PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[Boosted LS1]

Anybody that's PC correct. The truth is being stifled and that's why the west is in a mess. Thoughts should be out in the open, not spoken about in private where seeds of unrest get sown.

[PorkRind]

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.

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

Here here!

[Boosted LS1]

KrissKross said:

citizensm1th said:

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

Fair point my bad, it was a moment. No banning..

However if we are going to remain equal, if I put in planning permission for a Nazi HQ in a major city with dedicated architecture, logos, marching (peacefully on Tuesdays) and such like, would it be allowed, if not why not?

Crikey, we can't allow that! Whatever were you thinking? ;-)

[rscott]

PorkRind said:

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!

So some of the right weren't also looking for a fight? They wore body armour, riot shields and carried clubs because they liked dressing up?

[Boosted LS1]

chrispmartha said:

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

Are you taking the mick? People on here can't say what they want to because they'll be banned. If you want to hear some real world views try facebook where people can vent their spleen. You might find it a bit upsetting, lol. This is a pc correct forum and don't forget it :-)

[anonymous-user]

TurboHatchback said:

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.

How do you feel about the laws in Germany, which prohibit the use of Nazis symbols (except in confined circumstances, none of which would permit demonstrations)? And which outlaw Holocaust deniers?

[rscott]

Not-The-Messiah said:

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

Of course there wouldn't have been violence if only one group had turned up, but to say it was down to only one side is daft. Both sides were seen starting fights throughout the park.

Try reading his post properly - he does indeed say he does not condone the Nazis or violent left.

Had he said he didn't condone the violence from both the Nazis and left wingers, then I'd believe he was condemning both sides . He specifically calls out the left as being violent without also admitting the right were too.

[Donbot]

rscott said:

So some of the right weren't also looking for a fight? They wore body armour, riot shields and carried clubs because they liked dressing up?

They have been dressing up, playing soldiers and acting like morons for a while now (There was a good doco on them a while ago, I think it was Louis Theroux (s-p)). Regardless of them wanting a fight or not, they seemed to have got one.

It appeared that no-one really gave a crap about them. The difference this time was the reaction they got.

[hairyben]

rscott said:

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.

Given all the statues sybolises regarding america it was always going to be contentious and some people were allways going to have a tanty over it being removed. Rightly or wrongly they are upset and wanted to vent.

The left mob turned up with the mindset they didnt have the right to air those feelings and should be shut down and stopped - which is what this threads all about.

[Randy Winkman]

Not-The-Messiah said:

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

So we should all give in to Nazis? Edited to ask if I'm missing the point?

[anonymous-user]

TurboHatchback said:

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.

Them Nazis protesting are like ISIS, they advocate a policy of murder and banning of free speech (also both use vehicles to run people over),also protesting against Nazis doesn't always mean you're are a member of some left wing group, the majority of decent people hate Nazis. Marching down the road armed to the teeth is not what free speech is all about, it's intimidation and the polar opposite of free speech.
What we must also remember in all this which happened in Charlottesville is yes the internet has helped in spreading hate to vulnerable idiots but in a country with a population of over 320 million getting a 1000 tts to carry torches is hardly cause for concern,

[voyds9]

Randy Winkman said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

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

So we should all give in to Nazis? Edited to ask if I'm missing the point?

From a purely practical point of view yes you are.

If the Nazi want a protest (and it is legal) then let them have it, keep the Left away.

If the Left want a counter protest away let them have it, ON A DIFFERENT WEEKEND.

Both get to exercise their free speech, both protest and the violence is avoided.

This isn't my preferred way of doing it but neither can be trusted at the moment

Is an ideal world they should be able to sit down and argue their points, but this has already escalated to shouting, then bottle throwing, then fighting and now murder.

At the moment we seem to using fascism (left) to oppose fascism (right)

[grumbledoak]

Randy Winkman said:

So we should all give in to Nazis? Edited to ask if I'm missing the point?

You aren't missing the point. You are being disingenuous.

Allowing any people, no matter what you call them, to march in peace is not "giving in to them".

[Boosted LS1]

They could also have the protest in a stadium where crowd control could be employed? They could shout and rant to their hearts content in there and it might allow locals to go about their daily business without disruption.

[rscott]

hairyben said:

rscott said:

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.

Given all the statues sybolises regarding america it was always going to be contentious and some people were allways going to have a tanty over it being removed. Rightly or wrongly they are upset and wanted to vent.

The left mob turned up with the mindset they didnt have the right to air those feelings and should be shut down and stopped - which is what this threads all about.

Many of the statues are less than 100 years old and were erected at the time the Jim Crow laws were introduced. In many cases they were erected as much to signify the power of whites than to commemorate their actions in combat..

Both sides turned out to shout their views, with elements of both sides looking for a fight. Again you're blaming it on the left only.

[andy_s]

It's amazing really that all this froth has been generated by a few old statues which people have been happily walking past for the last 100+ years and a few hundred people stirred up into thinking this is the most incredibly important thing in the world.

Evolution wise, we've not advanced much further than hysterical sheep really.

[TurboHatchback]

Greg66 said:

TurboHatchback said:

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.

How do you feel about the laws in Germany, which prohibit the use of Nazis symbols (except in confined circumstances, none of which would permit demonstrations)? And which outlaw Holocaust deniers?

I can see why those laws originated, the most catastrophic war and genocide in human history but today I would not support them. I believe the german public as a whole despise nazism more than any other country on earth, them regaining power and going for round 2 against the world just isn't on the cards and the right to freedom of expression is more important. As for holocaust denial, it should be illegal to teach kids that but otherwise if someone blindly chooses to ignore history then outlawing their opinion won't change it, the ire that allowing them to express it would expose them to would be more likely to change their view IMO.

rscott said:

PorkRind said:

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!

So some of the right weren't also looking for a fight? They wore body armour, riot shields and carried clubs because they liked dressing up?

If I knew I was going to be physically attacked for exercising my right to freedom of expression then I would probably get tooled up too. It takes two to cause a fight, a sure way to avoid one is not to be there, that way the neo-nazi lot would have just looked like a load of wannabe hard idiots shouting at nothing and would have got very little media coverage. By turning up to use violence to try and suppress them from expressing their views the antifa lot make themselves look like violent morons and give the nazis press exposure far greater than they could ever manage by themselves..

[rscott]

TurboHatchback said:

If I knew I was going to be physically attacked for exercising my right to freedom of expression then I would probably get tooled up too. It takes two to cause a fight, a sure way to avoid one is not to be there, that way the neo-nazi lot would have just looked like a load of wannabe hard idiots shouting at nothing and would have got very little media coverage. By turning up to use violence to try and suppress them from expressing their views the antifa lot make themselves look like violent morons and give the nazis press exposure far greater than they could ever manage by themselves..

Finally.

As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.

More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.

[Mothersruin]

It was interesting that the LL Antifa lot said to that guy in the video that if you don't actively support the Antifa position you are condoning the Nazis.

I wonder if that works for any other points of view?

[Order66]

Picked this guy up from another thread. He is a self-professed "leftie" but a big proponent of freedom of speech. He has some very good points in his commentary on the collapse of reasoned debate and the tactics used to stifle opposing viewpoints and IMO is particularly precise on the tactics of Antifa and the far left regarding stifling speech and fuelling the fire of the Alt-right with their tactics. Seriously worth some of your time to listen:

I've linked from 3m30, but most of it is good stuff.
https://youtu.be/PnkyqXpoLOw?t=3m30s