Liberals who aren't liberal

James Brown · 21-12-2018 3:05pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Some info for thought, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting Anjem Choudary appeared on Rtes prime time via satellite, there was no calls from left wing groups saying Rte should no platform him or anything like that.

Compare that in contrast to Katie Hopkins appearing on the late late show in late 2016, there was an online campaign from left wing groups to try pressure Rte to cancel her appearance on the late late show, but these left wing groups had nothing to say when Anjem Choudary was invited onto an Rte programme.

Right wing people can be decent too. I wouldn't give 'dem liberals' all the credit. She's basically an attention whore and it was beneath, or should have been, the national broadcaster to have such a transparent scaremongering for her own gain bint on our televisions.
Did you call to complain about the other lad yourself? Are you trying to say you would have been stopped?

randd1 · 21-12-2018 3:24pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You see, you're labouring under the misapprehension that Anjem Choudary is "debating" at all.

He isn't.

He can't be out-debated with facts, because he isn't there to debate. He's there only to spew Islamist propaganda and hate speech and gain notoriety for himself and his vile, highly dangerous, extremist views.

Exactly the same as the white supremacist far right.

Platforming people such as Choudary or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon doesn't lead to debate.

It leads to the publicising, legitimisation and the virus-like spread of highly dangerous extremism.

You've given a classic example of "false balance" there.

This holds that any "opinion", no matter how idiotic, dangerous, hate-filled or nonsensical, should be accorded equal legitimacy to reality based worldviews.

That is a recipe for mass bloodshed.

The fact that they're spewing their hate simply shows them for what they are; hateful bigots and dangerous ones at that.

And debunking their views as outdated and dangerous and bigoted goes far more to telling reasonable people what these idiots are than simply banning them and giving them notoriety, or worse, a cause.

Better the devil you know than the one you don't, even if it mean listening to and dismantling his crap.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-12-2018 3:25pm

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Some info for thought, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting Anjem Choudary appeared on Rtes prime time via satellite, there was no calls from left wing groups saying Rte should no platform him or anything like that.

Compare that in contrast to Katie Hopkins appearing on the late late show in late 2016, there was an online campaign from left wing groups to try pressure Rte to cancel her appearance on the late late show, but these left wing groups had nothing to say when Anjem Choudary was invited onto an Rte programme.

But that IS free speech, like it or not. It's inconsistent, borderline hypocritical and not well-thought out, but then there's no law saying that free speech should be well researched and balanced. it's not very liberal, but then that's the point the OP makes.

They are perfectly within their right to make those stances, and RTE are perfectly within their right to ignore them or accept them as they see fit. Every side's had a say. No one is denying anyone free speech here.

The point at which I draw the line is when violence is condoned, threatened or actioned.

PCeeeee · 21-12-2018 3:26pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You see, you're labouring under the misapprehension that Anjem Choudary is "debating" at all.

He isn't.

He can't be out-debated with facts, because he isn't there to debate. He's there only to spew Islamist propaganda and hate speech and gain notoriety for himself and his vile, highly dangerous, extremist views.

Exactly the same as the white supremacist far right.

Platforming people such as Choudary or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon doesn't lead to debate.

It leads to the publicising, legitimisation and the virus-like spread of highly dangerous extremism.

You've given a classic example of "false balance" there.

This holds that any "opinion", no matter how idiotic, dangerous, hate-filled or nonsensical, should be accorded equal legitimacy to reality based worldviews.

That is a recipe for mass bloodshed.

Who decides who can have a 'platform' and who can't?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-12-2018 3:31pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

Who decides who can have a 'platform' and who can't?

Owner of the platform, obviously.

sk8erboii · 21-12-2018 3:46pm

storker wrote: »

Tip: try reading what was said, before responding to what wasn't... :rolleyes:

Mate its literally just manchildren whinging that not everybody agrees with them. Its pitiful

TomSweeney · 21-12-2018 3:46pm

Look at the case in Morocco where two women were killed in a jihadi attack.
"Liberals" are trying to shut down the story, over on reddit they have deleted threads giving basic safety advice to women travelling to Morocco - sickening.
These people call themselves feminists but are happy to see women murdered so long as the perps aren't the evil white western man.

Deleting this safety info is potentially putting others in danger that travel there.
These same morons would have their pussy hats on and wailing at the sky dementedly when Trump was elected.

Indeed, we live in strange times when "liberal" is anything but.

