PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.
Discussion
If we're going to talk about the anti-Semitism there are plenty on the left pushing exactly the same poison.
And there were all sorts of other messages that weren't exactly peace and love.
They all need a kicking.
Nazis are a good starting point because who the f
k likes a Nazi, but that doesn't excuse the others.
And there were all sorts of other messages that weren't exactly peace and love.
They all need a kicking.
Nazis are a good starting point because who the f
k likes a Nazi, but that doesn't excuse the others.Colonial said:
Nah. They're just a bunch of middle class uni kids pretending to be rebels.
They aren't advocating genocide.
Bit of a difference.
But they do advocate violence and killing against those who they disagree with just happens they aren't all from the same raceThey aren't advocating genocide.
Bit of a difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS2NbNwAdtw
Another peaceful protester.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynGdHbplBXg
babatunde said:
Words have power
That's the fundamental problem with totally free speech, of course that is also the best thing about free speech, hence the conundrum.
What is the effect on society when lies are allowed to become accepted fact because the perpetrators shout louder, where should the boundaries be drawn?
Do we ignore that terrorism is actively encouraged by some "preachers" and support their rights to free speech, do we accept that holocaust denial is a valid viewpoint?
Do we say "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" or accept that "the pen is mightier than the sword"
I think words have power and hence there should be consequences both legal and moral to those who use them carelessly, I think over time society will find the right balance.
I haven't yet read the links you provided in your response above, but I will shortly. That's the fundamental problem with totally free speech, of course that is also the best thing about free speech, hence the conundrum.
What is the effect on society when lies are allowed to become accepted fact because the perpetrators shout louder, where should the boundaries be drawn?
Do we ignore that terrorism is actively encouraged by some "preachers" and support their rights to free speech, do we accept that holocaust denial is a valid viewpoint?
Do we say "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" or accept that "the pen is mightier than the sword"
I think words have power and hence there should be consequences both legal and moral to those who use them carelessly, I think over time society will find the right balance.
We do risk side-tracking the topic for discussion if we carry on with a completely different, albeit very interesting, topic.
To the post above;
Yes we allow the holocaust denier to speak.
And we educate people to the best historical facts that we have to allow them to see the denier is wrong.
The preponderance of evidence from multiple sources simply overrides a claim of total denial.
However, once you outlaw the absolute denier, what happens to those who continue to research honestly?
Do we stop them from discussing the subject that might allowing us to gain a more complete and accurate picture because it could be classed as holocaust denial?
The recent google incident shows what happens when open speech is denied and someone is punished for it. Yet it's still an ongoing discussion in the world of scientific research. How long until google refuses to even provide links to research documents that disprove their ideology?
Words do have great power in the mouths of the articulate.
As always though, when looking to determine what is 'reasonable'; who do we appoint to be the final arbiter?
It is the problem that has plagued all attempts at 'social justice' over time.
Never forget that the law that stops the person you hate or disagree with from speaking, may be used in the future to also stop you from speaking.
Let us allow that we select an excellent and fair minded arbiter of what is acceptable speech. How can we ensure the next person/group who claims that powerful position will also be decent and fair?
The one thing we can be assured of, is that once such a position exists, it will be contested for by the very worst sort of people.
Because the website of the organisers of the Charlottesville protest were able to publish their views openly, we can see them for despicable creatures they are.
It doesn't mean that everyone there who wished to protest the removal of the statue held those identical views, but it does indicate that aligning yourself with such extreme organisations, even for a single protest, may have consequences. Hopefully the more moderate elements, assuming there were some, have learned that lesson.
I don't necessarily disagree with every idea presented by the far left or of every idea presented by the far right, but I would not under any circumstances align myself with either extreme.
I am able to say that with some confidence because each extreme has for the most part been able to spout their good and bad ideas freely.
citizensm1th said:
otolith said:
That makes an awful lot of other flags racist.
Of course they fought and lost a war to maintain their autonomy (of which retaining slavery was a part), but there are plenty of other former slave owning countries.
and most of them eventually (looking at you Saudi Arabia) made slavery illegal my contention is the CSA would not have and the stars and bars is the flag of a racist (if defunct) country.Of course they fought and lost a war to maintain their autonomy (of which retaining slavery was a part), but there are plenty of other former slave owning countries.
To fly it and not know what it represents is in this day and age isworrying
If you do want to fly it more power to you but at least be honest and admit what it stands for ,it is not some cuddly historic artifact
Not-The-Messiah said:
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.
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
Stickyfinger said:
rscott said:
I don't see anyone posting on this thread who doesn't condemn violence from the AntiFa/ extreme left. There are some who are very reluctant to blame the right, even trying to excuse their behaviour.
Show me where please .................Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Monday 21st August 14:11
Colonial said:
Thats says an awful lot about you.
The irony, if it was a BLM protest you would probably defend it to the hilt.Until you treat all idiots equally you will cause divide. There are black idiots, and white idiots, ALL of them need to be dealt with, however proportionally there is clearly more of one idiot than another.
Its exactly the same with the ongoing terrorist attacks, until you agree that Islam is the problem and is equal in many ways to Nazis and other extreme groups it will only get worse, much worse.
KrissKross said:
Colonial said:
Thats says an awful lot about you.
The irony, if it was a BLM protest you would probably defend it to the hilt.Until you treat all idiots equally you will cause divide. There are black idiots, and white idiots, ALL of them need to be dealt with, however proportionally there is clearly more of one idiot than another.
Its exactly the same with the ongoing terrorist attacks, until you agree that Islam is the problem and is equal in many ways to Nazis and other extreme groups it will only get worse, much worse.
KrissKross said:
chrispmartha said:
So, if as you say Islam is the problem what's your solution?
Ban it, simple.What would you want done to someone who carried on practicing the islamic faith after your ban?
Edited by chrispmartha on Sunday 20th August 15:52
KrissKross said:
chrispmartha said:
Ahh right so you're not one for freedom of thought let alone freedom of speach.
Fair point, do you believe then that Nazi's should share the same freedom?Now about the muslims, what would you do after your ban if they carried on following islam
chrispmartha said:
KrissKross said:
chrispmartha said:
So, if as you say Islam is the problem what's your solution?
Ban it, simple.What would you want done to someone who carried on practicing the islamic faith after your ban?
if shouting down the right wing and calling for it to be banned is bad. logically calling for islam to be banned is also bad.
so in a round about way the right wing are actually supporting islam or they are massive hypocrites as sticky stalker dude was shouting about earlier?
chrispmartha said:
Yes, until they do something illegal they can think whatever they want.
So in your example maybe when people start getting killed, that might be a good time to consider a more serious look at said group, or is that not illegal enough, when should it become illegal to harbour or promote such views?KrissKross said:
chrispmartha said:
Yes, until they do something illegal they can think whatever they want.
So in your example maybe when people start getting killed, that might be a good time to consider a more serious look at said group, or is that not illegal enough, when should it become illegal to harbour or promote such views?kill someone/beat them up that's illegal.
About these Muslims what would you do to them after your ban?
Stickyfinger said:
citizensm1th said:
as sticky stalker dude was shouting about earlier?
nice try CretinouSmithExpand on the "when people start getting killed" bit please.....maybe in Spanish ?
i thought you were all for equality only just yesterday
mind you thats better than o'l KK he changed from treating everyone the same to banning islam in only one post
even for PH that is remarkable
chrispmartha said:
KrissKross said:
chrispmartha said:
Yes, until they do something illegal they can think whatever they want.
So in your example maybe when people start getting killed, that might be a good time to consider a more serious look at said group, or is that not illegal enough, when should it become illegal to harbour or promote such views?kill someone/beat them up that's illegal.
About these Muslims what would you do to them after your ban?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff