PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[Not-The-Messiah]

hairyben said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Worrying how a the free speech event in Boston is being portrayed within the media. After the Charlottesville problems they are using it to stop and control any protest they don't agree with.

Thousands out marching against a free speech event is madness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40980175 the BBC video constantly saying far right these are the so called far right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X2ZRB9GCU

BBC article mentions several times they're right wing etc, never once in all the column inches identifies the speakers so one might judge for oneself.

All they now need to is call any protest or gathering far right. And thousands of brain dead idiots who can't think for themselves will show up and stop it.

They have legitimised and accepted the far left Antifa. People dressed in black with their faces covered ready to use violence to stop others.

I can't see anyway this won't end up eventually with lots of people dead.

[Stickyfinger]

Yep, we know what happens when the lambs get the power exclusively

[rscott]

grumbledoak said:

hairyben said:

BBC article mentions several times they're right wing etc, never once in all the column inches identifies the speakers so one might judge for oneself.

It's not that easy to find the list. I think this is the organiser talking about the cancellation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_guSpCA5E

So, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Gad Saad and Dr. Oren Amitay

Gad Saad, that famous Nazi, anti-Semite, white supremacist!

grumbledoak said:

hairyben said:

BBC article mentions several times they're right wing etc, never once in all the column inches identifies the speakers so one might judge for oneself.

It's not that easy to find the list. I think this is the organiser talking about the cancellation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_guSpCA5E

So, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Gad Saad and Dr. Oren Amitay

Gad Saad, that famous Nazi, anti-Semite, white supremacist!

Probably because the BBC article in question was about the Boston event and counter protest , but the speakers you list were due to appear at Ryerson University

[grumbledoak]

rscott said:

Probably because the BBC article in question was about the Boston event and counter protest , but the speakers you list were due to appear at Ryerson University

Oops. Wrong one. Sorry folks.

[alock]

chrispmartha said:

But if you're advocating free speech why are the 'loony left' not allowed a voice but the 'loony right' are.

If a group wants to protest, they should be allowed to. An opposing group also has the right and has two options

1. Turn up at the same time and turn the argument into a 'who shouts the loudest' competition. This option also hugely increases the risk of physical conflict.

2. Turn up the next day and present a counter argument. Allow everyone to see and hear both sides and judge on merit.

Any group has (and should continue to have) the right to do option 1. However, when a group does this, my starting assumption is that they don't even believe their own argument is strong enough on merit.

[rscott]

PorkRind said:

I had a very similar debate with some leftist at work about how I thoight violence could have been avoided at charlotavile had the right loonies been allowed to do their thing without being harangued by the loony left.

He said that any form necessary was acceptable to stop the rise of nazis. Whilst I don't condone the nazis I also don't condone the reg left method of using violence to shut people down they don't agree with. This article echos my debate with the guy at work

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a...

Those sweet little right wing loonies, some of whom marched around the university on the Friday night with burning torches chanting "Jew will not replace us"?
How dare other loonies protest that sort of behaviour?

Both sets had permits for the Saturday protests and were supposed to be separated by barriers so they could both shout & scream at each other in safety. Unfortunately, reports suggest the side wearing body armour and carrying semi automatic weapons started dismantling those while the police watched and waited for orders from above.
That's the point at which both permits were cancelled and the trouble kicked off.

Perhaps the permits should have been withdrawn Saturday morning after the unlawful protest on the Friday night?

I also don't agree with the use of violence by either side, but don't think one side should have to stay away while the other marches (be they left or right wing). Any suggestion that it's only the left wing which has extreme fringes prepared to use violence to shut down those they disagree with is laughable after recent events - we've seen the right are just as capable of that.

[Boosted LS1]

alock said:

chrispmartha said:

But if you're advocating free speech why are the 'loony left' not allowed a voice but the 'loony right' are.

If a group wants to protest, they should be allowed to. An opposing group also has the right and has two options

1. Turn up at the same time and turn the argument into a 'who shouts the loudest' competition. This option also hugely increases the risk of physical conflict.

