Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Freedom of speech...freedom of thought...

Page 2 of 2 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Feb 2018, 8:49 am

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because it seems like you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting smug about it. It's annoying.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

03 Feb 2018, 9:42 am

Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
A Nazi has the right to spew his/her crap.

I have the right not to listen.


You are the last person I want to offend...

But can you see my point about being able to think for oneself?
Simply passively accepting what the overlords tell us a la 1984 is manifestly appalling to me...
This principle covers all subject matter...
Fore example, climate change...

Allow one to come to one's own conclusions...
A reasonable person will come to a reasonable conclusion given all the facts...
How could this possibly be politically incorrect on a level playing field?

I feel intimidated merely presenting my point of view here...
Could someone explain to me why I validly should?




If you are afraid of "overlords"- the British government, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Boogey Man, coming after you for you expressing any unpopular opinions that you might have-while here on WP then you have no need to worry. Those Boogey Men are not going to get you on WP.

But if its the common rabble here on WP that you are afraid of then there is nothing anyone can do. The same right to free speech that protects you also protects others when they ridicule your opinions. The right to free speech does not equal the right to be taken seriously.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

03 Feb 2018, 10:03 am

Biscuitman wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
A video of him doing just that is the reason for his prosecution. What specific details of the video the Thought Police found objectionable is immaterial in this context. And given then level of thin-skinnedness on display, the saluting dog might as well have been the "offensive" part.


He is not being prosecuted for teaching the dog anything. That is a fact.


Whilst technically true, what he is being prosecuted for is engaging in the act of creating a comedy sketch, somewhat reminiscent of John Cleese's antics in Fawlty Towers, in which he teaches a dog to do a nazi salute.

The tenuous justification as to why he's being prosecuted is that the video might potentially offend the sensibilities of a hypothetical snowflake - which is all kinds of ridiculous.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

03 Feb 2018, 12:46 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
A video of him doing just that is the reason for his prosecution. What specific details of the video the Thought Police found objectionable is immaterial in this context. And given then level of thin-skinnedness on display, the saluting dog might as well have been the "offensive" part.


He is not being prosecuted for teaching the dog anything. That is a fact.


Whilst technically true.


That is purely the bit I am correcting wolfram on, nothing more. I am not interested in anything beyond the technicalities of it. I think he has got slightly mixed up between prosecution and defence tbf.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

03 Feb 2018, 1:41 pm

Biscuitman wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
A video of him doing just that is the reason for his prosecution. What specific details of the video the Thought Police found objectionable is immaterial in this context. And given then level of thin-skinnedness on display, the saluting dog might as well have been the "offensive" part.


He is not being prosecuted for teaching the dog anything. That is a fact.


Whilst technically true.


That is purely the bit I am correcting wolfram on, nothing more. I am not interested in anything beyond the technicalities of it.


And yet the reason it's not technically true is why you're having difficulty understanding his position. Wolfram, too, is technically correct, but he's taking a shortcut between steps 1 and 4.

You're technically correct in the same sense that the impact with the ground was the cause of death for the guy who jumped out of a window on the 30th floor. However, you're ignoring the fact that immediately prior to his self-defenestration, the building was hit by a passenger jet.

Quote:
I think he has got slightly mixed up between prosecution and defence tbf.


I see nothing he's posted that supports your hypothesis.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia

03 Feb 2018, 4:56 pm

Don't they know that banning something will only make it more popular?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

03 Feb 2018, 4:59 pm

I'm not an advocate of banning Nazi speech.

I still have the right to ignore it.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

03 Feb 2018, 6:38 pm

I'm in a country where Nazi utterances are illegal.
And where the guy shouting nazi stuff at his dog and putting it online would be punished as well.

actually, in my country, punks wearing crossed-out swastikas on their jackets are being punished for "wearing nazi symbols".

the second case, I find ridiculous, because it makes it intent unmistakeably clear.
the first case... I don't know. you see... this guy may have meant it as a joke, and I'm fine with that. but neo-nazis are a sneaky bunch, over here. and I can easily imagine a nazi-"parody"-parade, with neo nazis shouting antisemitic BS and mumblingly adding to every sentence "just kidding".

I mean... if education alone were enough, there wouldn't be neo nazis in germany. basically, all of our history classes in school are about the holocaust and how that was possible.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

03 Feb 2018, 8:19 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
The dog in the video is the entire context in which the phrases are being uttered.

Yes, context is very important...
Many people don't seem to understand what context is...

Wolfram87 wrote:
And that is the entire problem with laws such as these hate speech laws: they rely entirely on the perception of a recipient to determine whether or not a crime has been commited, and ignore context and intent. An offended party only has to show that their feelings were hurt by something someone said, and making the complaint is already an indication of that.

