Liberals who aren't liberal

Atoms for Peace

The rebranding of Democratic centralism.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

"Why should an ISIS supporter who calls for mass terrorism not be platformed, and thus legitimised, on RTE or BBC?"

That's a rhetorical question.

It's amazing how a thread which was started by those who wish to vilify Muslims has now taken a turn where the same anti-Muslim fanatics are defending and indeed advocating for an ISIS supporter's right to call for mass terrorism on the most watched media platforms.

"Confused" doesn't even begin to explain this mindset.

One of the many many many problems with the way you argue is you tend to generalise. Basically anybody who isn’t you is, regardless of the subtlety of the views is far right.

This thread was started by one person. I’m a different person. Nor am I an anti Muslim fanatic. People have different views. My previous posts on this thread, for instance, opposed two intolerant attacks on free speech from both left and right.

I tend to be a free speech absolutist. Anyway if this guy has bad think views there’s no reason not to challenge his views on the bbc. Felt the same about the no platforimg of Sinn Fein which achieved absolutely nothing.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I suppose when you never leave your room, it means you can imagine life entirely through the medium of stereotypes.
.

Ah ha ha ha ha.

hill16bhoy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

One of the many many many problems with the way you argue is you tend to generalise. Basically anybody who isn’t you is, regardless of the subtlety of the views is far right.

This thread was started by one person. I’m a different person. Nor am I an anti Muslim fanatic. People have different views. My previous posts on this thread, for instance, opposed two intolerant attacks on free speech from both left and right.

I tend to be a free speech absolutist. Anyway if this guy has bad think views there’s no reason not to challenge his views on the bbc. Felt the same about the no platforimg of Sinn Fein which achieved absolutely nothing.

Having read many of your posts and being familiar with your pro-Russian troll persona, I know you're just one more poster who seeks to promote lies and propaganda as truth and seeks to denigrate truth as lies.

Therefore it's only to be expected that you'd support the platforming of somebody like Anjem Choudary, as Choudary operates to a similar strategy as yourself.

Franz Von Peppercorn

TomSweeney wrote: »

ah hill16bhoy a Celtic supporter too - so probably can add IRA, Brit hating, Hamas supporting scumbag too ...
yet, im the hate filled one ... fool ..

I doubt he’s even been to hill 16 ever.

I’m not sure why there is so much of an obsession with hamas in some posts. They tend not to attack Europe or the US. Hezbollah were active against ISIS. No reason for us to care.

TomSweeney

batgoat wrote: »

So you're ultimately outraged that they're not labelling all Muslims as terrorists..

What are you on about ?





Why is the story being repressed ?

Why don't "feminists" give a **** ?


If this was two hillbilly KKK rednecks there would be marches on the streets and every news organisation would have it plastered all over front pages.


You brought up "Muslims" - you must be the bigot here.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Having read many of your posts and being familiar with your pro-Russian troll persona, I know you're just one more poster who seeks to promote lies and propaganda as truth and seeks to denigrate truth as lies.

Examples? If by pro Russian you mean anti US imperialism then there’s no doubt about that. Not really sure what else you mean. You seem to be pro Muslim except when the US are murdering them. Like Yemen. Or Syria. Or Libya. In all these places I opposed western imperialism.

Therefore it's only to be expected that you'd support the platforming of somebody like Anjem Choudary, as Choudary operates to a similar strategy as yourself.

Lol. So defending free speech is the same as being Isis. In the outside world there would be lawsuits flying.

I dont think I’ve criticised Islam except it’s extremists and my views on migration are that we need positive net immigration. But controlled.

I’m reporting anymore personal attacks.

Chris_Heilong

Mutant z wrote: »

There seems to be a trend of those who claim to be liberal but are completely intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. They are liberal as long as you agree with them but if anyone so much as strays from their own group think they are attacked, slandered and censored. Why are so many self proclaimed liberals in favour of tighter censorship laws and clamping down on freedom of speech, which is an essence of a true liberal society. Surely being liberal means supporting free speech whether you agree with it or not. The fact is liberalism is about supporting free speech and expression and opposing censorship which is the exact opposite to what so many who claim to be on the liberal spectrum have proposed. It seems liberalism has been hijacked by SJWs and college students, in favour of identity politics which is anything but liberal. Its time real liberals stood up and defended the true liberal values of freedom of speech and democracy.

You are 100% correct, it is like these people are just looking for an excuse to hate, no different from the KKK or Neo-Nazi types except their hatred is pointed in a different direction and seems to be more socially accepted, hate is such a strong emotion and I do not hate anyone especially not someone just because I disagree with them.

engiweirdo

"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" -Some clever French fella....

Bannasidhe

engiweirdo wrote: »

"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" -Some clever French fella....

Annnd we are back to Voltaire.
Same French fella who believed monarchs shouldn't have any legal limits on their power - so while Voltaire may have said that in reality he believed that a king should, in fact, be able to kill anyone who said something he didn't like.

Billy86

TomSweeney wrote: »

Why is the story being repressed ?

You mean the story that has been plastered all over the news for several days? Theyre really not doing a very good job of the auld repression, are they?

engiweirdo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Annnd we are back to Voltaire.
Same French fella who believed monarchs shouldn't have any legal limits on their power - so while Voltaire may have said that in reality he believed that a king should, in fact, be able to kill anyone who said something he didn't like.

I'd actually agree with that and take it a few steps further; Everyone should get 2 "free shots". Basically you can kill someone for wrongdoing/doing you over/looking at you awkwardly etc. But just 2. After that limit, it's death by public flogging with a piss soaked pillowcase.

Grayson

TomSweeney wrote: »

"Happy" is strong a word, but my point is they won't say boo about it, they would rather protest a non threat - ie innocent rugby players to be sent to jail for a rape they didn't commit.
Just one example.

Because human beings are only ever capable of protesting a very limited things in the course of their lifetimes? So it's completely impossible to be against two things at once?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Annnd we are back to Voltaire.
Same French fella who believed monarchs shouldn't have any legal limits on their power - so while Voltaire may have said that in reality he believed that a king should, in fact, be able to kill anyone who said something he didn't like.

The flaws of Voltaire not withstanding, what about the sentiment?

Grayson

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Annnd we are back to Voltaire.
Same French fella who believed monarchs shouldn't have any legal limits on their power - so while Voltaire may have said that in reality he believed that a king should, in fact, be able to kill anyone who said something he didn't like.

Although he didn't even say it. It was an english woman in 1906.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

I love the way free speech advocates quote it as if it's a proof rather than a statement of a concept.

batgoat

TomSweeney wrote: »

What are you on about ?





Why is the story being repressed ?

Why don't "feminists" give a **** ?


If this was two hillbilly KKK rednecks there would be marches on the streets and every news organisation would have it plastered all over front pages.


You brought up "Muslims" - you must be the bigot here.

It's not being repressed, it's been reported in multiple publications since the 18th.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

Although he didn't even say it. It was an english woman in 1906.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

I love the way free speech advocates quote it as if it's a proof rather than a statement of a concept.

Ok so you are not a supporter of the sentiment then?

This is to my mind problematic as the ideology of free speech is in fact essential to democratic debate. The left used to believe that

Edit:

Great link there by the way.

Grayson

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ok so you are not a supporter of the sentiment then?

This is to my mind problematic as the ideology of free speech is in fact essential to democratic debate. The left used to believe that

Edit:

Great link there by the way.

Free speech is great. It's also dangerous. We have sensible limits on it.
In an academic setting I think pretty much everything should be allowed. I can't think of anything I'd ban.

But, for example, should I be allowed go and tell every one of your neighbors that you're a convicted pedophile? (I used that example here before and there was someone that said yes I should. He so believed in free speech that he felt there should be no repercussions for anything that someone said, even if it caused injury or death. I might disagree with him, but he did have a strong belief)

As far as political speech goes, we could have a similar argument. There have been cases in India where there were riots and massacres because of lies that were told.

Here's a good example of what can happen with lies spread over whatsapp.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714

Chris_Heilong

Grayson wrote: »

Free speech is great. It's also dangerous. We have sensible limits on it.
In an academic setting I think pretty much everything should be allowed. I can't think of anything I'd ban.

But, for example, should I be allowed go and tell every one of your neighbors that you're a convicted pedophile? (I used that example here before and there was someone that said yes I should. He so believed in free speech that he felt there should be no repercussions for anything that someone said, even if it caused injury or death. I might disagree with him, but he did have a strong belief)

As far as political speech goes, we could have a similar argument. There have been cases in India where there were riots and massacres because of lies that were told.

Here's a good example of what can happen with lies spread over whatsapp.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714

I know you are very left based on posts I have seen from you before so maybe you are a good sample base for where some of these ideas in the OPs post come from. Are you saying you do not agree with free speech? or are you more of the "I agree with free speech except..." school of thought?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

Free speech is great. It's also dangerous. We have sensible limits on it.
In an academic setting I think pretty much everything should be allowed. I can't think of anything I'd ban.

But, for example, should I be allowed go and tell every one of your neighbors that you're a convicted pedophile? (I used that example here before and there was someone that said yes I should. He so believed in free speech that he felt there should be no repercussions for anything that someone said, even if it caused injury or death. I might disagree with him, but he did have a strong belief)

As far as political speech goes, we could have a similar argument. There have been cases in India where there were riots and massacres because of lies that were told.

Here's a good example of what can happen with lies spread over whatsapp.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44897714

Libel should always be banned. A previous poster here would have libelled me were pseudonyms subject to libel. Luckily for him they aren’t.

And speech that threatens violence should be banned.

But that’s always been the case, even in the US.

I agree on the academic settings (which puts you at odds with the no platforming types).

I’m generally opposed to hate speech as an idea, but I think people should be safe walking around, so racial or sectarian abuse on trains etc needs to be stamped out. However criticising Islam ( or Christianity) on stage or in a debate is fine, necessary in fact. The opposite of no platforming.

Grayson

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I know you are very left based on posts I have seen from you before so maybe you are a good sample base for where some of these ideas in the OPs post come from. Are you saying you do not agree with free speech? or are you more of the "I agree with free speech except..." school of thought?

It's not a case of believing in it or not. Well, maybe it is. For some people it's an article of faith.

I don't believe in it that way. I do believe that there should be robust discussions. I'm not even a fan of a lot of copyright laws. I actually wrote a dissertation about the ethics of the freedom of information.

The thing is that information can have consequences. We have libel and slander laws for a reason. I think it makes sense to have them. And it would make sense that a judge could also ban someone from repeating a slanderous statement.

I'm not allowed to release the names of the victims of sexual assault. And I'm not sure anyone here would argue that I should be allowed release the names of children who were abused.

These are all restrictions that the vast majority of people consider sensible. They are there to protect people.

So yeah I believe we should have freedom of speech but I don't think that freedom should be absolute. There's a line where that speech can hurt someone innocent and have serious consequences.

Brian?

DS86DS wrote: »

Maybe because we are now suffering a culture war of the Left on Irish tradition and nationhood?

What Irish traditions are we waging war on?

Grayson

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m generally opposed to hate speech as an idea, but I think people should be safe walking around, so racial or sectarian abuse on trains etc needs to be stamped out. However criticising Islam ( or Christianity) on stage or in a debate is fine, necessary in fact. The opposite of no platforming.

I agree with everything else you said and I'm about 99% in agreement with this. It's just that there have been cases where populations have been riled up against an innocent minority.
Take jewish people in europe pre 1945. They faced horrible persecution and it was based on lies. Even now there's still virulent anti semitism out there.

Now that doesn't mean that judaism isn't up for criticism or the state of israel. But there's a line there that we shouldn't cross. It's when the discussion stops being "academic" and dispassionate.

I think the same goes for Islam and Christianity. There's fair criticism of Islam as a whole and especially some of the nastier strains. But there's also a lot of language out there which is very similar to the antisemitic tropes which used to exist.

I think you would probably also agree with that, and I think I'm really just clarifying what you said.

Grayson

Brian? wrote: »

What Irish traditions are we waging war on?

Copper face jacks?

Bannasidhe

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The flaws of Voltaire not withstanding, what about the sentiment?

It's a sentiment.
But not a realistic one.

I may defend the right of someone to say what they think but that does not indemnify them from me taking issue with what they think or calling them out.

And I think that is the issue - people scream freedom of speech but what they mean is I want to be able to say what I want without repercussions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brian? wrote: »

What Irish traditions are we waging war on?

Does bigotry still qualify as an Irish tradition?

QuintusFabius

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Does bigotry still qualify as an Irish tradition?

Jesus these days anyone slightly to the right of Stalin is a bigot.

padd b1975

Brian? wrote: »

What Irish traditions are we waging war on?

GAA socks at the gym.

Brian?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Does bigotry still qualify as an Irish tradition?

I would say it's one thread in a rich tapestry.

BeerWolf

It's an acceptable form of bullying seemingly.