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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

De-platforming fascists works

1…89111314

Comments

  • #502
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Would you prefer if thinking could be policed?

    No.


  • #503
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    No.

    So do you agree people should be free to say what they think?(as long as it doesn't harm others)

    Because in regards freedom of speech, I think speaking and thinking are quite linked.


  • #504
    noel1980
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭noel1980


    The next generation of social media technology will not have de-platforming. People will be able to say whatever they want on them.

    Things happen slowly. Currently we have a lot more free speech than we had back in the 90's, even though the internet was hardly "policed" back then... because nobody was on it only computer geeks and pornography enthusiasts. But if you wanted to say something controversial the most effective way to do it would be to get a spot on RTE TV or radio, or get an article published in a magazine, but back then (as now) if the publisher didn't like you or agree with your opinion, you didn't get published.

    Now that everybody is online 24/7, it's a lot easier to get heard and to build up an audience, but as it was then, the publishers, who these days are FB, YT, Twitter, etc. and they ARE publishers. Make no mistake. The buck stops with the publishers.

    Things go in cycles. Technology will find a way, and something will be developed soon that's easy to use like FB, but cannot be controlled.


  • #505
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    So do you agree people should be free to say what they think?(as long as it doesn't harm others)

    Yes. There was a woman who encouraged her troubled boyfriend to kill himself which the poor guy did - she ended up in jail and good enough for her - words have consequences.

    If some idiot on Twitter says 'I hope you get raped/killed/whatever' and their employer decides to fire them then tough shit, own your words.
    Because in regards freedom of speech, I think speaking and thinking are quite linked.

    Thinking is private -- words are not unless you're talking to yourself.


  • #506
    rocksolidfat
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭rocksolidfat


    noel1980 wrote: »
    The next generation of social media technology will not have de-platforming. People will be able to say whatever they want on them.

    Things happen slowly. Currently we have a lot more free speech than we had back in the 90's, even though the internet was hardly "policed" back then... because nobody was on it only computer geeks and pornography enthusiasts. But if you wanted to say something controversial the most effective way to do it would be to get a spot on RTE TV or radio, or get an article published in a magazine, but back then (as now) if the publisher didn't like you or agree with your opinion, you didn't get published.

    Now that everybody is online 24/7, it's a lot easier to get heard and to build up an audience, but as it was then, the publishers, who these days are FB, YT, Twitter, etc. and they ARE publishers. Make no mistake. The buck stops with the publishers.

    Things go in cycles. Technology will find a way, and something will be developed soon that's easy to use like FB, but cannot be controlled.
    I actually think the opposite is far, far more likely to happen. Twenty years from now I would not be surprised if they have it locked down so that every conceivable way you can access the internet involves an ID scan before being able to even open anything.

    The sad thing is, some of the nonsense we are seeing online in recent years from politically motivated troll farms and the likes means the likes of politicians will have very little problem justifying it to the courts and such. Not only that, but the same people involved in, and even supportive of these trolls, fake news outlets, online promotion of extremism behind a mask of anonymity and so on will have played the most crucial role in these restrictions coming in, and will inevitably be the ones to cry the loudest about it.

    It's not a rosy outlook, quite the opposite and not something I would be supportive of, but unfortunately I don't see how the current path leads anywhere but there. This is why we can't have nice things, basically.


  • #507
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Thinking is private -- words are not unless you're talking to yourself.

    Seems we're in agreement other than this part.

    You're also thinking while you speak/type.


  • #508
    noel1980
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭noel1980


    rocksolidfat wrote: »
    I actually think the opposite is far, far more likely to happen. Twenty years from now I would not be surprised if they have it locked down so that every conceivable way you can access the internet involves an ID scan before being able to even open anything.

    The sad thing is, some of the nonsense we are seeing online in recent years from politically motivated troll farms and the likes means the likes of politicians will have very little problem justifying it to the courts and such. Not only that, but the same people involved in, and even supportive of these trolls, fake news outlets, online promotion of extremism behind a mask of anonymity and so on will have played the most crucial role in these restrictions coming in, and will inevitably be the ones to cry the loudest about it.

    It's not a rosy outlook, quite the opposite and not something I would be supportive of, but unfortunately I don't see how the current path leads anywhere but there. This is why we can't have nice things, basically.


    Governments don't like big tech, and they don't like them because they (big tech) basically have more power than them (governments) nowadays.


    Governments HATE the fact that companies like Google and FB have all this information about all their citizens at their fingertips... In reality I'm sure it's not like this, I'm sure MZ doesn't have a facebook "God mode" where he can see everything and everybody at once. Or maybe he does, who knows?


