Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
Oh dear what a shame............... That he can easily afford it.
(Though I am torn by my views on freedom of speech!)
Quite. But, this is a sign of the times.(Though I am torn by my views on freedom of speech!)
As for the chap next to Max - the KKK aren't the only crew to sport those hoods. So, it may not be quite as sinister as it appears.
Having said that...... some of the other crews aren't knitting circles either
PhilAsia said:
I place it in the Finland income-linked speeding fine territory, in terms of excellent outcomes that cautions all against making future indiscretions.
You are such an authoritarian. Yes he is a nasty person, but the potential consequences of speech leading to legal repercussions and becoming regulated is far worse. DOCG said:
PhilAsia said:
I place it in the Finland income-linked speeding fine territory, in terms of excellent outcomes that cautions all against making future indiscretions.
You are such an authoritarian. Yes he is a nasty person, but the potential consequences of speech leading to legal repercussions and becoming regulated is far worse. DOCG said:
PhilAsia said:
I place it in the Finland income-linked speeding fine territory, in terms of excellent outcomes that cautions all against making future indiscretions.
You are such an authoritarian. Yes he is a nasty person, but the potential consequences of speech leading to legal repercussions and becoming regulated is far worse. My ex was refused entry to 5/6 schools in 1974 and therefore missed one year of education at 10/11 years old. Only the concerted effort of an Irish priest ensured that the following year she became the first black student in a Catholic school in the NW London area.
There were often signs in windows "No Blacks/No Irish/No Dogs".
I prefer for these antisocial aberrations to be punished.
GiantCardboardPlato said:
Agree, with a qualifier. The qualifier is this: it’s better to have legal repercussions for some types of speech than it is for society to face the repercussions of leaving those types of speech untrammelled. I am talking about speech like incitement to violence, or hate speech, targeting individuals or demographics based on their inherent characteristics.Which was what this is.
I would say that I am broadly in agreement with you. I mean, ideally, it would be preferable if people just tried to be nicer to each other. But, in the absence of this, agreed.
This is the whole thing that yanks my chain about people bleating on about "cancel culture". No, mate, you weren't cancelled; it's just you suffered the consequences of your actions that's all.
PhilAsia said:
GiantCardboardPlato said:
Mistranslated but curiously still racist in Portuguese
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/25/nels...
EXCELLENT! https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/25/nels...
I wonder if the racist/homophobe Piquet will "mistranslate" and write a cheque for GBP7,800,000....?
Assume its not Hamilton but is it one of the organisations that brought the case or the government ?
liner33 said:
PhilAsia said:
GiantCardboardPlato said:
Mistranslated but curiously still racist in Portuguese
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/25/nels...
EXCELLENT! https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/25/nels...
I wonder if the racist/homophobe Piquet will "mistranslate" and write a cheque for GBP7,800,000....?
Assume its not Hamilton but is it one of the organisations that brought the case or the government ?
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I would say that I am broadly in agreement with you.
I mean, ideally, it would be preferable if people just tried to be nicer to each other. But, in the absence of this, agreed.
This is the whole thing that yanks my chain about people bleating on about "cancel culture". No, mate, you weren't cancelled; it's just you suffered the consequences of your actions that's all.
So as a woman are you for or against the "cancelling" of JK Rowling for standing up for other women?I mean, ideally, it would be preferable if people just tried to be nicer to each other. But, in the absence of this, agreed.
This is the whole thing that yanks my chain about people bleating on about "cancel culture". No, mate, you weren't cancelled; it's just you suffered the consequences of your actions that's all.
Mr Pointy said:
So as a woman are you for or against the "cancelling" of JK Rowling for standing up for other women?
I think her stance is abhorrent. To put it in racial terms it is like her saying black women are not real women and that real women must be protected from black non-women. Because they are all sexual predators.Women should be protected from people who seek to harm them. End of. Saying that a subset of women are a danger to other women is discriminatory and bigoted. And completely ignores the fact that those women might also need the same protection.
Should she be "cancelled"? Depends on what you mean by that. I think she should be free to continue to spout her abhorrent hate speech because of Freedom of Speech. But I think she should be called out as a hateful bigot every time she does. Because "freedom of speech" does not mean "immunity from criticism". I could write more but I will leave it there.
Those are my views and, in fairness, you did ask for them.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Mr Pointy said:
So as a woman are you for or against the "cancelling" of JK Rowling for standing up for other women?
I think her stance is abhorrent. To put it in racial terms it is like her saying black women are not real women and that real women must be protected from black non-women. Because they are all sexual predators.Women should be protected from people who seek to harm them. End of. Saying that a subset of women are a danger to other women is discriminatory and bigoted. And completely ignores the fact that those women might also need the same protection.
Should she be "cancelled"? Depends on what you mean by that. I think she should be free to continue to spout her abhorrent hate speech because of Freedom of Speech. But I think she should be called out as a hateful bigot every time she does. Because "freedom of speech" does not mean "immunity from criticism". I could write more but I will leave it there.
Those are my views and, in fairness, you did ask for them.
J.K. Is right to says things as they are, but tolerance of others is an absolute must regardless of what we think.
maz8062 said:
Nah, I’m not with you on this non-f1 topic. Women are women, men are men and there are those that were born men/women that choose to change who they are from men/women to men/women, but it doesn’t mean that they are.
J.K. Is right to says things as they are, but tolerance of others is an absolute must regardless of what we think.
I also believe that women are women. It just appears that our definitions of womanhood differ. Considering that theses, books, and entire theories have been presented on the matter, shows it is not black and white. J.K. Is right to says things as they are, but tolerance of others is an absolute must regardless of what we think.
As I said, I agree that women should be protected. I just think all women need to be. And I do not agree with her definition of what a woman is. Nor yours.