JohnMc1 · 21-12-2018 3:49pm

Mutant z wrote: »

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

They're not Liberals. They're Communists/Marxists pretending to be Liberals. Conservatives are much more liberal [smaller Govt. As little govt intrusion as possible]

hill16bhoy · 21-12-2018 3:58pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

Look at the case in Morocco where two women were killed in a jihadi attack.
"Liberals" are trying to shut down the story, over on reddit they have deleted threads giving basic safety advice to women travelling to Morocco - sickening.
These people call themselves feminists but are happy to see women murdered so long as the perps aren't the evil white western man.

Deleting this safety info is potentially putting others in danger that travel there.
These same morons would have their pussy hats on and wailing at the sky dementedly when Trump was elected.

Indeed, we live in strange times when "liberal" is anything but.

The problem with your little imagined narrative is that the story has been widely reported in the international media.

And thus your narrative falls completely flat on its face.

Who would have guessed that that would happen?!

PCeeeee · 21-12-2018 4:00pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Owner of the platform, obviously.

I'm afraid that's not obvious to me at all. And the question was not for you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-12-2018 4:07pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

I'm afraid that's not obvious to me at all. And the question was not for you.

Doesn't matter who the question was for, that's the answer. A private company providing a platform has final say on what's allowed and what isn't. Boards.ie has a charter. Indymedia has a charter. Stormfront has a charter. None of them are obligated to give anyone a platform.

storker · 21-12-2018 4:11pm

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate its literally just manchildren whinging that not everybody agrees with them. Its pitiful

This may come as a shock to you, but that's exactly how you're coming across. Projection, I believe the psychologists call it...

(I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you're not just trolling.)

PCeeeee · 21-12-2018 4:12pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't matter who the question was for, that's the answer. A private company providing a platform has final say on what's allowed and what isn't. Boards.ie has a charter. Indymedia has a charter. Stormfront has a charter. None of them are obligated to give anyone a platform.

Thank you for your view. I was trying to ascertain the opinion of another individual though. That is why who the question was for matters.

Billy86 · 21-12-2018 4:16pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Had to Google who the F Tucker Carlson is...

A conservative US TV pundit apparently.

I'm not sure what the situation in a country as deeply divided at the U.S currently is has to do with the completely different society that exists in Ireland but do heavily armed right wing people holding protests count?
Or how about killing people by driving a car through a crowd?
Or how about the right-wing conservative One Million Moms threatening to boycott JC Penny's for using Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson?

Or boycotting Nike literally for standing up for the same freedom of expression the FOX News variety truly hates (projection is a bit of a speciality of theirs) over the Kaepernick/NFL kneeling ads.

Which made it pretty funny when Nike stocks immediately hit an all time high.

Bobtheman · 21-12-2018 4:23pm

Mutant z wrote: »

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

I think it's just human nature which is to follow the herd. Western human beings love playing the victim so identify politics is right up their alley.

PhiloCypher · 21-12-2018 4:30pm

We're all feckin' hypocrites lads . There's virtue signalling on both sides , there's snowflakes on both sides, there's SJW/Anti-SJWing going on on both sides. That the right use these buzzwords unaware they are doing exactly what they accuse the other side of doing is the most hilarious part of all this.

@&% then you should the waffen SS from a film about the Holocaust for fear of offending jews. But I'll take the occasional annoying overreach over the normalisation and acceptance of asshole behaviour the Anti-PC brigade seem to want.

batgoat · 21-12-2018 4:30pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Had to Google who the F Tucker Carlson is...

A conservative US TV pundit apparently.

I'm not sure what the situation in a country as deeply divided at the U.S currently is has to do with the completely different society that exists in Ireland but do heavily armed right wing people holding protests count?
Or how about killing people by driving a car through a crowd?
Or how about the right-wing conservative One Million Moms threatening to boycott JC Penny's for using Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson?

Ah he's always concerned about Milo being silenced so just carrying on with it...

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They're not Liberals. They're Communists/Marxists pretending to be Liberals. Conservatives are much more liberal [smaller Govt. As little govt intrusion as possible]

You classify yourself as conservative, right? So your claim of being more liberal as result would mean you would favour gay marriage and abortion. The average Conservative would not.

I'm not sure if you're getting a tad confused between the libertarians and liberals...

WinnyThePoo · 21-12-2018 5:25pm

batgoat wrote: »

Ah he's always concerned about Milo being silenced so just carrying on with it...