    Either way, governments don't like this arrangement, and they'd rather take away the rights of tech companies little by little regulation, and a multi-billion dollar fine here and there, then just let them get on with their mission of "changing the world and making it more connected".


    The governments are basically standing behind big tech looking on jealously, saying "I want to play with your toy, otherwise I'm gonna break your toy".


    Problem is, tech companies know that if the government infiltrate their products they'll probably end up killing their products.


    As for the whole "ID scan" thing you mentioned, I sincerely hope it doesn't go that way. If it does go like that, it will suck the fun out of it. It also doesn't make much sense from a government surveillance point of view. Criminals aren't going to use the internet if they know for sure they're being tracked. But they might use it if they think they're anonymous.


  • #509
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I think it boils down to whether you believe speech can harm others, which an increasing community of people are advocating for.

    I and other free speech proponents believe speech in itself can not harm others. In fact it mostly makes people stronger.

    I'm struggling to think of a borderline example:confused:, could you?

    There is no line to draw with freedom of speech if it is allowed. E.g. the first amendment(US) prohibits laws to be created that restrict your freedom of speech, so there's no need for anyone to adjudicate on where the line is. Everything is fair game that doesn't explicitly harm others.

    This is pretty much the core of where we differ - I do believe that speech can harm others, whereas you believe it will only make them stronger.

    A borderline example - imagine you send a 7 year old kid into an ultra-religious school. The majority of kids will become copycat religious people until they are removed from that environment. They were never hit by the teachers, it was all speech.

    Adults are pretty similar, except they can sometimes choose to remove themselves from these environments (sometimes not)


  • #510
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    This is pretty much the core of where we differ - I do believe that speech can harm others, whereas you believe it will only make them stronger.

    Would you send a kid into a fundamentalist religious school, and expect no damage to be done?

    People learn by example, and if everyone is talking/behaving a certain way, they tend to do it themselves - this goes for adults as well as kids

    Bringing the example of kids is kind of going for low hanging fruit. They're brains are developing and I believe in shielding them from the dangers that you mention.

    Adults however completely different story. They should be exposed to as much information as possible, and taught as kids how to properly differentiate information.

    We should teach kids how to judge information, how to fact-check. Instead we're teaching them to ingest and regurgitate without thinking.

    If you're told you can't do something, like in Germany now it's illegal to form a Nazi party, illegal to have Nazi paraphernalia etc.. It makes it cool, it stigmatizes it. Nazism is on the rise in Germany.
    German authorities have registered 8,605 right-wing extremist offenses in the first half of 2019
    https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271

    No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed! It is the information of what happened that keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Allow people to wear their nazi uniforms if they want, and let's all mock them!


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Bringing the example of kids is kind of going for low hanging fruit. They're brains are developing and I believe in shielding them from the dangers that you mention.

    Adults however completely different story. They should be exposed to as much information as possible, and taught as kids how to properly differentiate information.

    We should teach kids how to judge information, how to fact-check. Instead we're teaching them to ingest and regurgitate without thinking.

    If you're told you can't do something, like in Germany now it's illegal to form a Nazi party, illegal to have Nazi paraphernalia etc.. It makes it cool, it stigmatizes it. Nazism is on the rise in Germany.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271

    No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed! It is the information of what happened that keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Allow people to wear their nazi uniforms if they want, and let's all mock them!

    Once again, I find myself agreeing with most of what you are saying, but the one big point that I differ on, is that in my opinion adults are just like kids - especially young adults.
    It’s not like they turn 18 and suddenly they change from a kids mind into an adults mind.
    Older adults often have more experienced minds which are more difficult to influence due to their own experiences, but young adults often don’t have this experience yet.

    People mature at different rates, and some don’t mature at all 🙂


  • #512
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    If you're told you can't do something, like in Germany now it's illegal to form a Nazi party, illegal to have Nazi paraphernalia etc.. It makes it cool, it stigmatizes it. Nazism is on the rise in Germany.

    No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed! It is the information of what happened that keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Allow people to wear their nazi uniforms if they want, and let's all mock them!

    Good grief. You've been so sucked in by the 'free market of ideas' thing you're tacitly advocating for people who, given the right circumstances, would happily beat you to death to prevent you from expressing yours.


  • #513
    rocksolidfat
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭rocksolidfat


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed!
    There are several currently active across the globe, even before taking ones into account in the decades between the 1950s and now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neo-Nazi_political_parties

    By my count and only including active ones, this lists Australia, the UK, Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, Russia, Slovakia and Switzerland. It is not listed on that page, but the USA also has a political entity quite literally called the American Nazi Party.


  • #514
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Good grief. You've been so sucked in by the 'free market of ideas' thing you're tacitly advocating for people who, given the right circumstances, would happily beat you to death to prevent you from expressing yours.