Peace.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Monday 27th March 19:05
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I think her stance is abhorrent. To put it in racial terms it is like her saying black women are not real women and that real women must be protected from black non-women. Because they are all sexual predators.
Women should be protected from people who seek to harm them. End of. Saying that a subset of women are a danger to other women is discriminatory and bigoted. And completely ignores the fact that those women might also need the same protection.
Should she be "cancelled"? Depends on what you mean by that. I think she should be free to continue to spout her abhorrent hate speech because of Freedom of Speech. But I think she should be called out as a hateful bigot every time she does. Because "freedom of speech" does not mean "immunity from criticism". I could write more but I will leave it there.
Those are my views and, in fairness, you did ask for them.
Her original tweet was to republish a printed(?) article which used the term 'people who menstruate'. He so-called hate-speech was, originally, nothing more than a complaint that the word woman covers it. I know the English language is always changing, moving with the times, but the term is open to all sorts of criticism. It, for one, excludes my wife. She, it seems, is excluded because of something that happens to women of a certain age. A bit harsh. A bit agist. Women should be protected from people who seek to harm them. End of. Saying that a subset of women are a danger to other women is discriminatory and bigoted. And completely ignores the fact that those women might also need the same protection.
Should she be "cancelled"? Depends on what you mean by that. I think she should be free to continue to spout her abhorrent hate speech because of Freedom of Speech. But I think she should be called out as a hateful bigot every time she does. Because "freedom of speech" does not mean "immunity from criticism". I could write more but I will leave it there.
Those are my views and, in fairness, you did ask for them.
The response to her original post was out of all proportion to the content. She writes. Words are her speciality. She's good at writing. Maybe worth listening to.
Feminists came up with a perfect solution to the tyranny of Mr, Miss and Mrs. It was simple, straightforward and is now in general usage. Very clever. Impressive. Can't we come up with a word that is not so open to criticism of exclusionary?
If what Rowling posted was hate speech, she should not be allowed to continue to state it. But it does not come under the legal definition.
Derek Smith said:
Her original tweet was to republish a printed(?) article which used the term 'people who menstruate'. He so-called hate-speech was, originally, nothing more than a complaint that the word woman covers it. I know the English language is always changing, moving with the times, but the term is open to all sorts of criticism. It, for one, excludes my wife. She, it seems, is excluded because of something that happens to women of a certain age. A bit harsh. A bit agist.
The response to her original post was out of all proportion to the content. She writes. Words are her speciality. She's good at writing. Maybe worth listening to.
Feminists came up with a perfect solution to the tyranny of Mr, Miss and Mrs. It was simple, straightforward and is now in general usage. Very clever. Impressive. Can't we come up with a word that is not so open to criticism of exclusionary?
If what Rowling posted was hate speech, she should not be allowed to continue to state it. But it does not come under the legal definition.
Granted, Derek. But she has repeatedly doubled-down (grrr American phrase) on it, and not only vocally supported anti-trans groups but also financially supported them out of her vast fortune. She has repeatedly made her position known. And said how buying anything Potter-related is endorsing her views. Including the latest the game. The response to her original post was out of all proportion to the content. She writes. Words are her speciality. She's good at writing. Maybe worth listening to.
Feminists came up with a perfect solution to the tyranny of Mr, Miss and Mrs. It was simple, straightforward and is now in general usage. Very clever. Impressive. Can't we come up with a word that is not so open to criticism of exclusionary?
If what Rowling posted was hate speech, she should not be allowed to continue to state it. But it does not come under the legal definition.
DOCG said:
You are such an authoritarian. Yes he is a nasty person, but the potential consequences of speech leading to legal repercussions and becoming regulated is far worse.
Hardly. Even Elon Musk a free speech evangelist believes it leads to consequences, namely him firing people from Twitter but still. Mr Pointy said:
So as a woman are you for or against the "cancelling" of JK Rowling for standing up for other women?
Last time I checked she wasn’t cancelled so maybe you should stop propagating the idea she was. It’s more of an issue than any actual issue with “cancelling”. In any case it’s a lazy short hand for repercussions usually used by people who are too weak of their convictions to wish to risk anything. Clockwork Cupcake said:
Derek Smith said:
Her original tweet was to republish a printed(?) article which used the term 'people who menstruate'. He so-called hate-speech was, originally, nothing more than a complaint that the word woman covers it. I know the English language is always changing, moving with the times, but the term is open to all sorts of criticism. It, for one, excludes my wife. She, it seems, is excluded because of something that happens to women of a certain age. A bit harsh. A bit agist.
The response to her original post was out of all proportion to the content. She writes. Words are her speciality. She's good at writing. Maybe worth listening to.
Feminists came up with a perfect solution to the tyranny of Mr, Miss and Mrs. It was simple, straightforward and is now in general usage. Very clever. Impressive. Can't we come up with a word that is not so open to criticism of exclusionary?
If what Rowling posted was hate speech, she should not be allowed to continue to state it. But it does not come under the legal definition.
Granted, Derek. But she has repeatedly doubled-down (grrr American phrase) on it, and not only vocally supported anti-trans groups but also financially supported them out of her vast fortune. She has repeatedly made her position known. And said how buying anything Potter-related is endorsing her views. Including the latest the game. The response to her original post was out of all proportion to the content. She writes. Words are her speciality. She's good at writing. Maybe worth listening to.
Feminists came up with a perfect solution to the tyranny of Mr, Miss and Mrs. It was simple, straightforward and is now in general usage. Very clever. Impressive. Can't we come up with a word that is not so open to criticism of exclusionary?
If what Rowling posted was hate speech, she should not be allowed to continue to state it. But it does not come under the legal definition.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff