Je Suis Mila

One eyed Jack

Still waters wrote: »

Is it? or did the redefine the meaning of freudian slip, I'm on my phone so predictive text is a bitch sometimes, but it gives a good indication to the mentality of the type of poster you are

What are you asking me for? I didn’t know, that’s why I asked you. For what it’s worth, a Freudian slip is this -


A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that occurs due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought. The concept is part of classical psychoanalysis. Classical examples involve slips of the tongue, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces misreadings, mishearings, mistypings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.


Whatever you inferred from my making a light hearted joke of an obviously unintentional error on your part, is entirely your own business. I couldn’t care less what some randomer on the Internet thinks of me personally.

TomSweeney

Gynoid wrote: »

*A 16 year old girl from Cork was having the craic online and posted a video of herself singing. She is a lesbian and wants to be a pop star. She got some pretty nasty sexual comments back from a young lad and when she rebuffed him he publicly called her a dirty Irish whore, a dirty dyke, and so on. He then said he was a Catholic. The girl responded by saying I hate all religions, Catholicism is full of hate, I have no time for any of it, your priests rape children, your nuns kill babies.

The internet went mad. Some lads went online and published the girls name, address and where she goes to school. Hundreds if not thousands of homophobic and misogynistic threats were posted online against her, calling for her to be hunted down, raped, attacked and killed. Really vile stuff.

The local cops visited the girl in school and told her to leave and to go immediately into hiding. They told her family to be careful of their security. There are efforts being made now to find those who have threatened her with death. She says she has nothing against any type of people, she just really hates religion, and that she speaks her mind and should be allowed to do so.

Terrible thing to happen. Sure, she could have been less crude, but she is a stroppy fiery girl and she does not like creeps perving on her, she does not like homophobic attacks on her and she also does not like religion, like many before her.









*This did not really happen in Cork.

But it did really happen elsewhere, the girl is French, the boy said he is a Muslim. I think it is just as bad as if the fictional scenario happened. Do you?


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-teenager-in-hiding-after-insulting-islam-online-0vl5hrs0m

nice one OP!


The point is spot on though.
If the first scenario did happen, there would be outrage, it would be front page news, Ryan Tubridy and Pat Kenny would be going on and on about it on their shows - it might even be the number 2 story behind their Trump hysteria.

TomSweeney

I nearly choked when I read the last line of the article - at least the free article
"Prosecutors are investigating 2 crimes - the 1st the validity of the threats of rape and murder, the 2nd whether the original comments amount to hate speech

Absolutely despicable.
I wonder what crime the "liberals" will be pushing for here ??? hmm..

Now back to our OP's original scenario - so would they be even looking at "hate speech" if this anti religious talk was directed toward the RCC ???

LIKE F*UCK THEY WOULD!!

s7ryf3925pivug

TomSweeney wrote: »

I nearly choked when I read the last line of the article - at least the free article
"Prosecutors are investigating 2 crimes - the 1st the validity of the threats of rape and murder, the 2nd whether the original comments amount to hate speech

Absolutely despicable.
I wonder what crime the "liberals" will be pushing for here ??? hmm..

Now back to our OP's original scenario - so would they be even looking at "hate speech" if this anti religious talk was directed toward the RCC ???

LIKE F*UCK THEY WOULD!!

The original comments calling her a dyke etc are probably what they refer to. AFAIK all she said was that Islam was a **** religion in her opinion and the Koran was full of hate.

Gynoid

Alicia Clean Monster wrote: »

The original comments calling her a dyke etc are probably what they refer to. AFAIK all she said was that Islam was a **** religion in her opinion and the Koran was full of hate.

No, the investigation of hate speech was about what Mila said about Islam

The scenario was she puts her pop tune on Instagram. A lad starts to proposition her sexually, repeatedly. She tells him to feck off, plus she is lesbian. He repeatedly calls her a filthy French whore, a dirty dyke etc, and he mentions he is Muslim. She says I hate ALL religions, your religions is sh1t to me etc, fairly mouthy stuff in fairness but she has just been called a dirty dyke and a filthy whore. She emphasises that she is not racist, she feels no racist hate, but that she is allowed to say her opinions on any religion as one cannot be racist against a religion. In response to her response she gets HUNDREDS of death and rape threats, she says hundeds every 2 minutes, and she is doxxed. Home, school address etc. People post that she is to be attacked, raped and murdered. At that point the police go to her school and advise her to go into hiding, and advise her parents about security. Her comments are to be investigated as hate speech.
In France. In 2020.

One eyed Jack

TomSweeney wrote: »

I nearly choked when I read the last line of the article - at least the free article
"Prosecutors are investigating 2 crimes - the 1st the validity of the threats of rape and murder, the 2nd whether the original comments amount to hate speech

Absolutely despicable.
I wonder what crime the "liberals" will be pushing for here ??? hmm..

As far as I’m aware, neither liberals, conservatives or progressives are pushing for anything here. The article you’re quoting directly from indicates that prosecutors are investigating whether or not the original comments amount to hate speech! There are no blasphemy laws either in France or Ireland so the opening post trying to make a point about blasphemy laws is just... strange, to be honest.

TomSweeney wrote: »

Now back to our OP's original scenario - so would they be even looking at "hate speech" if this anti religious talk was directed toward the RCC ???

LIKE F*UCK THEY WOULD!!

It’s unlikely that the DPP would be looking at whether or not something said against Catholicism in Ireland amounted to hate speech, simply because it is unlikely to offend anyone. That’s why when the goon with a plastic bag on his head referred to “haunted bread” on the Late Late Show, trying to appear edgy and provoke a reaction, nobody really gave a shìte, leaving him I’d imagine, somewhat disappointed.

“Muh freedom of expression” doesn’t mean people have the right to behave like inconsiderate assholes. That applies to everyone, in a democratic society.

Gynoid

Abdallah Zekri who is a senior delegate of the CFCM, a public body set up by Macron to liaise directly with government on Islamic matters responded to the Mila case

"Je dis que cette fille, elle sait très bien ce qu'elle fait, a-t-il notamment déclaré. Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête."
A deux reprises, Zekri a rappelé qu'il était "contre le fait qu'on menace [Mila] de mort", avant d'enchaîner dans la foulée sur la responsabilité de l'adolescente, accusée d'avoir "créé une situation" : "Cette fille, elle sait ce qu'elle a dit. Elle a pris ses responsabilités. Qu'elle critique les religions, je suis d'accord, mais d'insulter et tout ce qui s'ensuit… Maintenant, elle assume les conséquences de ce qu'elle a dit."

Basically he is saying she knew what she was doing, she is responsible and must bear the consequences.
This is not the way of a civil secular society.

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

Basically he is saying she knew what she was doing, she is responsible and must bear the consequences.
This is not the way of a civil secular society.

I disagree, it absolutely is the way of a civil secular society that when someone broadcasts on a public medium their opinion that all religions are shìt, they must bear the consequences of their actions, as only they are responsible for their actions.

Everyone in any society is responsible for their actions, and in any civil secular society, there is an onus on the State to protect people’s right to freedom of religion as well as people’s right freedom of expression. Of course people who abuse those rights to cause offence should bear the consequences of their actions.

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagree, it absolutely is the way of a civil secular society that when someone broadcasts on a public medium their opinion that all religions are shìt, they must bear the consequences of their actions, as only they are responsible for their actions.

Everyone in any society is responsible for their actions, and in any civil secular society, there is an onus on the State to protect people’s right freedom of religion as well as people’s right freedom of expression. Of course people who abuse those rights to cause offence should bear the consequences of their actions.

Yes, I already understood you feel she should bear the consequences of her death and rape threats

MMXX

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagree, it absolutely is the way of a civil secular society that when someone broadcasts on a public medium their opinion that all religions are shìt, they must bear the consequences of their actions, as only they are responsible for their actions.

Everyone in any society is responsible for their actions, and in any civil secular society, there is an onus on the State to protect people’s right to freedom of religion as well as people’s right freedom of expression. Of course people who abuse those rights to cause offence should bear the consequences of their actions.

I don't know Jack, I can't help but feel the angry, seething online mob of young men threatening rape, and death on somebody expressing an opinion - are in the wrong...

One eyed Jack

MMXX wrote: »

I don't know Jack, I can't help but feel the angry, seething online mob of young men threatening rape, and death on somebody expressing an opinion - are in the wrong...

Of course they’re in the wrong too. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the suggestion that anyone should have the freedom to express themselves without consequences. I’m saying that either everyone has that right, or nobody has that right. I’m ok with nobody having that right. The essence of Gynoid’s argument is that some people whom she agrees with should have that right, and anyone whom she disagrees with, shouldn’t have that right.

That’s not how a civil secular society actually functions in reality, as this particular case clearly demonstrates, on a number of levels.

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course they’re in the wrong too. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the suggestion that anyone should have the freedom to express themselves without consequences. I’m saying that either everyone has that right, or nobody has that right. I’m ok with nobody having that right. The essence of Gynoid’s argument is that some people whom she agrees with should have that right, and anyone whom she disagrees with, shouldn’t have that right.

That’s not how a civil secular society actually functions in reality, as this particular case clearly demonstrates, on a number of levels.

Don't try to summarise my argument falsely and pass it off as the truth of what I said. If Mila had publicly doxxed the boy who insulted her and rounded up a posse calling for him to be raped and killed I believe she should be prosecuted for incitement to hate and violence.

Rikand

I think the world as a whole just needs to outlaw people who take offense. Punishable by death or at least lobotomy

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

Don't try to summarise my argument falsely and pass it off as the truth of what I said. If Mila had publicly doxxed the boy who insulted her and rounded up a posse calling for him to be raped and killed I believe she should be prosecuted for incitement to hate and violence.

I’ll do whatever I damn well please with your attempt at an argument when you choose to publish it on a public medium. You don’t get to control that. It’s one of the consequences of publishing your opinions in public. You’ve done the very same with every point I’ve made throughout this thread, unless you think your own standards shouldn’t apply to you?

Your personal opinion of what you believe should or shouldn’t happen in any particular case is exactly what I’m talking about - you imagine that people should abide by your standards and your standards alone. That’s not what democracy means, and it’s certainly not what a civil secular society means. A democratic civil secular society means allowing for the fact that other people don’t share your opinions, you don’t have a right to be an asshole about it.

ghost of ireland past

It's very difficult for the police or for wider society to deal with this type of issue.

The people making threats are despicable and are clearly breaking the law. But, because they are willing to carry out their threats no-one wants to butt heads with them. It's little different from a criminal gang making threats from the point of view of the police.

There was a case in Ireland where a criminal gang threatened a non-criminal and he, and his family, had to leave Ireland as they couldn't be protected.

This case in France is very sad, but very difficult to deal with.

MMXX

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A democratic civil secular society means allowing for the fact that other people don’t share your opinions, you don’t have a right to be an asshole about it.

Indeed. Did the online mob, threatening death and rape 'allow for the fact that other people don't share your opinions'?

One eyed Jack

MMXX wrote: »

Indeed. Did the online mob, threatening death and rape 'allow for the fact that other people don't share your opinions'?

No, they clearly did not. I’ve already addressed this -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course they’re in the wrong too. I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the suggestion that anyone should have the freedom to express themselves without consequences. I’m saying that either everyone has that right, or nobody has that right. I’m ok with nobody having that right.

That’s precisely why prosecutors are investigating what is being treated as two separate investigations - one involving whether or not the girls opinions constitute hate speech, and the other investigation regarding the threats made against her. She should be relieved she lives in a civil secular democratic society where she is protected from any actual harm coming to her as opposed to being stoned and burned alive for expressing her opinions in public.

Edit: The fate of Joan of Arc springs to mind -

Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death?

ghost of ireland past

Criticising religions should be no different from criticising other organisations which you can freely leave, which is to say, there should be no restrictions on criticism of religions, in the same way as there are no restrictions on criticising other organisations.


This problem ultimately is caused by pandering to religions as if they are sacred. They are not sacred, and they shouldn't have the protection of law which Hate Speech legislation provides. That is one of the fundamental problems here, the other fundamental problem is how to deal with persistently violent people once you have identified them.


It's unlikely the people involved will withdraw their threats.

MMXX

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She should be relieved she lives in a civil secular democratic society where she is protected from any actual harm coming to her as opposed to being stoned and burned alive for expressing her opinions in public.

That we can agree on. Isn't it terrible that there are places out there, that actually carry out these sentences daily - in the name of God - execution of all homosexuals, execution of all apostates, execution of all "polytheists" and execution of all who criticize Islam and Muhammad, execution of all blasphemers, execution of all who proselytize any religion other than Islam?

It's shocking, so it is. And in these same places, the covering (with a hijab, or burka) of all women is strictly mandated, women enjoy a lower legal status to men in court, women inherit half the property of what a male would inherit, marital violence (beating) and rape is legal, enslaving of non-Muslim females is allowed, hatred towards non-muslims is commanded, especially towards the Jews, mingling of Muslims with non-Muslims is forbidden and discouraged, and the conquest of the world and establishment of a global Caliphate is commanded.

Shocking stuff altogether.

One eyed Jack

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Criticising religions should be no different from criticising other organisations which you can freely leave, which is to say, there should be no restrictions on criticism of religions, in the same way as there are no restrictions on criticising other organisations.

There are restrictions on the way anyone can criticise either religions or any given organisation or group of people in society. There are restrictions on criticism of all sorts of ideas, from anti-theism to Zoroastrianism.

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

This problem ultimately is caused by pandering to religions as if they are sacred. They are not sacred, and they shouldn't have the protection of law which Hate Speech legislation provides. That is one of the fundamental problems here, the other fundamental problem is how to deal with persistently violent people once you have identified them.

It's unlikely the people involved will withdraw their threats.

Well that’s only a problem if you’re the kind of asshole who thinks they should be able to express themselves with freedom from any negative consequences. One is unlikely to complain about the positive consequences of expressing themselves. Assholes are easily dealt with in law already - one of the consequences of their actions is that they are punished for their actions by the State. The other is that they will face a torrent of vile abuse from randomers on the Internet.

Nermal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Muh freedom of expression” doesn’t mean people have the right to behave like inconsiderate assholes.

Yes it does, if it's to mean anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that’s only a problem if you’re the kind of asshole who thinks they should be able to express themselves with freedom from any negative consequences.

You can say what you want, but if you say the wrong thing you'll be publically shamed, abused and threatened. Perhaps we'll have a milkshake thrown at you. We'll get you fired, threaten your sponsors to cut off your income and maybe we'll get your bank account closed.

But you can say what you want.

One eyed Jack

MMXX wrote: »

That we can agree on. Isn't it terrible that there are places out there, that actually carry out these sentences daily - in the name of God - execution of all homosexuals, execution of all apostates, execution of all "polytheists" and execution of all who criticize Islam and Muhammad, execution of all blasphemers, execution of all who proselytize any religion other than Islam?

It's shocking, so it is. And in these same places, the covering (with a hijab, or burka) of all women is strictly mandated, women enjoy a lower legal status to men in court, women inherit half the property of what a male would inherit, marital violence (beating) and rape is legal, enslaving of non-Muslim females is allowed, hatred towards non-muslims is commanded, especially towards the Jews, mingling of Muslims with non-Muslims is forbidden and discouraged, and the conquest of the world and establishment of a global Caliphate is commanded.

Shocking stuff altogether.

It’s just me, but I’m not shocked at all that there are people who exist in this world who support any or all of the above. I don’t consider those people representative of Islam any more than I consider a young girl with silly opinions is representative of a whole lot either, let alone Western societies attitudes towards religion.

I’m pretty sure the idea of teenagers with shìtty attitudes saying stupid **** is a universal thing, and that’s why I’m not getting worked up about this particular case.

One eyed Jack

Nermal wrote: »

Yes it does, if it's to mean anything.

Clearly it means something different to you than it does to me.

Nermal wrote: »

You can say what you want, but if you say the wrong thing you'll be publically shamed, abused and threatened. Perhaps we'll have a milkshake thrown at you. We'll get you fired, threaten your sponsors to cut off your income and maybe we'll get your bank account closed.

But you can say what you want.

Those are the potential consequences of behaving like an asshole, yes. It’s good to keep that in mind when one makes a conscious decision to shoot their mouth off and think the consequences should only be positive.

MMXX

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t consider those people representative of Islam...

I know you don't, and I don't - to some extent, but they themselves do - what we think doesn't. Matter. One. Bit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m pretty sure the idea of teenagers with shìtty attitudes saying stupid **** is a universal thing, and that’s why I’m not getting worked up about this particular case.

It is INDEED a universal thing, but surely therefor - when said teenager commits the 'crime' of 'saying stupid ****' - or sticking up for herself, as far as I am concerned - is then subsequently threatened with rape and death, by thousands of angry young men - surely there is a serious, serious problem? Surely teenagers should be free to 'say stupid ****' without fear of death, or rape?

s7ryf3925pivug

Gynoid wrote: »

No, the investigation of hate speech was about what Mila said about Islam

The scenario was she puts her pop tune on Instagram. A lad starts to proposition her sexually, repeatedly. She tells him to feck off, plus she is lesbian. He repeatedly calls her a filthy French whore, a dirty dyke etc, and he mentions he is Muslim. She says I hate ALL religions, your religions is sh1t to me etc, fairly mouthy stuff in fairness but she has just been called a dirty dyke and a filthy whore. She emphasises that she is not racist, she feels no racist hate, but that she is allowed to say her opinions on any religion as one cannot be racist against a religion. In response to her response she gets HUNDREDS of death and rape threats, she says hundeds every 2 minutes, and she is doxxed. Home, school address etc. People post that she is to be attacked, raped and murdered. At that point the police go to her school and advise her to go into hiding, and advise her parents about security. Her comments are to be investigated as hate speech.
In France. In 2020.

I was pretty sure you must be mistaken, but yes it clearly says that she was being investigated [in the times article you linked]. I still wonder if the journalist made a mistake as it seems pretty bizarre. Saying Islam is **** in your opinion isn't hate speech. Calling someone a dyke is hate speech.

One eyed Jack

MMXX wrote: »

I know you don't, and I don't - to some extent, but they themselves do - what we think doesn't. Matter. One. Bit.

I think what we think in relation to other religions does matter, because it informs how we treat people who are of that religion, and if the French Greta Thunberg is of the opinion that all religions are shìt, depending upon how popular she is, her opinions will carry a lot of influence among her audience. That’s why it matters what we think of other religions, and why it also matters that we aren’t free to piss all over other people’s religious beliefs. It might gain us some positive acknowledgement in our own little echo chambers, but one always has to be conscious of the potential negative consequences from a wider audience at the same time. Hoping to become popular on social media will of course come with potential adverse consequences because a person is opening themselves up to a wider audience, not all of whom are going to share their values.

MMXX wrote: »

It is INDEED a universal thing, but surely therefor - when said teenager commits the 'crime' of 'saying stupid ****' - or sticking up for herself, as far as I am concerned - is then subsequently threatened with rape and death, by thousands of angry young men - surely there is a serious, serious problem? Surely teenagers should be free to 'say stupid ****' without fear of death, or rape?

There absolutely is a serious problem with teenagers being granted access to a platform they clearly don’t fully understand. I don’t think anyone, regardless of their age, gender, sex, religion, etc should be free to say stupid shìt. I don’t think anyone should be permitted to threaten to rape or threaten to cause the death of, or even wish death upon another person. I don’t believe two wrongs do make a right, as that goes against the very ideals of democracy. That’s why i think it’s so important to teach children that their freedoms are of no value if they aren’t tempered with responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It teaches people from a young age that they don’t have the right to behave like an asshole, because when they do, they’re inviting other people to be assholes towards them - they’re responsible for setting that standard.

s7ryf3925pivug

The Toadman wrote: »

I love seeing liberal feminist women get bitten by their muslim pets.

You love it when a 16 year old girl has to go into hiding in fear for her life?

One eyed Jack

Alicia Clean Monster wrote: »

I was pretty sure you must be mistaken, but yes it clearly says that she was being investigated [in the times article you linked]. I still wonder if the journalist made a mistake as it seems pretty bizarre. Saying Islam is **** in your opinion isn't hate speech. Calling someone a dyke is hate speech.

It’s the French authorities who will decide what does or doesn’t constitute hate speech, according to their laws.

Das Reich

WrenBoy wrote: »

If your account is true, the message the police are sending here is basically if you don't want any trouble from these people keep your mouth shut, don't stand up for yourself and let them abuse you because you don't follow their strict rules.
Better cover your face too to be safe.

These Europeans thinks those people will "integrate" and adapt but they are the ones who will adapt to the reality. Like in any other European country the police is good only for stop traffic to see if your car is taxed and insured.

s7ryf3925pivug

The Toadman wrote: »

As a conservative white male, why should I care? Most women blindly accepted immigration and Islam into Europe. Men like me who warned them about the downside of diversity were called Nazis and bigots.

Ever see the video of the French feminists raging because the Arabs don't let women into their cafes? I just laughed. This is future you voted for.

You didn't say you don't care. You said you love it.