Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

De-platforming fascists works

1…171819202123»

Comments

  • #662
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    Uh, did it come from the Sunday Mirror?
    There's your answer.
    Nobody is going to take your islamophobic deflections and whataboutisms seriously I'm afraid. The police do police work, not islamophobic plonkers like basically any red-top.
    "Sunday Mirror Fake News! Gotcha! HA!" is the extent of your argument.

    Here is the biggest criticism I could find about the Mirror's report from the BBC, directly quoting the head of the investigation in Telford. What is in question is the scale of the problem, not that the problem exists
    • "I don't believe Telford is any worse than lots of places across England and Wales," he said.West Mercia Police Supt Tom Harding "significantly disputed" the figures.
    • Supt Harding said police and authorities in the town were working with "approximately 46 young people" who were victims of child sexual exploitation (CSE) or considered "at risk".
    • "Therefore, I significantly dispute the 1,000 plus figure and do feel it is sensationalised.
    • "Read the headlines, read the reports. What are they actually discussing? They're discussing cases from 20 or 30 years ago, offending back in the 1990s.

    Are these genuine criticisms of that report? Or does it look like they're acting like a shower of spineless turds? They're afraid to be called racist.. it's coming from the top. Remember the police were tipped off about this 20 god damn years ago. What was stopping them from composing their own report?

    Here is another story from the far-right Islamobhobic deflectors independent.co.uk; Insinuating the exact same thing.


  • #663
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    This is I believe the heart of the issue. Who judges the act? At present we tell judges they must look for proof of malice, or intent. To remove the need to prove intent, we leave it up for the judge to decide arbitrarily just like you have done with Avi.

    I'm saying if you believe that you need to prove it. How can you be so certain of something without proof? If I was absolutely certain about something; I would be able to prove that <...>

    I think you’re gaslighting here, where basically you’re just going to deny things that are apparent to most people, in an effort to legitimize your argument :)

    What is “proof” anyway? If you left a chocolate in a room with a kid, and came back later and the chocolate is gone and the kid has chocolate on his hands, is that proof that he ate them?

    The answer is that it depends on the kid, and the rest of the background info which is not contained in the written description - eg. Did the kid have his own chocolate, was there someone else in the room who left, etc). In this case, the kid (Avi) ate the chocolate (slagged Greta) because he’s a cvnt, and a well-known cvnt, and then got himself back on Twitter by arguing about it and showing how much support he had from gullible people.


    To clarify, I strongly think that there should be one law for everyone in a country, regardless of ethnic background or nationality or religion. I’m not sure why inefficiencies in the British police force are being highlighted here - I mean, catholic priests were occasionally accused of rape here too, and the police didn’t investigate them well enough at the time. The police system isn’t perfect, no system is - we knew that already.

    What do you suggest, that we don’t allow Asian background people to immigrate here because some of them formed a paedophile gang? Because it somehow reflects on all Asian background people?

    We should build a wall, and make the Mexicans pay for it.


  • #664
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    What is “proof” anyway? If you left a chocolate in a room with a kid, and came back later and the chocolate is gone and the kid has chocolate on his hands, is that proof that he ate them?

    In this case, the kid (Avi) ate the chocolate (slagged Greta) because he’s a cvnt, and a well-known cvnt, and then got himself back on Twitter by arguing about it and showing how much support he had from gullible people.

    If you are relying on intent to prove a crime (in this case proving Avi sought to attack Greta or her parents) indeed the onus is on you to prove that intent to a high standard.(You must prove he sought to harm Greta or her parents)
    Dear @GretaThunberg,
    I hate the @UN more than you could imagine, but they didn't steal your dreams or childhood — your parents did.
    They should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put you through.
    They've scared you into an extremist.

    If I can argue coherently how he was just expressing an opinion that had a lot of truth also held by many other people; then surely your argument of it being a personal attack crumbles.

    E.g. If I can prove that this child used the chocolate bar(his words) to write on the wall(tell the truth) instead of eat(attack greta/her parents). How can you still say he ate the chocolate(attacked greta)? Especially when all the kids were using their chocolate bars in the exact same way.

    Before you punish this child for eating the chocolate, isn't it best to make sure?


  • #665
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I’m not sure why inefficiencies in the British police force are being highlighted here - I mean, catholic priests were occasionally accused of rape here too, and the police didn’t investigate them well enough at the time.

    Go back to your post #655 where this argument spawned.

    I argued; Imagine being scared to present evidence for fear of being called a racist.

    You then retorted:
    • I'd try to understand why people are calling me racist.
    • I'd ask someone else to do present the evidence.
    • I’d investigate if my evidence was perhaps based on racism

    I then presented the case of the Telford rape gangs, and how the police had knowledge of them for over 20 years without investigating. They didn't investigate for fear of being called racists.
    • The police understanding why people are calling them racists for investigating a rape gang is useless.
    • The police asking someone else to investigate the rape gangs is impossible.
    • An investigation is not racist


  • #666
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    What do you suggest, that we don’t allow Asian background people to immigrate here because some of them formed a paedophile gang? Because it somehow reflects on all Asian background people?

    We should build a wall, and make the Mexicans pay for it.

    I suggest nothing of the sort. This is a clear case of whataboutism.

    I'm only suggesting that the police would have done their job with due diligence, had they not had the fear of the stigma of being called racist by woke individuals hanging over their heads.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    "Sunday Mirror Fake News! Gotcha! HA!" is the extent of your argument.

    Pretty good argument though.


  • #668
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    If you are relying on intent to prove a crime (in this case proving Avi sought to attack Greta or her parents) indeed the onus is on you to prove that intent to a high standard.(You must prove he sought to harm Greta or her parents)


    If I can argue coherently how he was just expressing an opinion that had a lot of truth also held by many other people; then surely your argument of it being a personal attack crumbles.

    E.g. If I can prove that this child used the chocolate bar(his words) to write on the wall(tell the truth) instead of eat(attack greta/her parents). How can you still say he ate the chocolate(attacked greta)? Especially when all the kids were using their chocolate bars in the exact same way.

    Before you punish this child for eating the chocolate, isn't it best to make sure?


    I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this one unfortunately. It's a case of me insisting that I am "sure enough to act", based on what I see, that "the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi is attacking/ridiculing Greta), whereas you are going to insist, based on what you see, that "one can't be sure enough that the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi may not be attacking/ridiculing Greta).




    Go back to your post #655 where this argument spawned.

    I argued; Imagine being scared to present evidence for fear of being called a racist.

    You then retorted:
    • I'd try to understand why people are calling me racist.
    • I'd ask someone else to do present the evidence.
    • I’d investigate if my evidence was perhaps based on racism

    I then presented the case of the Telford rape gangs, and how the police had knowledge of them for over 20 years without investigating. They didn't investigate for fear of being called racists.
    • The police understanding why people are calling them racists for investigating a rape gang is useless.
    • The police asking someone else to investigate the rape gangs is impossible.
    • An investigation is not racist




    I don't accept that the police didn't investigate the Telford rape gangs "for fear of being called racists" just because that's how it was reported in a newspaper.

    I don't recall any police officer or commissioner coming out and saying "This fell under my jurisdiction, and I didn't investigate it or assign resources to investigate it because I was afraid of being called racist".
    Neither of us can prove exactly why it wasn't investigated to conclusion early on, however to me it looks far more likely that there just wasn't enough evidence collected, and the police don't usually assign all their resources to investigate something before first establishing that a crime actually took place.
    It's not easy to collect evidence on a paedo gang which only targets minors known to them from the area. In a similar situation, it took ages for Gardai to investigate priests for sex abuse allegations here in Ireland. As another example in a different country, you have the investigation of Michael Jackson - whether you believe he abused kids or not, that investigation itself took many years to conclude (and I think there's still some uncertainty there on what actually happened).


    I think these investigations can take years to progress due to the difficulty of obtaining solid evidence against the perpetrators, and the police dont want to go ahead with a half-baked prosecution.


  • #669
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this one unfortunately. It's a case of me insisting that I am "sure enough to act", based on what I see, that "the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi is attacking/ridiculing Greta), whereas you are going to insist, based on what you see, that "one can't be sure enough that the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi may not be attacking/ridiculing Greta).

    I believe its less about coming to agreement and more about accepting how the world works. Power corrupts, allowing other people to decide what you mean by what you say is extremely dangerous. If you can prove intent fine(which is provable), prosecute away, but if not your arbitrary conclusion of intent(that avi attacked greta) is at best always a guess. I'm saying make sure the child ate the chocolate before punishing him. If you can't, don't punish him.
    You will probably make that decision with your mood having a bias contribution. If you are in a good mood and happy with your child, you'll be more lenient and more generous in your interpretation.
    If however you are in a bad mood and unhappy with your child, you'll be more stern, quicker to anger, and less generous in your interpretation.
    I don't accept that the police didn't investigate the Telford rape gangs "for fear of being called racists" just because that's how it was reported in a newspaper.
    That's fair enough but I believe there is plenty of evidence out there apart from the Mirror's report.

    As a cop I always used to stop and search, but now police live in fear of being called racist


  • #670
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I believe its less about coming to agreement and more about accepting how the world works.


    You can hardly expect me to ignore my life experiences on "how the world works" just to blindly accept how you're claiming the world works, which from my point of view is a totally inaccurate view of the real world, and incorrect.

    Similarly, I don't expect you to accept my view of how the world works either, based on your life experiences so far, which is why I said "I don't think we are going to agree unfortunately".


    Power corrupts, allowing other people to decide what you mean by what you say is extremely dangerous.
    Allowing anything is extremely dangerous, you have to constantly watch it and try to ensure it's not abused. Allowing some small section of society to carry weapons and apprehend "suspected criminals" is extremely dangerous, and yet we do it out of necessity.


    If you can prove intent fine(which is provable), prosecute away, but if not your arbitrary conclusion of intent(that avi attacked greta) is at best always a guess.


    I'm saying make sure the child ate the chocolate before punishing him. If you can't, don't punish him.



    What appears to be a guess to you, is not a guess to me.



    If you asked me to confirm that there is not a live elephant stored inside my neighbours house, and I said "there isnt one, because I would smell the elephant and hear it", and you said "but you've never seen inside your neighbours house, you're just guessing, maybe it's a quiet elephant and kept very clean" - in this example, my threshold before I say "that's proof" is much lower than yours, because in the relatively long time that I've been alive (I'm in my late 30s), I've never come across an odourless, silent elephant.



    If you were holding a priceless vase, and I asked you to prove that if you dropped it on the floor, it would shatter, how would you prove it?

    There is no way to "prove" it without actually doing the action and letting me judge for myself (in that case, the priceless vase is destroyed), or else doing lots of similar actions with similar objects and convincing me via analogy that the results may be the same - but in this case, it's dependent on me accepting the analogy, and if I don't accept it, you can't "prove" it to me.


    You will probably make that decision with your mood having a bias contribution. If you are in a good mood and happy with your child, you'll be more lenient and more generous in your interpretation.
    If however you are in a bad mood and unhappy with your child, you'll be more stern, quicker to anger, and less generous in your interpretation.
    Doing nothing is also an action, and it has an effect. If you do nothing, the child grows bolder as it knows you are hamstrung by your inability to see patterns in behaviour over time and judge people on it, so it will keep eating the chocolate every time you're out of the room, and expect you to ignore the statistical improbability that every time the child is alone in the room with the chocolate, the chocolate inexplicably goes missing.



