PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[Funkycoldribena]

ATG said:

Half your problem is that you see everything in tribal terms. I don't belong to a gang. I don't speak on behalf of a gang. The gang only exists in your head.

Certainly comes across that way,maybe you can't see it that way in your head.
Ive been misrepresented and labelled many times without any proof,I'm sure even by yourself.Twisting of words comes from both sides of the coin.

[Bacon Is Proof]

bhstewie said:

No I don't.

But let's play devil's advocate and say I don't actually know enough about it to know why it's a bad thing. How am I supposed to find out?

I don't think rape theft and murder are good comparisons because even a child knows those are wrong.

I'd already stated that I'd assumed we all know what fascism is.
I also assumed we were all adults.

I fully able to admit when I am wrong.

[TurboHatchback]

andy_s said:

Colonial said:

We literally had a world war over this.

It was pretty much decided that fascism was not a good thing. It was one of the fundamental moments in recent world history.

What do you think the benefits of fascism are?

Well it's a strange one really; your comment made me think - I don't feel you're wrong by the way, but it's an interesting start point, as I'm not sure we went to war against fascism per se, but rather went to war against what a particular fascist regime was actually doing, not saying/thinking. Indeed, 'Peace in our time' would seem to suggest we were happy for the Germans to get on with things until they started invading our mates, basically.

The second obvious point is that although today we regard the 'neo-Nazi' as a vilified yet vestigial gang who occasionally get into headlines, and by extension and association we consider extreme right-wing groups as small and bothersome but not to be taken seriously on the political landscape; we should be mindful that within living memory a fascist government existed in half a dozen countries in Europe alone and the movements were extremely popular, levering as they did the poor social, financial and political conditions.
What is now vilified, was then embraced; and I would say that given the right circumstances, it could easily happen again. Who predicted the Arab Spring...?
[Caveat, of course, Nazism is not quite the same as fascism, the racist aspect especially].

-

From a principle point of view, If the extreme ends of the bell-curve are not allowed to speak, write or publish online [as the DPP Saunders seems to be going towards] then we forego the opportunity for the majority to point and explain and deride, and ultimately to ignore; by intellectually incarcerating an idea based on subjectivity and hyperbolic 'damage to ears' then we run the risk of letting the state manipulate and shape society by governing what we see and don't, which was rather a cornerstone of the fascists themselves...

Well put.

[Mothersruin]

Bacon Is Proof said:

bhstewie said:

No I don't.

But let's play devil's advocate and say I don't actually know enough about it to know why it's a bad thing. How am I supposed to find out?

I don't think rape theft and murder are good comparisons because even a child knows those are wrong.

I'd already stated that I'd assumed we all know what fascism is.
I also assumed we were all adults.

I fully able to admit when I am wrong.

At least we know you don't suffer from nosebleeds.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Bacon Is Proof said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

There was a fine example a few pages back of what happens when a lone free speech advocate politely confronts a group of SJWs

"Are you aware that the path to hell is paved with good intentions?"

That's a fine example of a deliberate wind up, nothing else.

Of course it was.
What wound them up is that they wanted to believe he was what they say they came out to fight.
That they can we wound up so easily and then react that way says everything one needs to know about that particular group of people.
They need to learn some self control if nothing else.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Rovinghawk said:

Bacon Is Proof said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

There was a fine example a few pages back of what happens when a lone free speech advocate politely confronts a group of SJWs

"Are you aware that the path to hell is paved with good intentions?"

That's a fine example of a deliberate wind up, nothing else.

The kudos from that episode goes to one of the lefties: "I protected that idiot". Probably the most decent man at the entire rally.

I think I saw more than one either stepping in or speaking out to get people to back off.

Which is why I maintain that not everyone standing on one side or the other of one of those barricades is necessarily what the other side thinks they are.

Sure there were some 'dumb lefties' attacking him, there were probably a few 'proper antifa' agitators around too, we may even have seen one or two of their masked faces, but there were also decent people who probably turned up expecting swastika wearing Nazis, and instead found some fairly ordinary people on the other side of the line, and were never looking for a physical battle in the first place.

The entire left isn't crazy any more than the entire right is.

But what we do see a very clear example of in all of this is; when we stop being able to talk to each other, the only avenue left open is to fight.
Again, free speech please.

[Mr2Mike]

Bacon Is Proof said:

Again, I thought the ability to spot hyperbole was greater than the need for absolute pedantry.

That wasn't really hyperbole, it was just wrong.

Bacon Is Proof said:

Do you think fascism is a good idea?

As I'm on my way out, and questions will be avoided, I'll conclude:

I also think everyone's default position should be anti-murder, anti-rape and anti-theft.

Does that make it easy enough to understand Rovinghawk?

See, that is fine since you are just stating your own opinion. It's when you attempt to state other peoples opinions that it all goes very ironic.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 21st August 18:21

[Jonesy23]

It's interesting when people talk about 'fascism' as if it was some monolithic idea, what they're usually thinking about is the actions of the regimes founded on the back of it.

Most of the underlying ideas exist in one form or another in politics on the left and right - say for example state control of industry.

It would be more productive to say which bits they really object to - like racist nationalism - otherwise they run the risk of finding they have common ground, like a one party state, central control of a state owned economy, or direct action as part of the people's struggle.

It may well be a right wing ideology but the Italians put a lot of their communist ideas into it too as you'll probably recognise...


Fascist is an easy label to throw about but violent racism and nationalism is usually more accurate. Covers a wider set of people too.

[grumbledoak]

Jonesy23 said:

Fascist is an easy label to throw about but violent racism and nationalism is usually more accurate. Covers a wider set of people too.

These terms are thrown about with intent, to lump people together, in order to marginalize and demonize them, and take away their rights.

We've seen it before.

[V8RX7]

I had a similar conversation with my wife after watching the news and seeing yet another "pro white" march being attacked.

I certainly don't agree with them or anyone carrying a swastika but nor do I agree with them having their march attacked.

I think that if they were ignored they would demonstrate less.

Equally if they were allowed to debate their views on TV we could all see whether they have any merit or are (as I suspect) complete BS.

[ATG]

Mr2Mike said:

Bacon Is Proof said:

Again, I thought the ability to spot hyperbole was greater than the need for absolute pedantry.

That wasn't really hyperbole, it was just wrong.

Bacon Is Proof said:

Do you think fascism is a good idea?

As I'm on my way out, and questions will be avoided, I'll conclude:

I also think everyone's default position should be anti-murder, anti-rape and anti-theft.

Does that make it easy enough to understand Rovinghawk?

See, that is fine since you are just stating your own opinion. It's when you attempt to state other peoples opinions that it all goes very ironic.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 21st August 18:21

There is no irony at all.

Expressing an opinion about what people ought to believe (e.g. "religion is silly") does not impinge on someone's freedom of speech.

[Goaty Bill 2]

grumbledoak said:

Jonesy23 said:

Fascist is an easy label to throw about but violent racism and nationalism is usually more accurate. Covers a wider set of people too.

These terms are thrown about with intent, to lump people together, in order to marginalize and demonize them, and take away their rights.

We've seen it before.

The smarter ones know they are doing it. The less intelligent ones do it because that is a part of being in the tribe. It makes it easier to identify your enemy, because actually listening to someone's point of view takes time and effort. Much easier to simply throw a label on it and then you can fight with the label.

It's not just a lefty thing.
The Nazis, the Soviets, The Maoist Chinese, religious fundamentalists (of many faiths and denominations), have all had people do it.

[anonymous-user]

Mothersruin said:

Greg66 said:

In the pursuit of the ideal that freedom of speech is important, where (if anywhere) do you draw the line?

E.g., should people be free to propound the following views:

- a subset of humans are inferior due to their lack of faith;
- a subset of humans should be exterminated for the greater good of the faith;
- a subset of humans should be exterminated because they stopped believing;
- marrying cousins should be encouraged;
- age limits on sexual relations should be ignored;

Agreed.

Yup - totally twisted your words to prove the point.

I'm sure you have a point, but perhaps you'd care to make it a bit more clearly.

[Derek Smith]

andy_s said:

Well it's a strange one really; your comment made me think - I don't feel you're wrong by the way, but it's an interesting start point, as I'm not sure we went to war against fascism per se, but rather went to war against what a particular fascist regime was actually doing, not saying/thinking. Indeed, 'Peace in our time' would seem to suggest we were happy for the Germans to get on with things until they started invading our mates, basically.

The second obvious point is that although today we regard the 'neo-Nazi' as a vilified yet vestigial gang who occasionally get into headlines, and by extension and association we consider extreme right-wing groups as small and bothersome but not to be taken seriously on the political landscape; we should be mindful that within living memory a fascist government existed in half a dozen countries in Europe alone and the movements were extremely popular, levering as they did the poor social, financial and political conditions.
What is now vilified, was then embraced; and I would say that given the right circumstances, it could easily happen again. Who predicted the Arab Spring...?
[Caveat, of course, Nazism is not quite the same as fascism, the racist aspect especially].

-

From a principle point of view, If the extreme ends of the bell-curve are not allowed to speak, write or publish online [as the DPP Saunders seems to be going towards] then we forego the opportunity for the majority to point and explain and deride, and ultimately to ignore; by intellectually incarcerating an idea based on subjectivity and hyperbolic 'damage to ears' then we run the risk of letting the state manipulate and shape society by governing what we see and don't, which was rather a cornerstone of the fascists themselves...

Thanks for that. Well put.

One thing I find disquieting is that on TV especially, and now creeping into the written histories, is that the word nazi is used to replace Germans. We hear phrases like: the nazis did this or that when it was Germans. I'm not anti German, just the reverse. I've liked all those I've met socially. However, as you say, we did not go to war to fight fascism. In fact many people did not believe the stories being told about what was going on in Germany at the time.

To suggest that the horrors of the internment camps, and the other atrocities, were committed by those belonging to one political party is a travesty of the truth. It was normal people who did these things, people corrupted by the system.

Your last paragraph highlights a conundrum. Should we allow free speech from whatever source as long as it does not incite hatred or violence against anyone, or should we proscribe certain organisations and make repeating anything sourced from them an offence? I find it difficult to work out whether holocaust deniers should be banned. There is implicit racism in their actions, but on the other hand it is merely an interpretation of history. It can be proved incorrect, but should anyone be able to ban someone just because they are wrong in their factual beliefs?

Might it be better to let these people say what they want, subject to public order laws? It was what happened after the war with the fascist party in the UK. Lots of media coverage but it just folded with recriminations. In effect, it just went away. I wonder what would have happened if a more robust attitude had been decided on.

[Rovinghawk]

Bacon Is Proof said:

As you understand it, do you know the difference between right and wrong?

It's a simple question.

Presume that the answer is no.

For the thrid time of asking, would you please explain it to me?

ATG said:

You haven't understood me.

Do you get that a lot?

ATG said:

I said ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT FACISM IS

Prejudice against people based on whether they are ugly?

ATG said:

your default position should be to oppose facism.

Please do not tell me what I should or should not think. That is my whole point.

ATG said:

Of course you're free to judge whether facism is a good or bad thing.

Is it worse than fascism?

ATG said:

But if you don't conclude that facism is a bad thing, and subsequent choose to opposr it, then I'd say that that was a blatant and profound moral failure.

You are free to believe what you wish. It would be nice if you believed that others could have the same freedom.

ATG said:

While you're ignorant of what the term means, how could you be anything other than open-minded about it? How could you hold an opinion about something you know nothing about? Surely that goes without saying?

So it's ok to let them speak & tell others about it? Groovy.

[tali1]

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.

Yes "at war with itself" - but who is stirring the pot ? who gains from this apparent self destruction ? most of IS victims are muslims .That is the perception the media want -and more importantly the zionist controlled media want.The zionists are committing terrorism on Palestinians - but hey as they say Israeli= commando, Palestinain =Terrorists.Even the jews hate zionists.
Pakistan gets lots of bombings from Islamic militants -who do you think funds those terrorists ? (clue ,5 letters begins with I ends with A)
Zionists,are much more than "shouty demonstrations".And now they have got into bed withe the other extremist - the Wahhabi Saudis (odd , that the west is so pally with the most extreme muslim country)
https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-white-hou...
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/da...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terro...

[Rovinghawk]

ATG said:

There is no irony at all.

Expressing an opinion about what people ought to believe (e.g. "religion is silly") does not impinge on someone's freedom of speech.

Do you wish to impinge on their freedom of belief? It sounds like it.

[grumbledoak]

Derek Smith said:

One thing I find disquieting is that on TV especially, and now creeping into the written histories, is that the word nazi is used to replace Germans. We hear phrases like: the nazis did this or that when it was Germans.

We read the converse here; we are reassured that the armed, masked AntiFa protesters are just middle class kids in fancy dress.

What do they think past fascists were?

[Einion Yrth]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

It's not just a lefty thing.
The Nazis,

National Socialist German workers party

Goaty Bill 2 said:

the Soviets,

Union of Soviet Socialist republics.

Goaty Bill 2 said:

The Maoist Chinese,

Chinese communist party

Goaty Bill 2 said:

religious fundamentalists (of many faiths and denominations),

not a single one of which I would accuse of being of a Libertarian bent

Goaty Bill 2 said:

have all had people do it.

So your examples suggest that it is mostly a lefty thing.

[Funkycoldribena]

tali1 said:

Yes "at war with itself" - but who is stirring the pot ? who gains from this apparent self destruction ? most of IS victims are muslims .That is the perception the media want -and more importantly the zionist controlled media want.The zionists are committing terrorism on Palestinians - but hey as they say Israeli= commando, Palestinain =Terrorists.Even the jews hate zionists.
Pakistan gets lots of bombings from Islamic militants -who do you think funds those terrorists ? (clue ,5 letters begins with I ends with A)
Zionists,are much more than "shouty demonstrations".And now they have got into bed withe the other extremist - the Wahhabi Saudis (odd , that the west is so pally with the most extreme muslim country)
https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-white-hou...
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/da...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terro...

There's a big distinction between Israelis and Palestinians.
One targets civilians, one doesn't.