PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[768]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ugh.

[tali1]

Mothersruin said:

Nazis are bad bad
Strict Islam is bad good

Really ? And what religion are Nazis , or for that matter Zionists ? , sorry forgot , religion -shaming only applies to islam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/...

[chrispmartha]

KrissKross said:

chrispmartha said:

No I don't think it's appropriate to have a Nazi HQ in a major city and most people would probably agree with me.

Ok so you don't agree with free speech, unless it is speech about something you agree with, typical..

I could counter and suggest most people if you took a vote would probably agree that building more religious buildings and an increase in certain alien faith/cults is probably a bad thing (not a good thing), most people would probably agree with this statement, if you don't believe me setup a poll or lets have a referendum. I believe in democracy, do you?

Christ you're hard work, building a Nazi HQ is nothing to do with free speech, just have a think about what you write! Not so long back you wanted to ban a whole religion, i would suggest it is you who doesn't agree with something wants to supress it.

You are all over the place with your opinions

Also Nazi ism isnt a religion HTH

[Sylvaforever]

chrispmartha said:

Not so long back you

Quite an Ironic statement given the thread title...

[Boosted LS1]

tali1 said:

Mothersruin said:

Nazis are bad bad
Strict Islam is bad good

Really ? And what religion are Nazis , or for that matter Zionists ? , sorry forgot , religion -shaming only applies to islam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/...

I just look around to see which religion is at war with itself and where some of it's nut jobs are at war with everybody else. The bombings and terrorist attacks don't seem to be coming from the methodist church or jehova's witnesses. Whist many followers of islam are nice enough some definately aren't.

As for nazi's, zionists, can't say I've really heard much about them apart from a few shouty demonstrations.

[citizensm1th]

Boosted LS1 said:

tali1 said:

Mothersruin said:

Nazis are bad bad
Strict Islam is bad good

Really ? And what religion are Nazis , or for that matter Zionists ? , sorry forgot , religion -shaming only applies to islam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/...

I just look around to see which religion is at war with itself and where some of it's nut jobs are at war with everybody else. The bombings and terrorist attacks don't seem to be coming from the methodist church or jehova's witnesses. Whist many followers of islam are nice enough some definately aren't.

As for nazi's, zionists, can't say I've really heard much about them apart from a few shouty demonstrations.

Even Buddhists like a bit of ultra violence ,i get the feeling you would like this bunch


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/asia/myan...

[chrispmartha]

I really am struggling to see why some people on here are wanting to equate Nazis with Muslims?

Two different things and two separate issues.

[chrispmartha]

Boosted LS1 said:

tali1 said:

Mothersruin said:

Nazis are bad bad
Strict Islam is bad good

Really ? And what religion are Nazis , or for that matter Zionists ? , sorry forgot , religion -shaming only applies to islam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/...

I just look around to see which religion is at war with itself and where some of it's nut jobs are at war with everybody else. The bombings and terrorist attacks don't seem to be coming from the methodist church or jehova's witnesses. Whist many followers of islam are nice enough some definately aren't.

As for nazi's, zionists, can't say I've really heard much about them apart from a few shouty demonstrations.

You've not heard much about Nazis? Shouty demonstrations, really?

[Not-The-Messiah]

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

[citizensm1th]

chrispmartha said:

I really am struggling to see why some people on here are wanting to equate Nazis with Muslims?

Two different things and two separate issues.

some people see Muslims as all the same and all wanting to turn the world into one big caliphate.

these very same people know nazi's to be the worst manifestation of european anglo saxon civilisation.

both are boogy men to frighten the children.

the problem with their thinking is Muslims are not a humongous whole the term covers a whole kaleidoscope of sects and politics . those that follow isis are not the same as all muslims apart from in the minds of those who want to use isis to paint all muslims as bad

those very same people howl and rant if one dares to equate nazi's with every right winger with out seeing the hypocrisy of this stance.

[Boosted LS1]

chrispmartha said:

Boosted LS1 said:

tali1 said:

Mothersruin said:

Nazis are bad bad
Strict Islam is bad good

Really ? And what religion are Nazis , or for that matter Zionists ? , sorry forgot , religion -shaming only applies to islam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/...

I just look around to see which religion is at war with itself and where some of it's nut jobs are at war with everybody else. The bombings and terrorist attacks don't seem to be coming from the methodist church or jehova's witnesses. Whist many followers of islam are nice enough some definately aren't.

As for nazi's, zionists, can't say I've really heard much about them apart from a few shouty demonstrations.

You've not heard much about Nazis? Shouty demonstrations, really?

Hardly the same as islamic state or islamists and pales into insignificance but I expect the right to push harder as things progress.

[Boosted LS1]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

I agree with you. All should be able to have their say. Some are defenders of the faith but we should be allowed to pass comment on any shortcomings that faith may have. Just like they can pass comment on anything they want to.

[grumbledoak]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak.

Don't help them.

[chrispmartha]

Boosted LS1 said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

I agree with you. All should be able to have their say. Some are defenders of the faith but we should be allowed to pass comment on any shortcomings that faith may have. Just like they can pass comment on anything they want to.

You are allowed to pass comment, who has said otherwise?

[chrispmartha]

grumbledoak said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak.

Don't help them.