    Yes. I'm advocating for talking to those people, and not criminalizing what they say and do(that doesn't commit a crime already), for fear of me no longer knowing who they are. Hence exposing their ideas to ridicule and not allowing their 'movements' to grow.

    Joe Biden recently said about working with segregationists:
    "You'd get up there and argue like the devil with them, and then you'd go down and have lunch or dinner together. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked."

    He was lambasted by the left and forced to apologize!

    How many segregationists do you see left in US congress?


  • #515
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    rocksolidfat wrote: »
    There are several currently active across the globe, even before taking ones into account in the decades between the 1950s and now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neo-Nazi_political_parties

    By my count and only including active ones, this lists Australia, the UK, Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, Russia, Slovakia and Switzerland. It is not listed on that page, but the USA also has a political entity quite literally called the American Nazi Party.

    Of your list, where is nazism currently on the rise?
    I'd predict most if not all of them dissolved within a few years(just checked a few they lasted 4 years). Just like you'd expect when people are free to express stupid ideas.


  • #516
    rocksolidfat
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭rocksolidfat


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Of your list, where is nazism currently on the rise?
    Australia and Slovakia would be a start, as both have had elected Nazi representatives recently, while neo Nazi attacks and activity have both been on a sharp rise throughout Europe for the last several years.

    In the US, far right and neo Nazi terror attacks and activities have risen hugely recently and now make up more terror attacks than any other group, they have elected US Senators with several ties to neo Nazis asking "what is wrong with white supremacy?" which would have been unfathomable only 3-4 years ago.

    Claiming that there are no Nazi parties anywhere in the world bar Germany is definitively false and incorrect.
    I'd predict most if not all of them dissolved within a few years(just checked a few they lasted 4 years). Just like you'd expect when people are free to express stupid ideas.
    You would be wrong there - I excluded any party/country without a currently active Nazi party, which I stated twice in my initial post.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    rocksolidfat wrote: »
    Australia and Slovakia would be a start, as both have had elected Nazi representatives recently, while neo Nazi attacks and activity have both been on a sharp rise throughout Europe for the last several years.

    Slovakia: In 2013, the far-right politician Marian Kotleba won a shock victory in regional elections. 4 years later, he was overwhelming voted out.
    Australia: I find this claim quite absurd, could you please provide some proof?
    Europe:? Where else?
    In the US, far right and neo Nazi terror attacks and activities have risen hugely recently and now make up more terror attacks than any other group, they have elected US Senators with several ties to neo Nazis asking "what is wrong with white supremacy?" which would have been unfathomable only 3-4 years ago.
    A recent FBI document was released the suggested black identity movements were more a risk to the US than white identity groups in terms of domestic terrorism.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/421166393/FBI-Strategy-Guide-FY2018-20-and-Threat-Guidance-for-Racial-Extremists
    I despise all identity politics.
    Claiming that there are no Nazi parties anywhere in the world bar Germany is definitively false and incorrect.
    Indeed, I altered my claim already to say they they don't last. I'll ask you a second time if you can prove this wrong.


  • #518
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »

    People mature at different rates, and some don’t mature at all

    You could make the same argument for young adults drinking alcohol etc.. we shouldn't allow pubs because someone might drink who's not mature enough to do so.

    Those that have conditions or are not mature enough generally have someone to care for them anyway and 'screen' for them?


  • #519
    rocksolidfat
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭rocksolidfat


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Slovakia: In 2013, the far-right politician Marian Kotleba won a shock victory in regional elections. 4 years later, he was overwhelming voted out.
    Australia: I find this claim quite absurd, could you please provide some proof?
    Europe:? Where else?
    You might now have known, but Kobleta got over 10% of the national vote for Slovakian president only this year.

    In Australia they had Fraser Anning who was only voted outas Queensland Senator this summer. Some of his highlights include suggesting a "final solution" to Australia's immigration policy, and blaming Muslims for the Christchurch shooting earlier this year, and who likes attending rallies organised by the same neo Nazis the Christchurch shooting was also a big fan of.

    Meanwhile, Steve King who is a Senator in the USA is outright questioning why people dislike white supremacy, while having has a history of links to white supremacist and neo Nazi groups, and whose website literally links to an antisemitic, white supremacist blog. And on that note, links from that same blog have for some weird reason been repeatedly sent from the staff in the Trump administration on government communications to various groups, including Jewish lawyers. On top of the Trump administration having to previously get rid of staff members (a speech writer, no less) for their white supremacist ties, who were then promptly hired by other elected national politicians. An then you've got other elected US representatives plotting with white supremacist Christian Identity groups in a plan to train children for Christian holy wars.

    So having covered that, a Nazi won an election in a German village recently for the reason that literally nobody else ran... but have any Nazis won a contested election in Germany in recent times?
    A recent FBI document was released the suggested black identity movements were more a risk to the US than white identity groups in terms of domestic terrorism.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/421166393/FBI-Strategy-Guide-FY2018-20-and-Threat-Guidance-for-Racial-Extremists
    I despise all identity politics.
    I'm not talking identity politics or fears here, I am talking about raw statistics: white supremacists made up 76% of all extremist murders in the USA in 2018, a staggering amount that has been on a rise for the last few years now but really blew up in 2017, no doubt emboldened as we have similarly seen huge increases in post-Brexit UK as per the Home Office, and increases have been noted across Europe also.

    Neo nazism has been on the rise across large chunks of the globe for years, not just Germany.
    Indeed, I altered my claim already to say they they don't last. I'll ask you a second time if you can prove this wrong.
    I have already addressed that - every country I listed has active Nazi parties, not just historical ones.


  • #520
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Good grief. You've been so sucked in by the 'free market of ideas' thing you're tacitly advocating for people who, given the right circumstances, would happily beat you to death to prevent you from expressing yours.

    So you do advocate the policing of thoughts? It isn't that these people have beaten anybody to death that is the concern here, it is that they have a predilection to do so, right?

    What people say and what people do are two different things. And right, while speech is this grey area somewhere between thought and action, we can agree that it is a grey area. There's a stark difference between The Beatles writing Helter Skelter, and Manson ordering the murder of Sharon Tate.

    Okay while totalitarian regimes police speech for the very reason that it is the easiest way to police thought, even in western countries today the fact that speech occupies a kind of grey area can be used as a weapon. The two biggest contributory aspects to this grey area is the problems of analyzing the intent behind words, and the problem of causation between the words and the actions of the listener. This is problematic because in both instances you are having to analyze peoples' thoughts. Only in edge cases is this a simple task (we can interpret with confidence the intent behind a mafia boss telling his goons to 'take care of the rat'). Most of the time this ins't the case, and seeing that so-called 'de-platforming' is one of the first actions of any authoritarian regime, it should make us careful about adopting such measures.


  • #521
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Slovakia: In 2013, the far-right politician Marian Kotleba won a shock victory in regional elections. 4 years later, he was overwhelming voted out.
    Australia: I find this claim quite absurd, could you please provide some proof?
    Europe:? Where else?

    He won't be able to reply any further as he has been silently banned. Presumably rereg, but his posting seems reasonable enough (as in, not an obvious troll). It would be nice if there was more transparency about this.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    So you've got no rebuttal then....

    I cite some examples of what I am referring to and all you can respond with is this babble.

    Rebuttal to what? You gave an opinion and refereed to "fascist left".
    I explained why the right like to turn their own traits around on others as a deflection.


  • #523
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS54CyMLXmI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqARrnQdcQM


    So are the left and right equal now because of these individual women? :rolleyes:


  • #524
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Rebuttal to what?

    You said that we should use the democratic processes, namely de-platforming, to combat fascists to stop them getting into government and changing the law.

    Only real issue is that you haven't really defined fascism, or how censorship is the best 'democratic' process to do this. Censorship sounds like a distinctly undemocratic process to be honest.

    Here's a definition of fascism

    Political agitation through violence
    Taking back 'former territories' through aggressive foreign policy (restoring former glory)
    Censorship of press and academia
    Strict redefining of national identity (along ethnic, cultural, and sexual lines)
    Distrust of monarchism and clericalism
    Totalitarianism, and absolute antipathy to both democratic and union movements
    Autarky and economic dirigism

    Also it's not in any way unusual for national-socialists to pretend to be left wing. You might notice the socialist bit of national-socialists. A nationalist may wear a che geurvera t-shirt, but that doesn't mean he's anywhere near being a classic liberal.


  • #525
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You said that we should use the democratic processes, namely de-platforming, to combat fascists to stop them getting into government and changing the law.

    Only real issue is that you haven't really defined fascism, or how censorship is the best 'democratic' process to do this. Censorship sounds like a distinctly undemocratic process to be honest.

    Here's a definition of fascism

    Political agitation through violence
    Taking back 'former territories' through aggressive foreign policy (restoring former glory)
    Censorship of press and academia
    Strict redefining of national identity (along ethnic, cultural, and sexual lines)
    Distrust of monarchism and clericalism
    Totalitarianism, and absolute antipathy to both democratic and union movements
    Autarky and economic dirigism

    Also it's not in any way unusual for national-socialists to pretend to be left wing. You might notice the socialist bit of national-socialists. A nationalist may wear a che geurvera t-shirt, but that doesn't mean he's anywhere near being a classic liberal.

    He never asked that. Can you point to anyone who has a clear black and white definition that can be used definitively in every case? I can't.
    IMO, if it stirs hate it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously we'll all differ on what constitutes hate, but as I've asked a number of times with no response, what do the likes of Milo add to society in the positive? Just being able to be might be great for his freedoms, while he stirs hatred for others. We need balance what's in the best interests of society. As I've said the irony is Milo and his partner would likely be severely beaten by his own audience demographic if they walked hand in hand in Alabama and would need SJW's to come to their aid.


  • #526
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Rebuttal to what? You gave an opinion and refereed to "fascist left".

    You do realise that users are capable of scrolling back, right?

    That is no way that was all I did in that post. It was however the only line which you emboldened.

    Here's the rest of my post where I clearly made an argument:
    With their gender quota laws, and incorrect pronoun legislation, and lord knows what's next in terms of qualifying as hate speech.

    Time and again lefties have been shown that when put in positions in power they will do their level best to pass laws which are insane.

    Now either respond to those points or ignore them, but don't pretend I didn't make them.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    So are the left and right equal now because of these individual women? :rolleyes:

    :confused:

    The clip I posted is of Crowder and a leftist debating free speech, what the hell has your clip got to do with the thread topic??

    One of the weirdest replies I've ever seen on Boards.


  • #527
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You do realise that users are capable of scrolling back, right?

    That is no way that was all I did in that post. It was however the only line which you emboldened.

    Here's the rest of my post where I clearly made an argument:

    Now either respond to those points or ignore them, but don't pretend I didn't make them.

    I referred to your opinion. All that is your opinion.
    If it makes you feel better I'll give my opinion:
    With their gender quota laws, and incorrect pronoun legislation, and lord knows what's next in terms of qualifying as hate speech.

    You seem concerned about what may constitute hate speech. Fair concern. Doesn't dismiss the entire concept. You yourself take umbrage at the Proud Boys and Trump being labeled racist of fascist. Maybe get over it so?
    Time and again lefties have been shown that when put in positions in power they will do their level best to pass laws which are insane.

    Nonsense. calm yourself.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    :confused:

    The clip I posted is of Crowder and a leftist debating free speech, what the hell has your clip got to do with the thread topic??

    One of the weirdest replies I've ever seen on Boards.

    You posted a lone video clip of a 'leftist' being irrate. I assumed the idea was to belittle 'the left'. I posted a video of a right winger being dangerously ridiculous to basically say, 'so what?'.
    The woman in your video is not the elected President of 'the left'. The post was pointless beyond trying to get a dig in in your war against the pinkos.


  • #528
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    rocksolidfat wrote: »
    So having covered that, a Nazi won an election in a German village recently for the reason that literally nobody else ran... but have any Nazis won a contested election in Germany in recent times?

    Neo nazism has been on the rise across large chunks of the globe for years, not just Germany.

    I have already addressed that - every country I listed has active Nazi parties, not just historical ones.


    A very fair reply that highlights where we disagree.


    I would argue that akin to the Streisand Effect, any attempt to hide, remove or censor information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

    I certainly would agree Neo-Nazism is on the rise seeing how willy nilly people throw the word nazi around these days(including to people that advocate for less immigration).

    Interestingly the 'Grievance Study' hoaxers submitted an extract from Mein Kampf re-written as feminist manifesto.
    They just replaced the words nazi, third reich etc.. with feminist buzz words- Not only accepted, but rewarded by journals.

    If Mein Kampf had been banned from all literature after WWII, how would we recognize when journals make such profound mistakes?


  • #529
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Can you point to anyone who has a clear black and white definition that can be used definitively in every case? I can't.

    I think the definition that I wrote pretty much covers it. Sure there are people and organizations that meet some, but not all, of those criteria, but those people aren't fascists. They mightn't be very nice people, but fascist they ain't.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    IMO, if it stirs hate it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously we'll all differ on what constitutes hate

    What is hate? If you say that it is the defining aspect of legislation which you advocate, don't you think it is important that it can be universally defined? Can you think of any crime, where anybody deliberately attacks someone else (verbally, physically, or financially) that doesn't involve hatred?
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    what do the likes of Milo add to society in the positive?

    Not much, but that's a slippery slope. There's plenty of people I don't think add much to society, but that wouldn't necessarily justify censoring them.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    We need balance what's in the best interests of society.

    And who decides that, and using what criteria? That's a pretty big deal. Most totalitarian regimes have said they have been looking out for the best interests of society, and used that line to justify pretty brutal behavior.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I posted a video of a right winger being dangerously ridiculous to basically say, 'so what?'.

