in terms of reinforcing their bad attitudes. this form of “special treatment” for “minority” groups removed any legal ways these closed minded people had to exercise (exorcise ?) their hatred ...

... and we can make discrimination illegal, but we can’t legislate against hate.

making it a crime to behave in a discriminatory manner was a real win for public life. i do not deny this. but it came at the price of forcing hate underground, along with the festering resentments it carries. eventually, the dissonant hum becomes loud enough and the hate takes a public voice in the form of a hate group, anti-something-protest or other such motivated posse.

some people just do not want it to be illegal to voice their stupid opinions. as sickening as it is, there are still people in this world that think being white makes you worth more as a human, or that being rich gives you special rights within the law, or that "poor" people don’t deserve good healthcare.

there is so much hate in this world, and so many bigots filled with impotent rage, it’s little wonder we had to tell people how they have to behave towards each other. i just wish somebody told them why we have to behave that way ...

... not why we should. but why we have to.

there is no legislation that can make people accept each other, but by effectively creating the very segregation it was brought into existence to prevent, the anti-discrimination act has become a sad parody of itself. i realise i live in la-la land, but hello, powers-that-be ... would it be so hard to at least try and change the way people think and feel instead of just the way they have to behave ?.

nothing will ever change as long as we’re all taught to view each other as an unending cluster of “minorities” to be viewed and treated under certain conditions. maybe if we had more people that understood each others' differences, there would be much less of a need for any "anti-discrimination act" to tell us what we should already know.

the anti-discrimination act needs to be renamed as “the basic rules of human behaviour”. because that’s all it really contains. so, we shouldn’t even need it, but, since we apparently do, will i put in a request for a law against hating something you don’t understand ?.

woops. of course not. silly me. we all know what would happen then, right ?





Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 21, 2004
woops. of course not. silly me. we all know what would happen then, right ?


Humans have the equivalent of robotic paradox intolerence. When presented with rules and mores that are so simple, necessary and common sensed (sorry, i think i may have just made something up) they have a tendency of spontaneously combusting.

Now THAT we wouldn't want to happen...would we?

Marco XX
on Jun 21, 2004
Humans have the equivalent of robotic paradox intolerence


heh. you would know.

When presented with rules and mores that are so simple, necessary and common sensed (sorry, i think i may have just made something up) they have a tendency of spontaneously combusting.


no, they don't. this issue wouldn't be a problem if they did. but thanks anyway

mig XX
on Jun 21, 2004
Way to go with the literal interpretations. You silly, silly woman



Marco XX

PS Weren't you supposed to call me...like, an hour ago. Not only are you a silly woman, you are tardy. (God! One can have so much fun without swearing) *gags*

Don't worry. I forgive ya'.
on Jun 21, 2004
Way to go with the literal interpretations. You silly, silly woman.Marco XX. PS Weren't you supposed to call me...like, an hour ago. Not only are you a silly woman, you are tardy. (God! One can have so much fun without swearing) *gags*


luckily for you i did eventually return that call. i would have assumed that you meant my entire article was a silly literal interpretation instead of just my reaction to your comment hehe ... your silly, silly comment.

thankyou for admitting (at least in private) that i do have a point. (even though you don't share my "lightweight" opinion)


mig XX

on Jun 21, 2004
hmmmm if i had a dollar for everything ive done solely because it was illegal (and didnt incidentally benefit me by at least 99 cents)...

okay, id have a few extra dollars but ive engaged in many more illegalities because i could so easily persuade myself the laws in question overreached the state's authority.

clearly you can legislate morality or against immorality--as in 'its neither moral nor legal to steal'--but not totally effectively. otherwise there would be no thieves in jail.

i agree there shouldnt be a need for laws against hatred. anti-discrimination legislation carries in its wake some clearly counter-productive consequences. laws against theft didnt put locksmiths out of businesss...nor do they guarantee stolen goods will be returned to those from whom they were taken. they may actually engender more devious, dangerous and desperate thieves.

the most any law can do is demarcate the line between what is permissable and what isnt and make crossing that line costly enough to dissuade those who might otherwise ignore it--something that didnt exist in any real sense in american racial relations prior to 1964.
on Jun 21, 2004
silly literal interpretation

is that better or worse than a silly liberal interpretation? nyuknyuk!
on Jun 21, 2004
the most any law can do is demarcate the line between what is permissable and what isnt and make crossing that line costly enough to dissuade those who might otherwise ignore it--something that didnt exist in any real sense in american racial relations prior to 1964.


thankyou, king ... a fitting conclusion to an article full of misguided hope. it's a good thing i'm so politically ignorant. if i had any chance of ruling the world, misguided hate would be illegal. (but only for as long as took me to make them all get along, dammit ... then it wouldn't need to be anymore).

see ? ... as i said, the world should be grateful i'm so passive and daft

mig XXX
on Jun 21, 2004
Reply #6 By: kingbee - silly literal interpretation

is that better or worse than a silly liberal interpretation?


depends, king.

see, the author of that comment is my actual real-life, in-person, flesh-and-blood best friend. hehe. and he has such a literal mind (if you could call that thing a mind - i prefer "steel trap" myself), that he may have in fact rendered himself unable to read a silly liberal interpretation.

(ewwww !. king, you said "liberal" in my blog. search engine people will come beat me up for leading them to a blogful of feminazi rants in which the only liberalism is in the "art"category. still, they may be better behaved than the "dog sex" people. don't ask)

thanks for your comments, king

mig XXX
on Jun 21, 2004
i had any chance of ruling the world, misguided hate would be illegal.

you already have my vote

the world should be grateful i'm so passive and daft

and a campaign slogan (hell all politicians lie)

on Jun 21, 2004
the "art"category

the first 2 times i read that, i thought it was 'arf'
on Jun 21, 2004
Reply #9 By: kingbee - i had any chance of ruling the world, misguided hate would be illegal.
you already have my vote
the world should be grateful i'm so passive and daft
and a campaign slogan (hell all politicians lie)


king, that worked on so many levels. ugh ! ... way to compliment me by making a minor-but-very-insighful-and-spot-on-mockery of my own passive aggressive article (and associated responses) ... luckily i am just perverse enough to love that. but you already knew THAT, i think.

*is again thankful you're clever enough not to be genuinely scary in your observations*

Reply #10 By: kingbee - the "art"category
the first 2 times i read that, i thought it was 'arf'


it is. i said arf. i'm into "arfing". it's like smart girls s & m

mig XXX

on Jun 21, 2004
I think changing people's thoughts and attitudes would be somewhat beyond the government. I know some terrible racists, who are basically pretty intelligent people till you set them of on the subject of race, and you can argue with them till the sun goes down but they won't change their minds or see it any different. i think it may be an impossible task. Sorry to be the pessimist in all this, but maybe some people at least are just plain hateful by nature...?

Liked the article, v. thought provoking and thanks for your comments on my blog mig. Stay cool. I'm off to my polka class...nah just kidding.

love and chocolate Dyl xx
on Jun 21, 2004
I wish I had more time for this comment, but I'm in a rush, but I just had to comment now. Wow so many issues here blogging mummy, hehe! I believe in freedom of speech, and there's my biggest issue, because i believe in freedom of speech, I should actually be willing to listen to these thoughts and opinions no matter how stupid, or pathetic or uneducated they maybe, but I don't want to hear them, I don't want to know these people exist, ignorance is bliss, and I want people to speak their mind, but hearing things like that makes me cringe, so my lack of willing to listen to me, does that make me as abd as them? Food for thought. My next point, we can't change humna behaviour, we are all different, and as nice as it would be to live in a world where everyone was open minded and willing to accept everyone it won't happen, but I think no matter what we should try to change it, great article Mummy, sorry if I haven't made much sense!
on Jun 21, 2004
because i believe in freedom of speech, I should actually be willing to listen to these thoughts and opinions no matter how stupid, or pathetic or uneducated they maybe, but I don't want to hear them, I don't want to know these people exist, ignorance is bliss, and I want people to speak their mind, but hearing things like that makes me cringe, so my lack of willing to listen to me, does that make me as abd as them?


not at all, sally. i feel conflicted in the same way, even as i wrote the article i had that in mind. i even thought of how that very issue has been prominent here on ju at the moment. (but did it shut me up ? nooo lol. me and my big idealistic gob). that whole "i don't agree with what you're saying, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it" still rings true - so what do you do when what you hear as a result is something you feel is wrong ?. i think this needs more discussion, yes ?. thanks so much for adding such a thought provoking comment, sally, which brings me to:

My next point, we can't change humna behaviour, we are all different, and as nice as it would be to live in a world where everyone was open minded and willing to accept everyone it won't happen, but I think no matter what we should try to change it


exactly. it probably won't happen. but thankyou for caring anyway

I think changing people's thoughts and attitudes would be somewhat beyond the government. I know some terrible racists, who are basically pretty intelligent people till you set them of on the subject of race, and you can argue with them till the sun goes down but they won't change their minds or see it any different. i think it may be an impossible task. Sorry to be the pessimist in all this, but maybe some people at least are just plain hateful by nature...?


you're not a pessimist, dyl. you're right. i just wish it was different. occasionally my cynicism lifts and something like that squeaks by. and i know exactly the type of person you mean - a great soul with just one big prejudice - makes you wonder how it got there, doesn't it ?

thanks for your comments chickies

mig XX
on Jun 21, 2004
even though you don't share my "lightweight" opinion


I have never met someone whose corporeal weight is so disproportionate to the "weight" of their ideas and intentions. And you can take THAT literally.

Marco XX
2 Pages1 2