You classify yourself as conservative, right? So your claim of being more liberal as result would mean you would favour gay marriage and abortion. The average Conservative would not.

I'm not sure if you're getting a tad confused between the libertarians and liberals...

I think its very fair to say John has absolutely no sense of the words he uses.

TomSweeney · 21-12-2018 5:31pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The problem with your little imagined narrative is that the story has been widely reported in the international media.

And thus your narrative falls completely flat on its face.

Who would have guessed that that would happen?!

I'm talking about reddit, BBC and their ilk are reporting on it at this stage cos they have to.
But they were late getting on it.

hill16bhoy · 21-12-2018 5:36pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

These people call themselves feminists but are happy to see women murdered so long as the perps aren't the evil white western man.

Where to start with the neuroticism and projection with this one...

"Feminists are happy to see women murdered", says the poster.

One can only imagine how warped, twisted and hate-filled a man's mindset has to be to arrive at this view. It would be almost laughable, if there weren't such obvious knock on negative implications for that person's ability to function as a normal member of society.

By the way, earlier on today, we had a thread on After Hours which was started in the clear expectation and hope that Arab Muslims had murdered white Austrian people.

Accusing your "enemy" of that which you yourself are guilty of is a classic far right tactic.

hill16bhoy · 21-12-2018 5:42pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

I'm talking about reddit, BBC and their ilk are reporting on it at this stage cos they have to.
But they were late getting on it.

Wow, you saw some posts on another forum which you didn't like.

Great argument.

Please post again when you've extracted yourself from the rather deep rabbit hole you've travelled down in a desperate attempt to find imagined offence and victimhood which confirms your far right biases.

batgoat · 21-12-2018 5:43pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

I'm talking about reddit, BBC and their ilk are reporting on it at this stage cos they have to.
But they were late getting on it.

I've found numerous publications including The Times and Metro reporting on it from the 18th. Bodies were found on 16th in the evening... So info started filtering through in relation to arrests on the 18th. That's not late, it's pretty normal as all the African publications were reporting on it from the 18th as well...

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-12-2018 5:44pm

The op is a bit over the top but there is this.

https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1075870049460580352?s=21

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-12-2018 5:48pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Or boycotting Nike literally for standing up for the same freedom of expression the FOX News variety truly hates (projection is a bit of a speciality of theirs) over the Kaepernick/NFL kneeling ads.

Which made it pretty funny when Nike stocks immediately hit an all time high.

There are indeed two sides. Texas has a law demanding people don’t involve themselves in the BDS movement. They have to agree to not engage in BDS and not to promote it. Clearly a free speech violation.

Then there’s that 2 week period when everybody is a huge militarist in the U.K. in early Nov and you fail to wear a poppy at your peril.

TomSweeney · 21-12-2018 5:49pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Wow, you saw some posts on another forum which you didn't like.

Great argument.

Please post again when you've extracted yourself from the rather deep rabbit hole you've travelled down in a desperate attempt to find imagined offence and victimhood which confirms your far right biases.

far right

Get of the stage .

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-12-2018 5:52pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Should Anjem Choudary have "free speech"?

Should Anjem Choudary be invited onto, say, the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio as a guest, or other similar programmes?

Should The Irish Times carry a weekly column by Anjem Choudary entitled, let's say, "The Islamist View"?

For, you know, "balance" and all that?

Why not. Better out than in as Shrek says.

TomSweeney · 21-12-2018 6:00pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Where to start with the neuroticism and projection with this one...

"Feminists are happy to see women murdered", says the poster.

One can only imagine how warped, twisted and hate-filled a man's mindset has to be to arrive at this view. It would be almost laughable, if there weren't such obvious knock on negative implications for that person's ability to function as a normal member of society.

By the way, earlier on today, we had a thread on After Hours which was started in the clear expectation and hope that Arab Muslims had murdered white Austrian people.

Accusing your "enemy" of that which you yourself are guilty of is a classic far right tactic.

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

hill16bhoy · 21-12-2018 6:05pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Why not. Better out than in as Shrek says.

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

That's a rhetorical question.

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

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

batgoat · 21-12-2018 6:08pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

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

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

hill16bhoy · 21-12-2018 6:10pm

TomSweeney wrote: »

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

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

That must be very comforting, even if it doesn't correspond to reality or involve any use of your brain whatsoever.

Liberals who aren't liberal

Comments