Who doesn't want you to speak, as ive said many times with not one reply, what is it you want to say that you feel you can't? Just say it

[rscott]

Not-The-Messiah said:

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 .................

^This all I can see is unanimous commendation of the far right. With some then questioning the tactics and actions of the violet far left. Who are then labelled Nazi sympathizers by people who refuse to condemn political violence.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Sunday 20th August 15:03

Apologies for the delay, I have a life beyond this website


Take this post

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

Blames the violence in Charlottesville on the fact the left turned out to oppose them. No hint that violent elements within both sides (almost certainly a minority of those protesting on each site) were all spoiling for a fight.

Then says the left use violence to stifle those they disagree with, implying the right don't do that.

[PorkRind]

chrispmartha said:

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...

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

The loony left comprised of antifa which apparently was the cause of the friction and violence. As Is usually the way, because with them if you stand for x or y and it doesn't fit their narrative you'll get a beating. Biggest bunch of hippocrits going! But let's be fair they're all a bunch of idiots spoiling for trouble.

Edited by PorkRind on Sunday 20th August 23:35

[TurboHatchback]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

Indeed, this thread is not the place for arguing about specific issues but rather the way the debate is handled.

I agree that the extremist Islam lot should be able to preach their stuff, everything apart from explicitly inciting violence (which I admit cuts out quite a lot of their material). That way people can listen and see what they are really peddling, surely a more powerful way to sway opinions against them than anything else. It might force these 'moderate Muslims' we hear so much about to be more active in promoting their variant of the faith to counter the extremists which could only be a good thing, if not it might highlight that perhaps they aren't so moderate after all which would again be enlightening for all.

As for the neo-Nazis vs antifascist conflict, whatever you think of neo-Nazis it is the extreme antifascist lot that turn up with the express intent to cause violence to others for attempting to express a viewpoint. If they weren't there it would just be a load of skinheads making themselves look a bit dim, the fact that they have to defend themselves with violence every time they speak their mind only serves to generate sympathy as far as I can see. IMHO pretty much everyone on both sides of those protests are morons but even morons have the right to express their opinions without fear of violence for doing so.

It was asked earlier should we allow a Nazi headquarters, the confederate flag etc and my opinion is absolutely yes. The price of freedom of belief and expression is that we will hear views and see symbols we find repugnant and yes we will be offended, this is a price that must be paid for the right to speak our minds and use what symbols we choose.

[Not-The-Messiah]

rscott said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

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 .................

^This all I can see is unanimous commendation of the far right. With some then questioning the tactics and actions of the violet far left. Who are then labelled Nazi sympathizers by people who refuse to condemn political violence.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Sunday 20th August 15:03

Apologies for the delay, I have a life beyond this website


Take this post

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

Blames the violence in Charlottesville on the fact the left turned out to oppose them. No hint that violent elements within both sides (almost certainly a minority of those protesting on each site) were all spoiling for a fight.

Then says the left use violence to stifle those they disagree with, implying the right don't do that.

The fact that he is probably factually correct with the comment that if the counter protesters had not turned up there wouldn't have been violence. He equally described both sides as loons and says he doesn't condone the Nazis or the violent left. Other than that yeah good point

[PorkRind]

Derek Smith said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I never would have pegged you for a Jacques Derrida style post modernist Derek.

ETA
I just read your last post, being the one before this one.
Expanded, you makes some salient points. But that last sentence above, well...

The idea is that if there are many explanations of what happened at any historical fact, as indeed there are for any event unless pared to a simple statement of fact, then what is the point of history?

I love the British Civil Wars, but when at school, and for some time afterwards, I would have said English Civil Wars. Times change, including past times. Interpretation is always, but always, subjective. I've read books and comment from learned people who reckon that it was a reaction against totalitarianism, a Marxist revolution (yes, honest. Marxism in the middle of the 17thC), a religious reaction, a rising of the proletariat and . . you get the picture.

The odd thing is, even to me, is that I have an opinion on the matter. Yet I know full well that it is wrong.

The same problem goes for the current situation in the USA. There are various interpretations as to causes. There are suggestions it is a demonstration against Trump as much as anti racism. The papers tell one story, as do the TV reports, yet we see things somewhat differently on the video.

In the 70s and 80s when there was a high number of demonstrations, it was well known that police officers should not stand near a TV news camera as the demonstrators would always be at their worst there.

I was at various demos and incidents in my early years in the job and I know full well that the accepted description of what happened, this on the official histories as well as Wiki, is way, way wide of the mark.

Read Wiki on the NI 'troubles', or civil war as I think of it. Do you agree with their conclusions of the causes and effects, not to mention their other interpretations. Yet it is, for the time being at least, more or less an official history.

The reporting of current events is always slanted by the mores of the time and by the bias of the particular media. For history it is even worse.

The most remarkable thing is that despite the media seeming to outnumber the active participants in the incidents in the USA, we have no real idea of what is actually going on, its causes and the intent of the demonstrators.

People believe public enquiries. People believe World in Action. People believe Panorama. History is a matter of what source you trust. Your, and my, interpretation of what is going on in the USA is dependant on which source you/I believe.

Cecil Rhodes, Clive: these and similar event rich people are now pilloried yet when I was at (a very right politically) school they were classed as heroes.

If history changes, then as a settled interpretation it doesn't exist.

This makes a lot of sense to me. (y)