Some immigrants adapt so well to Finland that they even parrot the language of the racist

by , under Enrique

Intolerance doesn’t only originate from the majority group, but is alive and kicking among some immigrants as well. White immigrants may have prejudices against their fellow black ones, gays against heterosexuals, religion x against religion y.  In sum, there’s a lot of intolerance promoted out there that reveals itself in the most surprising places. 

One of the pillars of  our integration program in Finland should be to teach immigrants how to live in a culturally diverse society and the importance of mutual acceptance and respect for others. This may be easier said than done, taking into account that immigration and cultural diversity are new to some Finns.

Here’s the crux of the problem: If we don’t practice what we teach we encourage at the end of the day newcomers to hold the same negative values as us. Don’t we make a mockery of our own values like social equality (tasa-arvo) if we don’t practice what we preach?

Some immigrants have adapted so well to our society that they even parrot the language and jokes of those that loathe them.

I was quite surprised to hear an immigrant make a joke about another immigrant.

Here’s what he said: There was a bomb explosion at a white Finns’ and immigrants’ home. Why didn’t the Finns die?

Answer: Because the Finns were at work and their children at school. The immigrants were all at home because neither their parents were employed nor did their children attend school.

What?!

A black unemployed immigrant telling such a tasteless “joke” about other immigrants in Finland?

As far as our integration program is concerned, it got a big “FAIL” with this person.

Sad but true.

 

 

  1. Joonas

    You know it is still a joke, right? I wouldn’t condemn the person based on a joke how well he has integrated to Finland. I know you are not a big fan of racist/satiric jokes, but we all have different tastes. Is it actually racist if the person is himself an unemployed immigrant and didn’t specify any certain ethnicity? Like in US, some black people use N-word and it is acceptable, but it’s not acceptable to use by the white people.

    I didn’t find the joke particularly funny, but some people find even Dead Baby- jokes amusing.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Like in US, some black people use N-word and it is acceptable, but it’s not acceptable to use by the white people.

      The rule here, I believe, is that you can laugh at your group but to make demeaning jokes about others is a no-no and in bad taste. Immigrants are not one group. They comprise of many.

    • Mark

      Joonas

      I wouldn’t condemn the person based on a joke

      Why not? If the joke is in particularly bad taste, reveals ingrained prejudices and appears to be taking a ‘cheap shot’ at people in a way that further perpetuates and normalises that prejudice, why not condemn it?

      Are we so terrified of being accused of not having a sense of humour? Fuck em! If it’s not funny, it’s not funny, even if they bend over backwards trying to tell us it is!

  2. Farang

    Jokes are for fun, they don’t harm anyone and are not meant to hurt anyone. I have never ever heard about someone making a joke in order to hurt someone. It is always about fun and making people laugh.

    Did you know that similarly Finns tells jokes about Finns? It’s no different.

    As Joonas says above, you can’t condemn other people’s jokes. You are not in a position to tell others what kind of jokes are ok to tell or not.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Jokes are for fun, they don’t harm anyone and are not meant to hurt anyone. I have never ever heard about someone making a joke in order to hurt someone. It is always about fun and making people laugh.

      Telling racist jokes is a form of racial bullying.

      You are not in a position to tell others what kind of jokes are ok to tell or not.

      Why not? If you can tell us a racist joke “is funny!”, then surely we have the exact same freedom to say “no it isn’t, you fucking Nazi!”

    • Farang

      Why not? If you can tell us a racist joke “is funny!”, then surely we have the exact same freedom to say “no it isn’t, you fucking Nazi!”

      It is funny to some, not funny to some. But nobody is in a position to forbid them from ALL people. If you don’t like something, fine, but don’t try to forbid other people from liking it.

    • Mark

      Farang

      But nobody is in a position to forbid them from ALL people.

      But this is where you are living in your own make-believe world, Farang. No-one here said jokes should be ‘forbidden’. Nevertheless, there are many behaviours that are not illegal but are nonetheless are socially unacceptable. We are arguing that racist jokes should be socially unacceptable. If that were true, the you, you fucking bald-headed Nazi, would be one of the few people to tell this joke or find it funny!

  3. Enrique Tessieri

    –It is always about fun and making people laugh.

    Farang, it appears you haven’t heard many jokes.

    –You are not in a position to tell others what kind of jokes are ok to tell or not.

    If a joke is racist, then I have a right to point that out.

    • Farang

      If a joke is racist, then I have a right to point that out.

      But that joke was not racist. It was about immigrants. Immigrant can be from any country, from any group. That was not even targeted against any certain group. Therefore it can’t be racist.

    • Mark

      Farang

      But that joke was not racist.

      Hahahahahahahahaha….lololololol….hahahaha! Now Farang is telling jokes!

  4. Farang

    On a concrete level, could Mark or Enrique or anyone else tell us, what was the harm done in that joke?

    What negative happened to someone because that joke was told? When you find out the answer it will put some perspective in to this.

    • Mark

      Farang

      On a concrete level, could Mark or Enrique or anyone else tell us, what was the harm done in that joke?

      Fuck off, Farang, you fucking bald-headed Nazi peadophile!

    • Mark

      I’m waiting for you to complain about how your reputation has been damaged and your feelings hurt by this abusive and false accusation being levelled against you?

      Something tells me that you won’t dare comment further on this!

    • Farang

      Sorry Mark, it’s not damaging my reputation. It tells more about the person using that kind of language.

      I’m just a bit confused as I’m not used to seeing that kind of arguments used in any other discussion forums. And that includes also hommaforum and places like that, which you most propably would condemn. Also here in MT, you are the only one using that kind of arguments. Enrique, JD and others are always civilized, I wonder what are their opinions. In my opinion discussion should be able to be had without the need of attacking the persons having the conversation.

    • Mark

      Farang

      In my opinion discussion should be able to be had without the need of attacking the persons having the conversation.

      Farang, you gate-post shagger, it’s just a joke! We all know that you are an unemployed junkie Billy-no-mates who spends all his time visiting Migrant Tales to provoke the anti-racists, jerking off to [false] rape-fantasy porn and practicing your Nazi salutes in the mirror!

    • Farang

      Actually, I am anti-racist myself. I oppose racism and I also intervene whenever I see racism in public places.

    • Farang

      Racism is discriminating or bullying or abusing people because of their ethnic background.

  5. Farang

    Mark

    But this is where you are living in your own make-believe world, Farang. No-one here said jokes should be ‘forbidden’. Nevertheless, there are many behaviours that are not illegal but are nonetheless are socially unacceptable. We are arguing that racist jokes should be socially unacceptable. If that were true, the you, you fucking bald-headed Nazi, would be one of the few people to tell this joke or find it funny

    Whether talking about being unacceptable or forbidded, it’s basicly the same. You want to stop that kind of jokes of being told.

    It is majority of people who finds that joke funny, only minority is getting upset about it.

    Mark

    Fuck off, Farang, you fucking bald-headed Nazi peadophile!

    And this level of argumentation is supposed to convince everyone that you are correct?

    Enrique, as this is your site, could you give us your view about that kind of language?

    • Mark

      Farang

      Whether talking about being unacceptable or forbidded, it’s basicly the same

      It’s not the same at all. If something is illegal, then you are committing a crime. If something is socially unacceptable, you are expressing an abnormal attitude and behaviour. It all depends on how healthy society’s norms are as to whether or not such behaviour is commendable.

      And this level of argumentation is supposed to convince everyone that you are correct?

      Not at all. It demonstrates that words do have power and that they can be used in an abusive way. Something you are in denial about! Still, according to you, I can always claim it was just a joke! 🙂

      Enrique, as this is your site, could you give us your view about that kind of language?

      Exactly, you are seeking a response! I knew you would. Fucking hypocrite bald-headed Nazi pedophile!

    • Farang

      Mark

      It’s not the same at all. If something is illegal, then you are committing a crime. If something is socially unacceptable, you are expressing an abnormal attitude and behaviour. It all depends on how healthy society’s norms are as to whether or not such behaviour is commendable.

      I didn’t say illegal, I used word forbidden. Ofcourse if something is illegal, then people must obey that.

      Not at all. It demonstrates that words do have power and that they can be used in a abusive way. Something you are in denial about! Still, according to you, I can always claim it was just a joke!

      Anyway, even if words have power, it is no excuse to forbid them. Jokes are jokes. Defamation is yet different thing. If I tell a joke about immigrants, it’s not defamation. But if I publicly make an untruthful claim about immigrants, that could be defamation or inciting ethnic hatred (or both).

      Exactly, you are seeking a response! I knew you would. Fucking hypocrite bald-headed Nazi pedophile!

      I am interested to see if others see that kind of language “normal”? Your example doesn’t quite work. Telling jokes is very common and acceptaple by majority of people. I accept your using of that kind of language, it doesn’t harm me, but it distracts the discussion.

      We are here talking about jokes and whether or not they are acceptable. You are only trying to sidetrack the discussion because you are unable to give any proper arguments to backup your claims.

    • Mark

      Farang

      If I tell a joke about immigrants, it’s not defamation. But if I publicly make an untruthful claim about immigrants, that could be defamation or inciting ethnic hatred (or both).

      A joke contains both implicit and explicit information or claims about the persons involved. This joke implies immigrants are always unemployed. That’s a negative slur, plain and simple.

      I am interested to see if others see that kind of language “normal”?

      And now you are demanding standards to protect you, an anonymous internet troll, and yet you refuse to accept that immigrants in Finland should have social and legal protections against similar kinds of ‘abuse’ dolled out in the name of humour! Hypocrite!

      You are only trying to sidetrack the discussion because you are unable to give any proper arguments to backup your claims.

      I’m sure the argument flew right over your head….doesn’t mean the argument wasn’t being made!

    • Farang

      A joke contains both implicit and explicit information or claims about the persons involved. This joke implies immigrants are always unemployed. That’s a negative slur, plain and simple.

      That why it is called a joke. Jokes usually contains something which might be negative in real world but in the joke it is considered funny.

      Like the N-word, it’s usually considered negative, but in the airplane joke it is turned positive. Here it is, in case you haven’t heard it:

      A black man with his son is on airplane and the engines fail. In order to get over the sea and land the plane, they must throw cargo out. That is not enough so the captain speaks:
      – Dear passengers, in order to save rest of us, we need to throw some passengers out. In order to be fair, we start in alphabetical order:
      – Are there any African people on the plane?
      – Are there any Black people on the plane?
      – Are there any Coloured people on the plane?
      At this point the boy turns to his father and says:
      – Dad, you have taught that we always need to be honest. We are african, we are black and we are coloured, but yet you haven’t raised your hand.
      Dad responds:
      – I know son. But today, son, today we are niggers.

      Who would consider that joke offensive?

    • Mark

      You are justifying racial bullying, Farang.

      Calling it a joke does not excuse it. It should be recognised as socially unacceptable!

      I’m realistic enough to know that even Nazi death camp guards probably told jokes to each other….but that does not mean that means it should be socially acceptable.

      Is that the only joke you know, by the way Farang, because you’ve bored us with it before. And it is still a joke in poor taste, by the way!

  6. Farang

    I’ll ask this question here again, since the previous one got a bit lost with Mark’s offtopic 🙂

    On a concrete level, could someone tell us, what was the harm done in that joke?

    What negative happened to someone because that joke was told? When you find out the answer it will put some perspective in to this.

    • Mark

      Farang

      On a concrete level, could someone tell us, what was the harm done in that joke?

      Immigrants are presented as valueless human beings who are only social scroungers. The fact they get killed in a bomb and the implicit sense of ‘justice’ involved is actually quite sinister, and could even be taken as a subtle incitement to violence against immigrants.

    • Farang

      You still failed to give example of the actual harm. It’s obvious from the context that it is a joke, therefore nobody is considering it to be truth.

      Interesting that even when we all know it’s a joke, you take one thing from the joke and describe it as a fact.

      If someone interprets that joke as inciting violence, then all I can say the will and violence is in his own head.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      The so-called actual harm, Farang, is perpetuating stereotypes about others. Stereotypes can be deadly. If we racism were a poisonous plant, stereotypes would be its soil.

    • Mark

      Farang

      You still failed to give example of the actual harm.

      Listen you scumbag low life who accuses women of making false accusations of rape, calls Human Rights legislation bullshit and generally tries to be a total pain in the arse to everyone on this site, bullying is harmful. I’m really sorry they didn’t teach you that at school.

    • Farang

      But the stereotype already exists, and the joke is based on it. Therefore the joke can’t generate any stereotypes.

      Jokes are about fun and amusement. If someone hears that joke which this thread is about, he would never start thinking that “hey, immigrants are lazy, let’s bomb their houses”. They would just laugh and that’s it. Nobody is hurting anyone.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Jokes are about fun and amusement.

      And jokes can be a form of social bullying! But you have no problem with this. You simply ignore it.

    • Farang

      I have never heard anyone actually getting offended by a joke, when the joke is about his own reference group.

      It’s always the substitute offendees who gets offended. And that is not very healthy base for starting to regulate the telling of jokes.

      For example I have never heard of any somali being offended when he has been told a somali joke. The people who get offended are usually white people in internet.

    • Mark

      Farang

      It’s always the substitute offendees who gets offended. And that is not very healthy base for starting to regulate the telling of jokes.

      My guess is that you are assuming that a black man would find this joke funny and therefore it passes as an acceptable racist joke. I bet that most black people would probably find the idea behind the joke pretty offensive, that such blatant racism is the norm and that blacks have to ‘adapt’ to that, rather than getting old whitey to change his ways!

      There is no reason why a joke cannot be challenged or criticised just like any other idea. What fascists and racists have tried to do over the years is to perpetuate their hatred through jokes and then claim the ‘funny-man immunity’. It doesn’t work. You are still inviting people to laugh at the ‘low status’ of black people, in the same way that other stupid fucking joke invites people to laugh about the low status of immigrants.

      And if you really think there is no such thing as a racist joke, just Google it, Farang!

    • Farang

      Mark

      Listen you scumbag low life who accuses women of making false accusations of rape, calls Human Rights legislation bullshit and generally tries to be a total pain in the arse to everyone on this site, bullying is harmful. I’m really sorry they didn’t teach you that at school.

      Ok, now back to the context. In the situation (what Enrique wrote about) where that immigrant told that joke, who was getting bullied? Because to me it looks like onlyone who got upset was Enrique, who has outsider in that situtation.

    • Mark

      Farang

      where that immigrant told that joke, who was getting bullied? Because to me it looks like onlyone who got upset was Enrique, who has outsider in that situtation

      Farang the moral scumbag is basically saying you can tell the sickest jokes you like as long as you tell them behind people’s backs so that they don’t get to hear. That way, we all get to laugh at them and they never get to hear about it.

      Oh, and Farang doesn’t think this is bullying!

  7. Joonas

    –Like in US, some black people use N-word and it is acceptable, but it’s not acceptable to use by the white people.

    The rule here, I believe, is that you can laugh at your group but to make demeaning jokes about others is a no-no and in bad taste. Immigrants are not one group. They comprise of many.

    If immigrants are not one group, are black people either? We can easily add them to multiple subgroups if we want (by origin etc.). Even some Latino people use the same word about themselves. I don’t believe anyone should use that specific word, but that’s just me. But actually I wrote about the racist jokes a few weeks ago to MT, so I can just copy-paste it:

    “This is a difficult topic. I do understand why we shouldn’t make fun of them [stereotypes], but I wouldn’t say we can’t make fun of stereotypes (but if you are in politics this is definitely a no-no). Usually “forbidding” this kind of subjects backfire and it has opposite affect to the problem.

    I have several gay friends who sometimes are making fun of gay/straight stereotypes, because it exposes how ridiculous those stereotypes really are. It’s not people believe in them, but because that sort of humor is little bit offensive is purpose and challenges those stereotypes. It’s up the the listener how to react to them. Many TV-shows rely on making fun of stereotypes, such shows like South park, Family Guy and even The Simpsons… and the list goes on. I would say it really depends who is telling and how the jokes are told.”

  8. Joonas

    Joonas

    Are we so terrified of being accused of not having a sense of humour? Fuck em! If it’s not funny, it’s not funny, even if they bend over backwards trying to tell us it is!

    Like I said, there are all kinds of humor and I can absolutely understand why you find this humor rude or even offensive. But instead saying “it’s not funny” you could say “YOU don’t find it funny”. Millions of people find racist jokes funny, if they are in the right content. Is Dave Chappelle racist or unfunny?

  9. Farang

    Joonas

    I would say it really depends who is telling

    I have to slightly disagree.

    It can’t be about WHO is telling the joke. If we take the attitude that black man can tell jokes about black people, but white man can’t tell jokes about black people it is purely racist by it’s definition.

    That is forbidding something from someone only based on his ethnic background. So whoever is considering it is ok for black to tell black jokes, but not ok for whites to tell black jokes, that person is racist.

  10. Farang

    Mark

    calls Human Rights legislation bullshit

    Just to clarify this. I call it bullshit only because by definition it gives same human rights for every people. That’s what I don’t approve.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Just to clarify this. I call it bullshit only because by definition it gives same human rights for every people. That’s what I don’t approve.

      Farang – you little Nazi facist – it’s called ‘human’ rights because all HUMANS have them. To try to water them down to apply those rights ONLY to subcategories of humans completely, and I mean COMPLETELY undermines the whole notion of what human rights are all about!

      Only a total idiot would try to argue for ‘human rights’ that apply only to ‘those with status’! Have you ever read ‘Animal Farm’ Farang?

      “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!”

  11. Farang

    Farang – you little Nazi facist – it’s called ‘human’ rights because all HUMANS have them. To try to water them down to apply those rights ONLY to subcategories of humans completely, and I mean COMPLETELY undermines the whole notion of what human rights are all about!
    Only a total idiot would try to argue for ‘human rights’ that apply only to ‘those with status’! Have you ever read ‘Animal Farm’ Farang?

    And that is exactly why I disagree with the declaration of human rights. We just have to agree to disagree, there is nothing to talk about.

    And yes, I know Animal Farm. We had to read it when I was in school. That’s not comparable. In that book the pigs took priviledges over others. In my model every human is born equal, but one can lose his human right based on his own actions.

    That kind of system would make it easy to make decisions in situation where rights of criminal and innocent person conflicts. It should always be acceptable to torture a criminal in order to save innocent lives. But that discussion we already had.

    • Mark

      Farang

      In my model every human is born equal, but one can lose his human right based on his own actions.

      And that is a fascist’s wet dream, Farang. You do realise that to even open the door to that kind of half-baked notion of human rights basically gives carte blanche to States to completely abuse and disavow people of their human rights just as long as they trump up some kind of appropriate charge of criminal behaviour.

      Good job you are a drunken bum armchair Nazi fascist and do not have any real power over citizens!

    • JusticeDemon

      Farang

      In my model every human is born equal, but one can lose his human right based on his own actions.

      I still find it fascinating that you are completely unaware of the essentially theistic metaphysics that your “model” requires. This is very clearly a Conservative Laestadian doctrine of sin. The only thing missing is the power of the keys. The fact that your sinners are irredeemable does not alter the point that they are sinners in the religious sense of this expression.

      We could demonstrate this by analysing a few simple moral scenarios, but we know from experience that this is always the point at which the ultra-rationalist Farang starts describing questions as stupid and otherwise throwing a tantrum because he is afraid to examine the core assumptions underlying his faith.

      Here’s one for you to start with: A child killer sustains accidental brain damage or other trauma resulting in complete loss of memory of killing a child and requiring a complete reconstruction of personality. Is the reconstructed person good or bad and why?

  12. Farang

    Here’s one for you to start with: A child killer sustains accidental brain damage or other trauma resulting in complete loss of memory of killing a child and requiring a complete reconstruction of personality. Is the reconstructed person good or bad and why?

    We can’t know that in advance, how could we?

    But here’s the trick: A child killer doesn’t deserve any treatment, therefore he should never get any reconstruction. Only mentally twisted person would give treatment for child killer. A child killer should be removed from the society for good.

    Question to you: Why would you reward child killer with treatment?

    • JusticeDemon

      Farang

      Precisely as I predicted, you try to dodge the question because you are genuinely afraid of what it will teach you about your own fundamental assumptions.

      The point of a thought experiment is to illuminate those assumptions. It is pointless to change the parameters of the experiment. You must take those as a given. As in the matriculation exam, there are no marks to be gained by changing the question.

      In this case you come across the outcome as a given (though I did stipulate that the outcome was due to an accident and not to any form of treatment). That given is that the individual whose original guilt is evident (e.g. from dna evidence, perhaps many years after the offence) has no recollection of the offence, nor even of the personality of the offender at the time of the offence.

      Now you come across this reconstructed individual some years after the offence, and the question for you concerns whether that individual is good or bad and why.

      I wonder whether you are brave enough to tackle this question or simply too afraid that it will expose the fundamentally religious assumptions that necessarily support your moral intuition.

  13. Farang

    Precisely as I predicted, you try to dodge the question because you are genuinely afraid of what it will teach you about your own fundamental assumptions.

    I didn’t dodge it. You asked a question which can’t be answered otherwise. It’s like asking “if I throw a coin, will it be heads or tails?” You can’t know the answer, you can only take a guess.

    Now you come across this reconstructed individual some years after the offence, and the question for you concerns whether that individual is good or bad and why.
    I wonder whether you are brave enough to tackle this question or simply too afraid that it will expose the fundamentally religious assumptions that necessarily support your moral intuition.

    I’m not quite sure what you are asking. On what basis should I make the judgement if that person is good or bad? If only thing I know about that person is that he has went through some reconstruction treatment. He might be good or he might be bad, I would need more information before I could decide. But if I would know what he did before the treatment, then it doesn’t matter what that person is afterwards. He should be punished for it.

    Person who has committed such a serious crime can’t wipe away it just by “stopping being bad and becoming good”.

    We have enough people in this world, there is no reason to try to fix the bad individuals, we have good people here already. Only humanity kind of crap produces ideas like that, to heal the carbage.

    • JusticeDemon

      Farang

      I didn’t dodge it. You asked a question which can’t be answered otherwise. It’s like asking “if I throw a coin, will it be heads or tails?” You can’t know the answer, you can only take a guess.

      Are you answering that there is no way to tell whether the individual is good or bad?

      This is one possible response, though I don’t think you will like its consequences.

      On what basis should I make the judgement if that person is good or bad?

      That is what we are trying to establish. I think such a judgment necessarily requires religious metaphysical entities, and that you have unconsciously adopted certain patterns of moral thinking that presuppose such entities. This is the basis for your puzzlement when we drive a wedge between the human being (a biological type) and the person (a moral agent).

      If only thing I know about that person is that he has went through some reconstruction treatment. He might be good or he might be bad, I would need more information before I could decide.

      You are hung up on the idea that there must be some treatment involved, with the implication that some other moral agent (e.g. a therapist) can somehow absorb the sin. This is not required. Even if others are involved in the reconstruction of personality (in either a professional or lay capacity), there is no need for these others to have any knowledge of the individual’s history. The connection of guilt is made after the reconstruction has occurred, and it links to the human being but not to the former personality. In all important respects the former personality has gone.

      Your request for more information before I could decide is nevertheless interesting. You have the dna evidence linking the human being to the crime, but I think you can see the problem that arises when the personality has been replaced.

      But if I would know what he did before the treatment, then it doesn’t matter what that person is afterwards. He should be punished for it.

      And now this turns back to the idea that the sin inheres in the biological entity regardless of whether the personality is still present. It is interesting that you now swing this way in the context of what you know and a need for punishment understood from some universal perspective. All very Old Testament, in fact.

      Person who has committed such a serious crime can’t wipe away it just by “stopping being bad and becoming good”.

      Spot the religious metaphor wipe away! Wipe WHAT away? Cash this religious metaphor and tell us what it is that inheres in the biological entity after the personality has gone. If not sin, then what?

      You might also like to reflect on the related question of whether it is morally right to punish someone for an offence that he cannot remember committed by a personality that is no longer his own and that is, in every relevant sense, a different moral agent.

  14. Farang

    Seems that both of you, Mark and JD, just like to talk offtopic so that you can avoid talking about the topic of this thread: THE JOKE

    • Mark

      Farang

      Seems that both of you, Mark and JD, just like to talk offtopic

      As usual, you are lying about what your critics are actually saying. Nothing that I wrote was ‘offtopic’. You said that jokes were not harmful. I pointed out that they can be part of a pattern of bullying. You refused to accept this or the need for society to condemn this kind of racial bullying. I then directed verbal abuse towards you in a deliberate and obvious attempt to illustrate my point more concretely.

      You duly responded by asking whether Migrant Tales would tolerate this behaviour from a commentator, thereby illustrating concretely your hypocritical stance, that indeed you do demand standards for communication, but only when these standards affect your own reputation as opposed to the reputation of immigrants.

      On top of that, you still refuse to accept joke telling can be a form of bullying. You state, without any evidence, that only people not directly affected by racist jokes are the ones who feel offended, as if these people can be ignored as ‘white guilt’. This is a very typical Far Right position.

      But your position is unrealistic. You suggested twice, and even though you were corrected, that this was about regulation of jokes (God forbid that racists wouldn’t be allowed to tell racist jokes!), when in fact it is about what is acceptable. Racial bullying should not be acceptable. Society needs standards that govern behaviour, in exactly the same way that you were appealing to MT to impose standards on me when I verbally abused you.

      None of this discussion has been ‘offtopic’. More like …. ignore topic, fingers in ears, blah blah blah, whenever anyone makes a serious point to you Farang that you cannot even begin to address adequately.

  15. Farang

    JD

    And now this turns back to the idea that the sin inheres in the biological entity regardless of whether the personality is still present.

    Biological entity and personality is one and same, you can’t take one out from the person without the other. Only religious or other way mentally disoriented people believe that.

    One can try to change how he behaves but he can’t change the personality. He is what he is. If someone suffers from memory loss, he is still the same person as before. Forgetting something doesn’t erase what happened.

    And about the treatment. I misinterpreted you reconstruction procedure and thought you meant somekind of therapy. But treatment or not, it has no effect on my opinion. A killer is always a killer and should be treated that way. The one who violates someones human rights loses them himself and don’t deserve any protection for it anymore.

    Spot the religious metaphor wipe away! Wipe WHAT away? Cash this religious metaphor and tell us what it is that inheres in the biological entity after the personality has gone. If not sin, then what?

    Why are you so obsessed with religion? Could we please stick to the reality and not a fantasy world?

    There is no separation of personality and the actual person. Personality is not something that you can change. You seem to believe that humans have some kind of a reset button, so when a failure occurs, you can just reset and start again. That is just so absurd that I have difficulties to undestand how someone can come up with ideas like that.

    And actually, if the person can’t remember his crime, he would be thinking that he is innocent and still convicted. That is even better punishment.

  16. Farang

    Mark

    You duly responded by asking whether Migrant Tales would tolerate this behaviour from a commentator, thereby illustrating concretely your hypocritical stance, that indeed you do demand standards for communication, but only when these standards affect your own reputation as opposed to the reputation of immigrants.

    Now you are being untruthful. I never demanded standards for communication here. I simply asked if there was any. Asking is not demanding. Same as if homeless guy goes to restaurant and asks if he could get some spare food, that is not a robbery.

    On top of that, you still refuse to accept joke telling can be a form of bullying. You state, without any evidence, that only people not directly affected by racist jokes are the ones who feel offended, as if these people can be ignored as ‘white guilt’. This is a very typical Far Right position

    How can it be bullying for example person A if the joke is not even told to person A?

    You still haven’t told us who was the target of bullying in the situation that this whole thread is about?

    Racial bullying should not be acceptable.

    Atleast one thing that we can agree on 🙂

    Society needs standards that govern behaviour, in exactly the same way that you were appealing to MT to impose standards on me when I verbally abused you.

    Once again, I wasn’t appealing to impose any standards, I only asked if there were any. Because in the context of MT it looks pretty stupid to see that kind of comments and usually discussion forums may have somekind of “rules” about which kind of language is suitable.

    But you need to make a difference between privately hosted forum and free world. In the real world we can’t start telling people what to say or how to talk. That is freedom of speech. But Enrique here has every right to decide what can be said in his forum. Is this clear to you?

    • Mark

      Farang

      I never demanded standards for communication here. I simply asked if there was any.

      Now I think you are being pedantic. You used several devices to ‘demand’ action. You pointed out the reputation of MT was at stake, you used ‘peer pressure’, stating that other forums do not tolerate such abuse, and you also tried to divide the other MT editors against me, stating that I am the only one to abuse you in this way. It was very clear that you were trying to get some leverage and that you were not happy. And that really was the point, to demonstrate that you are perfectly capable of understanding this issue when the shoe is on the other foot!

      How can it be bullying for example person A if the joke is not even told to person A?

      And I already responded to this point by saying that your idea of racism is that it’s okay as long as the person is abused behind their backs. That is frankly a completely unjustifiable defence of racial bullying and completely unrealistic if you think that the ‘victim’ will never know they are a victim because nobody tells them!

      You still haven’t told us who was the target of bullying in the situation that this whole thread is about?

      Really? Fingers well and truly in your ears, aren’t they. Let’s make it clear for you, the target of the bullying is immigrants, regardless of who tells the joke first or last.

      Because in the context of MT it looks pretty stupid to see that kind of comments and usually discussion forums may have somekind of “rules” about which kind of language is suitable

      Our readers are not stupid, Farang.

      In the real world we can’t start telling people what to say or how to talk. That is freedom of speech.

      In your world Farang, you defend racial bullying, even though you give lip service to condemning it. The condemnation isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, simply because when we get a clear example of bullying, you simply refuse to accept there are any ‘victims’.

      And yes, in the real world, social pressure can be very strong in controlling people’s behaviour and setting limits for acceptable behaviour, through shared values and attitudes. It is NOT about telling people how to talk, it is about establishing our values, humane values, that respect individual identity and reject behaviour that seeks to deliberately create social stigmatisation as harmful behaviour.

      You cannot stop people being idiots or saying cruel and insensitive things. But you can at least make an effort to condemn it when they do, to make a stand for something better.

      Standards, values and respect for human dignity. I guess this just doesn’t mean a great deal to you!

  17. Farang

    Mark

    And I already responded to this point by saying that your idea of racism is that it’s okay as long as the person is abused behind their backs.

    That is still not answering the question. Let’s say your assumption is valid and the person is bullied behind his back. Now please answer: How is this person A that was bullied behind his back in the situation described by Enrique in this thread.

    You say the person is “immigrants”. What kind of answer is that? You can’t say collectively that all immigrants were some kind of victim. If the person who told the jokes was also an immigrant, then it is obvious that ALL immigrants do not feel being bullied.

    This is an example case of “substitute offendee”. You feel superior over all immigrants and think that you are in a position to say on behalf of all immiggrants which is offending against them and which is not.

    It’s easy to just make claims “collectively”. Now, please name some individual who was bullied in that situtation.

    Standards, values and respect for human dignity. I guess this just doesn’t mean a great deal to you!

    Maybe it means different thing. You seem to forget that we need to respect also people who enjoy telling racial jokes. It is an act against their human dignity to forbid them telling those.

    • Mark

      Farang

      That is still not answering the question. Let’s say your assumption is valid and the person is bullied behind his back. Now please answer: How is this person A that was bullied behind his back in the situation described by Enrique in this thread.

      Behaviour is informed by beliefs, attitudes, decision-making and circumstances. A negative and prejudiced attitude towards a group of individuals can and does result in concrete actions that harm those individuals, from verbal abuse, to physical abuse, to social isolation, to stigmatisation, to denied job opportunities, to intransigence from state institituions, to being targeted for State overreach, to racial profiling, to violation of basic rights. All of this concrete racial abuse comes down to the attitudes and beliefs of those doing the abusing. Those attitudes and beliefs do not appear, in whole, overnight. They develop and evolve over time. Racists who feel that they share their prejudices with their peers are emboldened in their willingness to abuse and bully the target of prejudice.

      Jokes that target immigrants feed and strengthen prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. That ultimately can lead to concrete actions of abuse. If you cannot see this causal chain, then I suggest you study a bit of either psychology or sociology, because it really isn’t rocket science.

      You can’t say collectively that all immigrants were some kind of victim.

      Yes we can say that. If someone disparages ‘blacks’ it is clear that this may not refer to a single individual, but potentially can have negative effects for all members of that group.

      You feel superior over all immigrants and think that you are in a position to say on behalf of all immiggrants which is offending against them and which is not.

      Do I have to point out that you started this. You were the one who started saying that immigrants would NOT be offended. I simply don’t believe your claim.

      Now, please name some individual who was bullied in that situtation.

      Indirectly, we can say all individuals who experienced any form of discrimination are ‘victims’ of this bullying, simply because allowing this attitude and prejudice to continue simply reduces the odds of it having a negative impact on somebody at some point. It is not like we don’t know that there is racial abuse in Finland, because we know there is. Knowing there is abuse, we can also say that that abuse is driven by attitudes and beliefs that are reinforced with this kind of ‘joke’.

      respect also people who enjoy telling racial jokes

      No, I do not have to ‘respect’ these people. Why would I? I respect their rights, but I do not respect their character or their racism. No way, Farang.

  18. Farang

    Mark, it feels like you think you are some kind of superior person in this world. You have your own idea how everything should work and then you want to enforce that idea to apply ALL people in the world.

    Everyone should share your view, or otherwise they are wrong? Am i right?

    • Mark

      Farang

      Everyone should share your view, or otherwise they are wrong? Am i right?

      Is this an argument against anyone who dares to have an opinion? I disagree with the premise ‘everyone should share your view’. I don’t think anyone ‘should’ share my view. People are capable of making their own minds up. I will simply present the arguments as I see them. I’m sure there are flaws in my arguments. I am also sure that I cannot present someone else’s arguments – why would I? I have to present my own arguments. Nevertheless, I also know that I am not alone in my thinking or how I see some issues.

      Mark, it feels like you think you are some kind of superior person in this world.

      People are generally good at what they have worked at. I wouldn’t write about this topic of racism unless I had done extensive work to try to understand the topic. I also recognise that a great many people write and talk about this topic while having done hardly any research. Am I ‘superior’ to those people? My arguments and understanding are almost certainly going to be superior, but the difficulty is that showing people their ‘ignorance’ is no easy matter. Most people believe themselves to be right, regardless of whether they have done their homework or not!

  19. Farang

    Mark

    Jokes that target immigrants feed and strengthen prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. That ultimately can lead to concrete actions of abuse. If you cannot see this causal chain, then I suggest you study a bit of either psychology or sociology, because it really isn’t rocket science.

    Only mentally incapacitated person let’s a joke strenghten or cause prejudism. We can’t start controlling all people based on the capacity of mentally ill people.

    Indirectly, we can say all individuals who experienced any form of discrimination are ‘victims’ of this bullying,

    You are saying that effectively:

    Person A tells a racist joke to person B in City X.
    Person C hears that Person A has told Person B a racist joke.
    Person C attacks person D in City Y.

    You are now telling that it was Person A who caused the attack against Person D. Way to go 🙂

    Do you notice that in all your argument there is the word “can”. Something can happen, some one can something, etc…

    So only because there is possibility that something may or may not happen, you draw the lines so that everything must be forbidden. Did you know that everytime you drive a car, you can cause an accident. That is still not a valid reason to forbid driving. Everytime you eat you can die, that’s not a reason to forbid eating.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Only mentally incapacitated person let’s a joke strenghten or cause prejudism.

      I have actually researched this topic in the past, and I can tell you that the results of my research contradict your statement above. The results of my study clearly showed that perceptions of humour by one’s perceived peer group strongly affect our own ideas about what is funny and what is not funny. Jokes do strengthen opinions and prejudices and also work to reinforce those prejudices. In my research, people bent over backwards to appear to have a different sense of humour to people they thought were schitzophrenic. In the process, they reinforced their own negative stigmatisition of people with mental illness.

  20. Farang

    Mark

    I am also sure that I cannot present someone else’s arguments – why would I? I have to present my own arguments.

    Well well… Just under an hour ago you were clearly presenting arguments behalf ALL immigrants 🙂

    • Mark

      Farang

      Well well… Just under an hour ago you were clearly presenting arguments behalf ALL immigrants

      Short and selective memory, you have Farang.

      Yesterday you wrote:

      I have never heard anyone actually getting offended by a joke, when the joke is about his own reference group.

      It’s always the substitute offendees who gets offended. And that is not very healthy base for starting to regulate the telling of jokes.

      For example I have never heard of any somali being offended when he has been told a somali joke. The people who get offended are usually white people in internet.

      I bolded your use of absolutes.

      And yet more use of absolutes:

      You still failed to give example of the actual harm. It’s obvious from the context that it is a joke, therefore nobody is considering it to be truth.

      You did say at one point though:

      It is majority of people who finds that joke funny, only minority is getting upset about it.

      And then proceeded to explain why the ‘minority’ were not important to listen to. Still, YOU are saying that it is A MAJORITY of people who will find that joke funny, and yet you offer no evidence for this assumption. None. But you want to try to paint me as the one who speaks for EVERYONE else. Brave move, Farang, given that your arse is covered in shit on this one!

  21. Farang

    Mark

    Still, YOU are saying that it is A MAJORITY of people who will find that joke funny, and yet you offer no evidence for this assumption. None. But you want to try to paint me as the one who speaks for EVERYONE else. Brave move, Farang, given that your arse is covered in shit on this one!

    Yes, notice the difference. I talk about majority, not all. Meaning I acknowledge that not all share my view.

    And still my point stand. You still haven’t managed to give any example of any person who was offended with that joke.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Yes, notice the difference. I talk about majority, not all. Meaning I acknowledge that not all share my view.

      Yet you still feel qualified to talk about how a majority of people would react to a joke about immigrants! I find that hard to justify.

      And elsewhere, as previously quoted, you refer very specifically to absolutes, everybody, anybody, never!!! This is your way of speaking, but you would try to make out that it is my way of speaking!

      You still haven’t managed to give any example of any person who was offended with that joke.

      Fingers in your ears, blah, blah, blah!!! Jokes about immigrants never hurt immigrants. Jokes about gays never hurt gays. Jokes about people never hurt people!

      Not true!

  22. Farang

    Mark

    Fingers in your ears, blah, blah, blah!!! Jokes about immigrants never hurt immigrants. Jokes about gays never hurt gays. Jokes about people never hurt people!
    Not true!

    Yes it is true. And you know it yourself too, because otherwise you would have given me that example already. Truth is that nobody got hurt, only Enrique was concerned/upset.

    • Mark

      Farang

      You still haven’t managed to give any example of any person who was offended with that joke.

      The lack of a direct and obvious causal chain does not mean that there is no link or causal element. I have already pointed out to your extremely limited intelligence that behaviour is informed by attitudes and beliefs, which are reinforced by ‘telling jokes’. The consequences of those racist attitudes are recorded in actual and reported crimes against immigrants.

      If you are too fucking stupid to join up even simple dots, don’t blame me. Ignorant prick!

    • Farang

      You are still talking on general abstract level about something that may or may not happen, etc.

      But you still can’t identify a single victim here!

      It’s quite stupid to try to make up horrible stories about a crime with lots of victims if you can’t find even one victim.

    • Mark

      Farang

      You are still talking on general abstract level about something that may or may not happen, etc.

      There is nothing abstract about victims of prejudice! What do you want, names and addresses? Fuck off you ignorant gimp. YOU are trying to trivialise racism, ONCE AGAIN. You are totally true to form as the Nazi-, racist- sympathathiser/apologist that you are!

      I really am not wasting any more time on you today Farang!

  23. Farang

    Also you need to understand that if A tells joke to B and C, then those 3 persons are the only persons qualified to give any feedback whether or not it is appropriate or not. People not belonging to that situation have no say here.

    That’s why I want to know who was involved. Enrique only told us that he heard immigrant telling that joke, but it’s missing information about who that joke was told to.

    • Mark

      Farang

      People not belonging to that situation have no say here.

      Farang, I have rarely met an individual who is so fucking stupid. Your stupidity really reaches epic fucking proportions. WE ARE DISCUSSING this joke because it was told to us by Enrique through his blog post. That means that WE are able to comment on whether we think the joke is racist, funny etc.

      it’s missing information about who that joke was told to.

      It was told to us by Enrique….that is why we are commenting on it. If you are going to question such basics about the ‘reality’ of this situation and how it disqualifies us from commenting, I can only conclude that you are too fucking stupid to have anything like a serious debate. That’s hardly news I know, but it is a brick wall we come up against again and again!

      Goodbye brick wall!

    • Farang

      Mark, you have trouble understanding the scenarios. There are 2 scenarios here:

      1) The situation where immigrant told joke to someone

      2) The situation where Enrique told this to us

      Now, we can comment here about the joke and stuff like that on general level. But we can’t comment about the original situation (scenario 1), because that matter is not our business. We are in no position to say whether or not that joke was appropriate in that situation.

    • Mark

      Farang, you thick bastard, we can discuss and hold opinions on both situations quite adequately.

      I will not discuss with such an obvious fool. Again we come to this! Goodbye!

  24. Farang

    Interesting way to admit losing of debate.

    Anyway, I would like to here also what others think of this situation?
    – Is it ok to tell jokes, which are not meant to harm, but to amuse? Even if they are racial? Let’s keep in mind that most of the other jokes also base on something “negative” which is then twisted in to something laughable.
    – Does it really make a difference WHO is telling the joke? Because I think it is racism to say that white person can’t tell certain joke but black person can.
    – If gets offended on some joke, is it really his position to then condemn also others, who might find that joke funny?

Leave a Reply