    That's fair enough but I believe there is plenty of evidence out there apart from the Mirror's report.

    As a cop I always used to stop and search, but now police live in fear of being called racist


    That's fair enough, but what does that have to do with investigating the Telford grooming gangs in the 80s, which was the time period claimed by the Sunday Mirror to be when police found out about it, and incidentally 1980-2011 is listed on http://www.drugexpertwitness.co.uk/team/ as the years when Andrew O'Hagan was active in the police force, when officers supposedly used stop-and-search without fear.


    I'd rather have a police force who were more careful themselves rather than have repeat instances of the likes of the Birmingham 6, where innocent people were jailed for long periods due to coercion/heavy handedness by the police, and the real perpetrators were never even found.



    Once again, it's a balance - if police feel they cannot do their jobs due to fears of reprimand, they should be given clearer guidance and in some cases the law should be slightly changed (as is being done already regarding the stop-and-search laws). That doesn't mean it was perfect in the past and that the past is something we should go back to - quite often things were much worse in the past, across the board.


  • #671
    thechewyone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 42 ✭thechewyone


    Y'all getting dumped on harder than Veritas did to Planned Parenthood lol.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    thechewyone wrote: »
    Y'all getting dumped on harder than Veritas did to Planned Parenthood lol.


    a clever argument, i'm going to need some time to respond to this one


  • #673
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    If you asked me to confirm that there is not a live elephant stored inside my neighbours house, and I said "there isnt one, because I would smell the elephant and hear it", and you said "but you've never seen inside your neighbours house, you're just guessing, maybe it's a quiet elephant and kept very clean" - in this example, my threshold before I say "that's proof" is much lower than yours, because in the relatively long time that I've been alive (I'm in my late 30s), I've never come across an odourless, silent elephant.

    In this case you have evidence of absence. (not hearing an elephant, not smelling an elephant). I believe your analogy fails because you still don't understand the point I'm trying to raise, I have tried repeatedly. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, but it seems you just haven't got this specific point I'm trying to make over and over again.

    The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. So if you, or twitter, or anyone else know Avi did that on purpose to attack Greta, then you need to prove that.

    The burden of proof is so high, because there is such a fear of convicting innocent people; surely you see this?!

    I have seen many , many reputable people express the opinion that the treatment of Greta is tantamount to child abuse.
    Here is Sky News Australia's Andrew Bolton:


    Would you say the same things about Bolton that you have said about Avi?


  • #674
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    First she's the devil, next minute she's a victim, which is it Veritas?

    Anyone calling this child's life experiences 'child abuse' needs to catch themselves on. Especially all that's gone on in this country, tokenizing real child abuse for one's agenda is really disgusting.


  • #675
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    PostWoke wrote:
    Anyone calling this child's life experiences 'child abuse' needs to catch themselves on. Especially all that's gone on in this country, tokenizing real child abuse for one's agenda is really disgusting.

    Foisting a child who has depression and anxiety issues onto a world stage is child abuse.


  • #676
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    In this case you have evidence of absence. (not hearing an elephant, not smelling an elephant). I believe your analogy fails because you still don't understand the point I'm trying to raise, I have tried repeatedly. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, but it seems you just haven't got this specific point I'm trying to make over and over again.

    The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. So if you, or twitter, or anyone else know Avi did that on purpose to attack Greta, then you need to prove that.

    The burden of proof is so high, because there is such a fear of convicting innocent people; surely you see this?!

    I have seen many , many reputable people express the opinion that the treatment of Greta is tantamount to child abuse.
    Here is Sky News Australia's Andrew Bolton:


    Would you say the same things about Bolton that you have said about Avi?

    Sad right wing propaganda.
    There's a photo of her wearing an anti fascism tshirt doing the rounds. She'll be a leftist anti white supremacist Nazi thug in no time. Desperation on a large scale. Attack anything that makes you (the right) feel threatened.
    Trump on yesterday about being harassed, 'Presidential harassment' forgot about Obama I suppose the hypocrite.


  • #677
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,342 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Desperation on a large scale. Attack anything that makes you (the right) feel threatened.

    Is this not what "Left-whingers" do when they feel they are being attacked in their safe space, when a person either has an opposing opinion to theirs or when they get offended by facts presented to them. Iv noticed that when this happens they proceed to use emotionally lead pejoratives that are uneducated and childish accusations.

    That video was of an independent YouTuber making a video who is on the "right" side of the political spectrum. If that is what you call propaganda, then everything being pumped out by the news, journalists, and thats being spread via social media is just a malignant form of propagated cancer.


  • #678
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    Is this not what "Left-whingers" do when they feel they are being attacked in their safe space, when a person either has an opposing opinion to theirs or when they get offended by facts presented to them. Iv noticed that when this happens they proceed to use emotionally lead pejoratives that are uneducated and childish accusations.

    That video was of an independent YouTuber making a video who is on the "right" side of the political spectrum. If that is what you call propaganda, then everything being pumped out by the news, journalists, and thats being spread via social media is just a malignant form of propagated cancer.

    No, that's mostly all hype by the frightened right IMO.
    There's more whinging about the PC outrage than actual PC outrage. The right are far more vocal on such things.

    You forget the media is liberal run and something something...


  • #679
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    First she's the devil, next minute she's a victim, which is it Veritas?


    Anyone calling this child's life experiences 'child abuse' needs to catch themselves on. Especially all that's gone on in this country, tokenizing real child abuse for one's agenda is really disgusting.

    I'm only highlighting that it is a fair position to hold and people that get banned for saying things that others don't want to hear (or de-platformed as fascists) is absolutely wrong.

    So please in future don't put words into my mouth; As I have never implied Greta to be bad or the 'devil'. I believe she could well be a 'victim' in this matter, a normal girl her age with her challenges usually isn't thrust into the spotlight like this. There will also be a polarized stigma attached to her for the rest of her life. Look up Soph; you'll see people on your side of this argument, arguing how Soph is being 'manipulated' is abuse. An argument I also believe holds merit.

    Just look at how Ryan Tubridy tried to handle this topic; and look at the backlash he received. These people are maniacs. Was Tubridy clearly driven by an agenda? Is tubridy some alt-right boy spewing nazi nonsense?

    Described here by Mick Heaney of the Irish Times:
    When he talks about Thunberg’s dramatic speech to the UN. He says he “felt a little uncomfortable” at the sight of a teenage girl addressing a global audience with “her face contorted in pain, agony and anxiety”, and wonders how he’d feel if it was his own daughter. Noting that Thunberg has Asperger syndrome, he adds, “I don’t think she should be put on that stage, it’s not good for her mental health or well-being.”

    In fairness, Tubridy sounds concerned rather than dismissive, worrying that someone Thunberg’s age is “up for grabs”. He also agrees on the necessity of climate action, praising the “chutzpah and spirit” of young people recently marching on the issue. He’s being a good guy, Tubs assures us: “It’s not to knock her and it’s not to mock her.” So why do his comments cause him to be “shredded online”, as he puts it the following day?

    Yet twitter and youtube have been abusing their system, they've changed the rules of having to prove the malice by showing the intent of the 'attacker' to proving malice was committed based on the offence taken by the 'victim'.
    Fair play to boards for not also taking this ludicrous position.


  • #680
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    That video was of an independent YouTuber making a video who is on the "right" side of the political spectrum. If that is what you call propaganda, then everything being pumped out by the news, journalists, and thats being spread via social media is just a malignant form of propagated cancer.

    I agree with how you've described their use of pejoratives. It just all seems so childish.

    Wasn't the video from Sky News Australia? It's their official youtube channel(verified). Bolt also writes Australia's most-read political blog.

    Certainly from what I've seen from Sky news Australia they can be called right leaning these days.


Advertisement