Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THE AIGBURTH ARMS' started by Ant E, Oct 23, 2017.
Seb does as he's the admin, it's for the greater good, brothers and sisters.
It's called a reaction GIF. It's an image that reflects my reaction to the post, i.e. bafflement.
Okay, and among those consequences are "having what you've said labelled as hate speech and being prosecuted for it".
When you're at the stage where you're shouting racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, whatever your niche is bile, I don't think you fear the legal reprisals all too much.
Also, while the essence of free speech is to be able to say what you like, that doesn't mean people should be forced to listen to it. The objection to "safe spaces" seems to be "Well, why can't I come and spout my bile in these places?" And the answer is, "because the people whose places they are don't want you to".
No-one says you have to listen to it, but safe spaces are a dangerous slope in which any form of dissident thoughts or actions that aren't very strictly controlled and agreed upon will be leaped upon and usually, those with even moderate views to the contrary are named and shamed.
Yes. Which was my original reason for posting this subject! Answers on a postcard
Alternatively: not having safe spaces is a dangerous slope in which people will be free to say and do whatever they want to other people, leading to the rise of oppressive extremism. You can make the extension in both directions, quite easily.
Me, I tend to prefer to put up with the annoyance of sometimes being constrained in terms of what I might want to do, in service of a societal approach that looks to minimise the harm caused to others. But that, I guess, is the difference between being a libertarian and being a socialist.
Or, to put it another way: I don't think it's a great idea to let Nazis make speeches in public about how great it is to be a Nazi. I feel like there's a pretty strong historical precedent that suggests why it's a good idea not to let that happen.
There is an historical precedent, I quite agree on that particular element of your argument but let me ask you this.
We're adults, we have choices to make every day in life. One of those choices is to either reject or follow the Nazi in the street. I don't want to bar individuals and society as a whole from being able to make that choice for themselves. Do you feel certain extreme views should be banned as a whole without allowing people to make that decision for themselves?
Yes. But again, this clearly comes down to a fundamental difference in that you believe in complete personal liberty, whereas I believe that a measure of central control is necessary for society. Because things like the welfare state and wealth distribution won't exist if we just leave it up to people to do it themselves.
Even here in the States where the First amendment is held sacred there are clearly defined limits on "Free Speech". Approved by all 3 branches of our government. You cannot yell "Fire" in a theater for example. Hate speech to me is the same. I believe our elected officials, here at least are dropping the ball and actually running a little scared right now. NO, "people" like Richard Spencer DO NOT have the right to preach hate. We on the left have bent over backwards for these "people" and do you think they would do the same?! Heck, our Chump in Chief wants to take away the licenses of the t.v. stations that don't kiss his big butt! Indiana , wants to "approve" journalists as we speak. We on the left want to be "fair", well you can only be so fair to a rabid dog. But ...... listen to the howls of outrage from Faux news on their ilk if we tried to do something about the Spencer's in our midst. People like him are like a cancer to civilized society and we Liberals are saying..... oh, let it run its course, it MIGHT heal itself. NO, it won't it will just get worse and worse until the world will TRULY have an American Reich. And Brothers and Sisters we have a LOT of godalmighty powerful weapons.
My question on Islam, Christianity et el appears to have been ignored!
Can’t think why?!
@Ant the Dragon I've been joking around about being disappointed in you for the quality of your retorts lately, but I am truly disappointed in you for this thread. I can see no purpose in it at all except to just get people worked up and arguing. In that you are no better than Danny now. SMH.
Haven't stirred enough crap? ^^^
That’s twice now someone has said that. It’s a completely valid point. I really do not understand why people think religion deserves special treatment - namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism! I am entitled to that opinion and if its getting people “worked up” then tough. As @Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century said to me recenatly “Don’t reply if you don’t like the conversation”. It’s clear people on the forum have left leaning and right leaning opinions. So it’s an interesting debate topic. It is possible to do that you know, BOD!
Let me give you a scenario: if someone decides to walk down a street and punch a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Hindu, a Moorman - then say to the person “I hit you because you are of that religion”. There’s no word to describe that action (over than you’re an idiot or violent or it’s a hate crime).
Now, if someone did the same action to someone who was Muslim, Jew or Christian - they have specific hate crime terminology connected to them (islamophibia, anti-Semitic etc...). So why do these three religions get their own category of hate crime, but the others are essentially “miscellaneous”?
Now obviously, the violent aspect of that example makes it a crime, I don’t doubt that. But it’s reached a point where you cannot even criticise any of those three types of religions without being referred to as “racist” or “a bigot” or having some type of “phobia” There’s no middle ground.
You’re a bigot if you hate ALL Muslims because of the fact they are Muslims, I don’t doubt that. But why can’t i dissect the religion and criticise the areas I don’t like (namely how homophobic it is)? Why can’t I critique the Catholic Church for its anti abortion stance?
When was the last time you EVER heard anything in the news about the lives of Hindus? Or Buddhas?! You don’t because;
A. They don’t desire special treatment
B. They get on with their lives without bother
C. They have more tolerant religions (especially Hindus which are one of the few religions who openly support same-sex marriage).
So the questions still stands - why are certain religious circles so weak that if you criticise them it becomes a hate crime or phobia? When no violence is involved? Why does the media and society panda to them as well? Are we scared as a society to criticise anymore because we are afraid of being called a bigot?
I didn’t expect moral high ground and mock outrage from you of all people, @BigOleMummy !!! The point I have made is valid. Stop engaging mock-outrage because I happened to bring religion into the conversation. It’s the same context as a safe space. So I hope the above helps ease the “disappointment”.
People on the forum can have adult conversations and debates without the need to be accused of trying to start arguments. That’s generally what debates are about...
I think all religions should be on a level playing field when it comes to criticism. However, if I had to point out which one I think comes in for the most persecution, I would say Christianity, and the reason being that it is the main religion of the west, therefore the most often targeted in that area. That's not to say that it necessarily deserves it more than other religions
Big old dummy. You live in a land of mixed opinions. I don't necessarily think you are danger of becoming a reich any more than you ever were. Sure, Trump has his excesses, but I don't think its half as bad as the left media try to portray. Just as this country isn't necesarrily as bad as the left media over here try to portray. At the end of the day, I expect your country is like ours in such a situation. It is what it is, and in the final analysis, both party's are as equally useless as each other anyway. Your last election was certainly portrayed to foreign media as one of negativity. i.e, Clinton was seen to be as bad as Trump, not some sort of great alternative
I am a Christian so I'm probably a bit biases when it comes to my views. I do try to stay away from arguing with people because I believe what I believe and I'm not going to change that and I doubt that the people I talk with are going to change their beliefs either that don't agree with my own so I don't try to force anything on them.
I don't hate anyone that has different religious views and that will not stop me from being friends with anyone. I think there are may Muslims out there who are lovely people. The extremests give them a bad name, just like the extremest and paedophile priests give Christians a bad name.
Depends of the person. You should see all the hate at the moment over here at the moment from both sides of the referendum to change the Marriage act.
@FeeBee - the lone voice of reason on this thread! Couldn’t agree more
Gosh, it's funny how the users "sonofmanic" and "Lishus" both posted and then deleted identical messages that intimately knew the entire history of the Danny situation, isn't it?
How many of these bogus accounts are there for goodness sake?!! The repo man one is a bit weird too!!!
But this is the problem on the forum at the mo, people become paranoid about new members who may be perfectly innocent (although I know of at least four now which I believe are NOT)!
Should we report these or what @Seb?