Most garden-variety individuals don't understand what confirmation bias is...
Most people aren't disciplined in thinking objectively, keeping in mind their own personal bias...
And yes, overwhelmingly, people ignore *intent*!

In addition to this, there are some people who enjoy keeping their heel on the necks of people they don't like, twisting the laws of the land to their own advantage...
Speaking from personal experience here...
What a biatch she was... :mrgreen:

Wolfram87 wrote:
No threat was made. No statement of intent was uttered. No incitement of anything by anyone towards anyone else. To claim that he "caused fear and alarm and stirred up hatred" because he posted a video online (not sending it to anyone, just posting it on his channel) is tantamount to climbing a hill with binoculars to peep in someones window, and then be outraged that they exposed themselves to you.

I haven't seen the youtube podcast...(naughty me...) but I am comfortable with your assessment...
To me, it looks like a prank that went very wrong...

Perhaps the guy is autistic and failed to anticipate NT emotional responses...<shrug>
My life has been saturated with autistic/NT misunderstanding to the point I simply avoid most social interaction because I can't be bothered with the nonsense and due to the fact I am very self-contained...

Such is life...<shrug>
Cheers, m8...



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

04 Feb 2018, 2:42 pm

naturalplastic wrote:


If you are afraid of "overlords"- the British government, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Boogey Man, coming after you for you expressing any unpopular opinions that you might have-while here on WP then you have no need to worry. Those Boogey Men are not going to get you on WP.

But if its the common rabble here on WP that you are afraid of then there is nothing anyone can do. The same right to free speech that protects you also protects others when they ridicule your opinions. The right to free speech does not equal the right to be taken seriously.


Have you ever been on the wrong end of a dedicated, prolonged harassment campaign encompassing the internet and real world?
Preach to me when you have...
You bother me, son...
Go away...



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

20 Mar 2018, 5:40 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Right, cuz ain't no one doing nuthin' to free speech or anythin'. Pay no attention to the absurdly overreaching "hate speech" laws behind the curtain. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

"Hitch" does indeed refer to Christopher "Hitchslap" Hitchens. :)

"hate speech laws"? Is that what the two of you are on about?


The UK is currently in the process of prosecuting a man for teaching a dog to do the Hitler salute. If these laws are so overreaching that they target what is essentially a prank, and involve the person in question in a multi-year legal battle over it, I'd say there's a problem.

Guilty verdict today. :evil:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

20 Mar 2018, 5:52 pm

Drake wrote:

Quote:
The UK is currently in the process of prosecuting a man for teaching a dog to do the Hitler salute. If these laws are so overreaching that they target what is essentially a prank, and involve the person in question in a multi-year legal battle over it, I'd say there's a problem.

Guilty verdict today. :evil:


I don't know the full details of the case...
I haven't even seen the video...
But what I do know is that the "politically correct industry" is changing the attitude of the judicial system...

Just because something is decided in court doesn't *automatically* validate the decision...
I suggest people still keep an open mind...

Please note:
My comment is a general statement and not specific to the example discussed here...



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

21 Mar 2018, 8:09 am

Pepe wrote:
Drake wrote:

Quote:
The UK is currently in the process of prosecuting a man for teaching a dog to do the Hitler salute. If these laws are so overreaching that they target what is essentially a prank, and involve the person in question in a multi-year legal battle over it, I'd say there's a problem.

Guilty verdict today. :evil:


I don't know the full details of the case...
I haven't even seen the video...
But what I do know is that the "politically correct industry" is changing the attitude of the judicial system...

Just because something is decided in court doesn't *automatically* validate the decision...
I suggest people still keep an open mind...

Please note:
My comment is a general statement and not specific to the example discussed here...


The guilty verdict was rendered by Sheriff Derek O'Carroll, who is a stooge of the SNP, and who has been involved in his share of controversy over the years. 'Count Dankula' seems to have a strong case for appeal, but I'd recommend he find more competent legal counsel if he intends to challenge the decision.

He was charged under the Communications Act section 127 which is intended to deal with people who are directly harassing, menacing or abusing individuals using emails, telephone or text. The Act specifically exempts anything that constitutes a "programme service" under the Broadcasting Act 1990 (updates pending), the definition of which includes videos posted on youtube. It's my opinion that the law has been very poorly applied by the judge and that he has established a very dangerous precedent with this decision.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

23 Mar 2018, 8:57 pm

Jonathan Pie goes in like a ton of bricks. Right outside the building! He even turns himself into a Nazi!



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

24 Mar 2018, 11:47 am

Pie for PM.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"