    Granted that the term 'left' and 'right' tends towards being meaningless, in this case its use was so obtuse that most people would have missed it. What part of her being against the selling of bottled water do you think made her right wing? The appeal to authority? I mean one of the things that is meant to be right wing is opposition to state interference in private enterprise. You could argue the woman was being left wing...


  • #530
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    You could make the same argument for young adults drinking alcohol etc.. we shouldn't allow pubs because someone might drink who's not mature enough to do so.

    Those that have conditions or are not mature enough generally have someone to care for them anyway and 'screen' for them?

    There’s a big difference between allowing someone to drink who might not be ready for it, and allowing someone to be indoctrinated with bullsh1t ideas because they’re either not clever enough, or don’t have enough knowledge of how things actually work, to reject them.

    The drunk guy or girl will usually learn the consequences of drinking too much without killing anyone or causing any wars, the stakes are much lower there.

    They are bullsh1t ideas because they’ve been proven time and time again to be wrong, yet some people don’t want to listen, and they try to seek out other people who haven’t heard all the info and who don’t know much, to try and convert them.
    It’s exactly like a religion, and if we’re not careful, it’ll take over just like religion did a long time ago.
    By definition, the world started out atheist, and all major world religions pretty much disprove themselves using logic alone as they all assume a human-centric view of the world, and yet they are still here and in the majority.


  • #531
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    I saw this and found it funny, although I dont agree with all the points as I am not a conservative(or American), There are some contradicting points highlighted that are undeniable.
    491112.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/3ghxjw/liberal_double_think_explained/

    If that is the level of discussion you are at then i feel sorry for you. all the depth of a puddle.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    yoke wrote: »
    There’s a big difference between allowing someone to drink who might not be ready for it, and allowing someone to be indoctrinated with bullsh1t ideas because they’re either not clever enough, or don’t have enough knowledge of how things actually work, to reject them.

    The drunk guy or girl will usually learn the consequences of drinking too much without killing anyone or causing any wars, the stakes are much lower there.

    They are bullsh1t ideas because they’ve been proven time and time again to be wrong, yet some people don’t want to listen, and they try to seek out other people who haven’t heard all the info and who don’t know much, to try and convert them.
    It’s exactly like a religion, and if we’re not careful, it’ll take over just like religion did a long time ago.
    By definition, the world started out atheist, and all major world religions pretty much disprove themselves using logic alone as they all assume a human-centric view of the world, and yet they are still here and in the majority.

    But the trouble is who decides what the "bull**** ideas" are ?
    And what if dis honest people get into the position of deciding what ideas or speeches are unacceptable?

    I think your genuine in your desire to keep people safe but I just think this leads to stagnation of a societies ideas and thinking.


  • #533
    WengerOutIn
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭WengerOutIn


    Can Justin Trudeeeaauuuuu be de-platformed please? His pontificating is destroying the atmosphere quicker than a Brazilian farmer.


  • #534
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    This trend of calling people with right wing views fascists and white supremacists needs to stop.

    By participating in this you're just buying into the divide and conquer crap that's happening at the moment.


  • #535
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    WengerOutIn wrote: »
    Can Justin Trudeeeaauuuuu be de-platformed please? His pontificating is destroying the atmosphere quicker than a Brazilian farmer.

    The fact he's getting such an easy pass shows how fake all this finger pointing is.

    It's not about racism or sexism or anti-trans or whatever nonsense they keep shouting about - it's about power, and they want their side to have power.


  • #536
    WengerOutIn
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭WengerOutIn


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    This trend of calling people with right wing views fascists and white supremacists needs to stop.

    By participating in this you're just buying into the divide and conquer crap that's happening at the moment.

    Totally agree with you. Once someone adopts a view contrary to someone else, you get branded 'fascist', 'nazi', 'racist' etc. What is laughable is that nazis are an extreme form of socialism.


  • #537
    WengerOutIn
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭WengerOutIn


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The fact he's getting such an easy pass shows how fake all this finger pointing is.

    It's not about racism or sexism or anti-trans or whatever nonsense they keep shouting about - it's about power, and they want their side to have power.
    Our good mascot Justin is just a fancy fascist who made the cover of rolling stone I think?
    Fundamentally it is all about power.


  • #538
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    This trend of calling people with right wing views fascists and white supremacists needs to stop.

    By participating in this you're just buying into the divide and conquer crap that's happening at the moment.
    WengerOutIn wrote: »
    Totally agree with you. Once someone adopts a view contrary to someone else, you get branded 'fascist', 'nazi', 'racist' etc. What is laughable is that nazis are an extreme form of socialism.
    WengerOutIn wrote: »
    Our good mascot Justin is just a fancy fascist who made the cover of rolling stone I think?
    Fundamentally it is all about power.

    Classic.


  • #539
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    WengerOutIn wrote: »
    Our good mascot Justin is just a fancy fascist who made the cover of rolling stone I think?
    Fundamentally it is all about power.

    He who virtue signals the loudest hath the largest guilty conscience, and oh boy has Justin virtue signalled very loudly indeed.

    Personally I think people need to accept times were different back then, and donning black face wasn't seen in a particularly bad way at all.

    In fact I'd even argue now it's fine, as long as the intention isn't to degrade black people. I'd have no problem with a black dude covering himself in white makeup and pretending he's some white nerd. That would be funny.

    These friendless, angry losers who spend their lives trying to give out to people for slipping up need to be ignored. They were ignored before the internet and they should be ignored now.


  • #540
    WengerOutIn
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭WengerOutIn


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    He who virtue signals the loudest hath the largest guilty conscience, and oh boy has Justin virtue signalled very loudly indeed.

    Personally I think people need to accept times were different back then, and donning black face wasn't seen in a particularly bad way at all.

    In fact I'd even argue now it's fine, as long as the intention isn't to degrade black people. I'd have no problem with a black dude covering himself in white makeup and pretending he's some white nerd. That would be funny.

    These friendless, angry losers who spend their lives trying to give out to people for slipping up need to be ignored. They were ignored before the internet and they should be ignored now.

    Don't worry Justin, people-kind will forgive you.
    It would actually be laughable but for the sheep that think he is actually a decent guy.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I think the definition that I wrote pretty much covers it. Sure there are people and organizations that meet some, but not all, of those criteria, but those people aren't fascists. They mightn't be very nice people, but fascist they ain't.

    Agreed. All fascists are fascists all racists racists. Some of us may disagree. Some try to shut criticism down.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    ]What is hate? If you say that it is the defining aspect of legislation which you advocate, don't you think it is important that it can be universally defined? Can you think of any crime, where anybody deliberately attacks someone else (verbally, physically, or financially) that doesn't involve hatred?
    Obviously we'll all differ on what constitutes hate

    Hate based on the speech of others, hate speech if you will. Personal reasons would differ but someone beating up a minority because they've bought into hate speech is a different matter.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Not much, but that's a slippery slope. There's plenty of people I don't think add much to society, but that wouldn't necessarily justify censoring them.

    Denigrating other groups in society and spreading hate would, for me any way. I might have some sympathy if there were some altruistic social goal other than Facebook likes.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    And who decides that, and using what criteria? That's a pretty big deal. Most totalitarian regimes have said they have been looking out for the best interests of society, and used that line to justify pretty brutal behavior.

    Society and further, laws that society creates.
    Every kind of society deems what is and isn't acceptable. These days privileged people see the historically less privileged gaining equality and some are fearful of change or racist or sexist and don't like it.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Granted that the term 'left' and 'right' tends towards being meaningless, in this case its use was so obtuse that most people would have missed it. What part of her being against the selling of bottled water do you think made her right wing? The appeal to authority? I mean one of the things that is meant to be right wing is opposition to state interference in private enterprise. You could argue the woman was being left wing...

    She could have been a communist. Racism would be a trait of the right IMO. I believe she was 'triggered' by the skin colour not the selling of water. Now she might be a poor communist who is racist but I'd put my money on her being conservative.


  • #542
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    WengerOutIn wrote: »
    Don't worry Justin, people-kind will forgive you.
    It would actually be laughable but for the sheep that think he is actually a decent guy.

    He's so obviously a creep.

    But isn't it amazing how easy it is to fool most people? Just say the right things, be seen doing some feminist type things, and almost everyone will think that's who you are.


  • #543
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    He's so obviously a creep.

    But isn't it amazing how easy it is to fool most people? Just say the right things, be seen doing some feminist type things, and almost everyone will think that's who you are.

    TBF, he replaced a complete right wing scumbag, so anyone half decent was in with a shout. He mostly got votes under the 'Stop Harper' campaign.

    tab-na-degape26-003jpg.jpg


  • #544
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    OMM 0000 wrote: »

    In fact I'd even argue now it's fine, as long as the intention isn't to degrade black people. I'd have no problem with a black dude covering himself in white makeup and pretending he's some white nerd. That would be funny.

    Funny if trudeau said this he wouldn't be seen as much of a hypocrite. Instead he doubles down admitting it was racist and he should have known better. Expect nothing different from someone so devoid of character as that man.


  • #545
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Funny if trudeau said this he wouldn't be seen as much of a hypocrite. Instead he doubles down admitting it was racist and he should have known better. Expect nothing different from someone so devoid of character as that man.