2. Turn up the next day and present a counter argument. Allow everyone to see and hear both sides and judge on merit.

Any group has (and should continue to have) the right to do option 1. However, when a group does this, my starting assumption is that they don't even believe their own argument is strong enough on merit.

This was my thought to. Let everybody have their say but not on the same day.

[rscott]

Boosted LS1 said:

alock said:

chrispmartha said:

But if you're advocating free speech why are the 'loony left' not allowed a voice but the 'loony right' are.

If a group wants to protest, they should be allowed to. An opposing group also has the right and has two options

1. Turn up at the same time and turn the argument into a 'who shouts the loudest' competition. This option also hugely increases the risk of physical conflict.

2. Turn up the next day and present a counter argument. Allow everyone to see and hear both sides and judge on merit.

Any group has (and should continue to have) the right to do option 1. However, when a group does this, my starting assumption is that they don't even believe their own argument is strong enough on merit.

This was my thought to. Let everybody have their say but not on the same day.

How do you decide who goes first? Something like the commission in Northern Ireland?
How would you stop people turning out to object? If I saw a march through my local town supporting something abhorrent (be it anti-Semitic like the Friday in Charlottesville or anti-British Army like the Muslim extremists in Luton) when I happened to be there, does that mean I couldn't boo them? Or is that okay but I can't take a sign?

[Disastrous]

Cobnapint said:

bhstewie said:

That's the hypocrisy of part of the argument though IMO.

When it's them it's free speech and they shouldn't be oppressed which excuses it but when it's someone else it's hate speech and shouldn't be tolerated.

As always, those that shout loudest and play the offended card win out. The squeekiest wheel gets the oil.

You guys need to read Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance.

[Not-The-Messiah]

rscott said:

How do you decide who goes first? Something like the commission in Northern Ireland?
How would you stop people turning out to object? If I saw a march through my local town supporting something abhorrent (be it anti-Semitic like the Friday in Charlottesville or anti-British Army like the Muslim extremists in Luton) when I happened to be there, does that mean I couldn't boo them? Or is that okay but I can't take a sign?

Yes you are quite right to be able to stand there and boo, what you don't do is turn up with bats and masks with all our pals. And start throwing projectiles and shut down the protest with violence.

[Mothersruin]

Cobnapint said:

finnie said:

Sorry not read all the thread, probably already been said. (Sorry for a mixed up post, one thought leads to another)

I was just talking about this with an uncle today.

The power of the press and alleged political correctness have taken over society and it is definitely for the worse. Its all ruled by what makes money for the press. But it's all biased isn't it. Bombing in middle east, loads of press, war in Africa nothing. Christian white man against LGBT, all over the press, entire muslim faith against it, nothing. Donald Trump not immediately against white supremasists and they blast him yet at the same time we regularly see judges rule in favour of criminals who sue when they are hurt during burglaries. Its all a load of crap.

Right now a person needs to be pro left, pro LGBT, anti Christian, equality this equality that, no competition in school etc, pro...well I dont know what else, just don't offend anyone or say anything against anyone. Unless it's against old fashioned ways, in which case go for it, say what you like. Traditional marital values where you should work to save the marriage, nope tell them to divorce! Believe in the bible, no way you are a bigot, however compare any other religions and you cannot critisice.

And as for being offended. SO WHAT. Human rights, yes within reason but lets look after ourselves, not expect looking after by the government. If we aren't careful its going to be against human rights to be even put in jail for a crime, and then where do we stop. It will be against a ersons human rights if someone breaks in to your house and steals your TV, saying that it's his human right to have a TV and it's not his fault that he cant afford it!

The world is in a very bad place and you know what, while we continue to allow the press the control, it's all going to get worse

Totally agree. Summed up by this...

https://onsizzle.com/i/i-dont-believe-that-women-h...

Agree with both.

[rscott]

Not-The-Messiah said:

rscott said:

How do you decide who goes first? Something like the commission in Northern Ireland?
How would you stop people turning out to object? If I saw a march through my local town supporting something abhorrent (be it anti-Semitic like the Friday in Charlottesville or anti-British Army like the Muslim extremists in Luton) when I happened to be there, does that mean I couldn't boo them? Or is that okay but I can't take a sign?

Yes you are quite right to be able to stand there and boo, what you don't do is turn up with bats and masks with all our pals. And start throwing projectiles and shut down the protest with violence.

Presumably then anyone on the original, approved, protest also can't turn up with shields, riot gear and firearms? If they do, then should their right to march be immediately withdrawn?

[hairyben]

grumbledoak said:

rscott said:

Probably because the BBC article in question was about the Boston event and counter protest , but the speakers you list were due to appear at Ryerson University

Oops. Wrong one. Sorry folks.

No worries, seems the tolerant and peaceful left are successfully using threats of violence to silence so many trying to exercise freedom of speech it's difficult to keep track.

[Not-The-Messiah]

rscott said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

rscott said:

How do you decide who goes first? Something like the commission in Northern Ireland?
How would you stop people turning out to object? If I saw a march through my local town supporting something abhorrent (be it anti-Semitic like the Friday in Charlottesville or anti-British Army like the Muslim extremists in Luton) when I happened to be there, does that mean I couldn't boo them? Or is that okay but I can't take a sign?

Yes you are quite right to be able to stand there and boo, what you don't do is turn up with bats and masks with all our pals. And start throwing projectiles and shut down the protest with violence.

Presumably then anyone on the original, approved, protest also can't turn up with shields, riot gear and firearms? If they do, then should their right to march be immediately withdrawn?

Possibly yes there should be no need for them. Sadly its a new phenomenon mainly started by the violent anti-fa types its just a reactionary action. It shows how things are escalating and we should be calling out idiocy and violence from any side.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Sunday 20th August 13:20

[Colonial]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Possibly yes there should be no need for them. Sadly its a new phenomenon mainly started by the violent ant-fa types its just a reactionary action. It shows how things are escalating and we should be calling out idiocy and violence from any side.

So the guys with guns and Nazi flags shouting out anti Semitic slogans aren't to blame?

Thats says an awful lot about you.

[Jonesy23]

Colonial said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Possibly yes there should be no need for them. Sadly its a new phenomenon mainly started by the violent ant-fa types its just a reactionary action. It shows how things are escalating and we should be calling out idiocy and violence from any side.

So the guys with guns and Nazi flags shouting out anti Semitic slogans aren't to blame?

Thats says an awful lot about you.

Were there Nazis at the Berkeley riots?

It's fking lazy to do the whole 'X is purely to blame and you're one of them too if you don't agree with me' thing.

[Colonial]

Jonesy23 said:

Were there Nazis at the Berkeley riots?

It's fking lazy to do the whole 'X is purely to blame and you're one of them too if you don't agree with me' thing.

Every. Single. Post.

It's constant "the antifas are the baddies and they are the ones responsible ".

It's lazy, apologist bullst.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Colonial said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Possibly yes there should be no need for them. Sadly its a new phenomenon mainly started by the violent ant-fa types its just a reactionary action. It shows how things are escalating and we should be calling out idiocy and violence from any side.

So the guys with guns and Nazi flags shouting out anti Semitic slogans aren't to blame?

Thats says an awful lot about you.

Yes they are to blame and we should stand up to them and argue them. But in a democratic society you do that with words and ideas, if their ideas are so bad then they will never win and gain power as people will just reject them.

Its says a awful lot about you that you wont condemn violence from any side. This argument that violence is acceptable just because you believe you are morally superior is just plain stupid. All these Islamic nut jobs killing thousands think they have the moral justification.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Sunday 20th August 13:21

[Jonesy23]

Colonial said:

Jonesy23 said:

Were there Nazis at the Berkeley riots?

It's fking lazy to do the whole 'X is purely to blame and you're one of them too if you don't agree with me' thing.

Every. Single. Post.

It's constant "the antifas are the baddies and they are the ones responsible ".

It's lazy, apologist bullst.

Swap Antifa for Nazi and you get the same result.

I have no time for either.

[Colonial]

Jonesy23 said:

Swap Antifa for Nazi and you get the same result.

I have no time for either.

Nah. They're just a bunch of middle class uni kids pretending to be rebels.

They aren't advocating genocide.

Bit of a difference.