    Japers, same comment two different threads? Treat yourself! ;)

    I wouldn't say calling himself a racist was doubling down. Coming out to the press in black face might :)


  • #546
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    But the trouble is who decides what the "bull**** ideas" are ?
    And what if dis honest people get into the position of deciding what ideas or speeches are unacceptable?

    I think your genuine in your desire to keep people safe but I just think this leads to stagnation of a societies ideas and thinking.

    But that’s exactly what I said in a previous post!
    “The problem with free speech is that it’s an illusion, and always has been. You can’t allow people to spread lies, but who decides what the lies are?”

    If you do allow people to spread lies, with the expectation that it’ll be self-policing, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
    History has shown time and time again that lies are not self-policing.

    The people of Japan honestly thought they could win a war with the US, because when their generals said “we can run amok for 6 months”, they saw what they wanted to see. The generals obviously knew they couldn’t win from before the war.
    The people of Germany fell for the same sh!te, they really believed a German was worth more, and would do better, than an opposing soldier.
    In more recent years I’ve seen some bush!t being peddled about saying that the Chinese can’t innovate. Unfortunately by the time that’s proved wrong, it’ll be too late and they’ll already be at the leading edge of technology - the only thing holding back their innovation is their current government and education style, not their ethnicity.

    A lot of people in Ireland think that Ireland can survive and do well on its own. They’ll be sorely disappointed too if that ever happens - our choice is to either be an inclusive global hub at the forefront of technology, or else be isolationist and spend all our time getting pushed around by Russia, China, Britain, and whoever else feels like it, and wonder why the young Irish have to keep emigrating for jobs again to sweep the streets of New York.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    “The problem with free speech is that it’s an illusion, and always has been. You can’t allow people to spread lies, but who decides what the lies are?”

    If you do allow people to spread lies, with the expectation that it’ll be self-policing, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
    History has shown time and time again that lies are not self-policing.

    I pay close attention to free speech advocates, I consider it 'my thing'. I would suggest that no-free speech advocate is pushing for slander to be included under the rubric of free speech.

    Could you prove me otherwise?

    These are more things that DO NOT fall under the rubric of free speech:
    • Obscenity
    • Lying
    • Fighting words/Threats
    • Private enterprise/places of employment/school
    • Government employees

    Nobody wants these to included under the umbrella term freedom of speech except the people looking to limit other's freedom of speech.


  • #548
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    So when you say “slander”, I’m going to assume you mean “make false and damaging statements about”, which is the definition in English, rather than the legal term.

    A lot of people make statements like “the country can’t afford more economic migrants”, which is false, as it suggests most so called “economic migrants” don’t pay their own way - all evidence is to the contrary.

    Should such statements be allowed under free speech?

    Is that not a false and damaging (to migrants) statement about an economic migrant, in pretty much any country, and hence a slanderous statement?


  • #549
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,133 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    TBF, he replaced a complete right wing scumbag, so anyone half decent was in with a shout. He mostly got votes under the 'Stop Harper' campaign.

    tab-na-degape26-003jpg.jpg

    He is further to the right of Harper.

    Socially liberal, radical free market right on migration and economics but call it solidarity and the left love it. Say it's anti racism and neoliberalism is tolerated.


  • #550
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I pay close attention to free speech advocates, I consider it 'my thing'. I would suggest that no-free speech advocate is pushing for slander to be included under the rubric of free speech.

    Could you prove me otherwise?

    These are more things that DO NOT fall under the rubric of free speech:
    • Obscenity
    • Lying
    • Fighting words/Threats
    • Private enterprise/places of employment/school
    • Government employees

    Nobody wants these to included under the umbrella term freedom of speech except the people looking to limit other's freedom of speech.

    *Obscenity Ulysses, The Life of Brian, The Barracks
    *Lying Galileo's theories which contravened holy writ and that he recanted
    *Fighting words/Threats Socialist and anarchist organisations
    *school I'm sure I could find relevant censorship of academia to hammer my point further.


    As soon as you put up restrictions you have to run a gauntlet of interpretation, and the manner it may be used malevolently.


  • #551
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    *Obscenity Ulysses, The Life of Brian, The Barracks
    *Lying Galileo's theories which contravened holy writ and that he recanted
    *Fighting words/Threats Socialist and anarchist organisations
    *school I'm sure I could find relevant censorship of academia to hammer my point further.


    As soon as you put up restrictions you have to run a gauntlet of interpretation, and the manner it may be used malevolently.

    Good point.

    That's why I believe it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt when prosecuting a crime like a hate crime. Too many of us these days form opinions too quickly in these respects IMO.

    For example, Marcus Meechan was told by his judge that context didn't matter. Surely that's all that matters.

    It's often difficult to differentiate between opinion and slander as you allude to, this is why when in doubt you must assume otherwise and give the benefit of doubt.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement