FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Silencing...
Silencing...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? " Who has been silenced? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? " I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? " I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. " The obvious question is ‘how do you manage it’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. " But they all make money from it, they also give misinformation that is dangerous | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? " Maybe ask it another way - as often speech leads to action. Do we stop murder or talk about murder - yes we do - and I think most would say that was a good thing. Do we stop terrorism or talk about terrorism - yes we do. Again I think most would say that was a good thing. If the argument is about 'by what degree?' . . .then we have many of those degrees already set into Law, and we trust as citizens that this is by far the best approach. If the speech can lead to action in the harming of another by rallying call or demand - then control it or ban it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Maybe ask it another way - as often speech leads to action. Do we stop murder or talk about murder - yes we do - and I think most would say that was a good thing. Do we stop terrorism or talk about terrorism - yes we do. Again I think most would say that was a good thing. If the argument is about 'by what degree?' . . .then we have many of those degrees already set into Law, and we trust as citizens that this is by far the best approach. If the speech can lead to action in the harming of another by rallying call or demand - then control it or ban it." Spot on  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Who has been silenced?" I know you like to play devil's advocate on here, I like that lol... Okay, one high profile example, Trump and trump supporters, he has been booted off the circuit for the most part and his supporters have gone eerily quiet. Bare in mind these are millions of people, who have very extreme fringes. Forcing them to hide their thoughts and intentions via deplatforming could easily make those extreme fringes more able to recruit, avoid what they are saying and doing being picked up and also affords them the privacy to be able to pop up anywhere at anytime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. The obvious question is ‘how do you manage it’?" If it's in the open, her supporters would be in the open too, and what they say and organise can be reacted to. It can be monitored and contained. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. But they all make money from it, they also give misinformation that is dangerous " That is true, but, it is manageable out in the open. You want misinformation to circulate in public where it can be combatted, not in the shadows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Who has been silenced? I know you like to play devil's advocate on here, I like that lol... Okay, one high profile example, Trump and trump supporters, he has been booted off the circuit for the most part and his supporters have gone eerily quiet. Bare in mind these are millions of people, who have very extreme fringes. Forcing them to hide their thoughts and intentions via deplatforming could easily make those extreme fringes more able to recruit, avoid what they are saying and doing being picked up and also affords them the privacy to be able to pop up anywhere at anytime. " Trump has been silenced? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Maybe ask it another way - as often speech leads to action. Do we stop murder or talk about murder - yes we do - and I think most would say that was a good thing. Do we stop terrorism or talk about terrorism - yes we do. Again I think most would say that was a good thing. If the argument is about 'by what degree?' . . .then we have many of those degrees already set into Law, and we trust as citizens that this is by far the best approach. If the speech can lead to action in the harming of another by rallying call or demand - then control it or ban it." Exactly, I agree with all of that. They need to be in the public forum where they can be monitored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Who has been silenced? I know you like to play devil's advocate on here, I like that lol... Okay, one high profile example, Trump and trump supporters, he has been booted off the circuit for the most part and his supporters have gone eerily quiet. Bare in mind these are millions of people, who have very extreme fringes. Forcing them to hide their thoughts and intentions via deplatforming could easily make those extreme fringes more able to recruit, avoid what they are saying and doing being picked up and also affords them the privacy to be able to pop up anywhere at anytime. " Maybe, but if you're the sort of loony sheep that storm the capitol you're loony enough to keep doing silly things regardless of any controls on speech and communication. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Who has been silenced? I know you like to play devil's advocate on here, I like that lol... Okay, one high profile example, Trump and trump supporters, he has been booted off the circuit for the most part and his supporters have gone eerily quiet. Bare in mind these are millions of people, who have very extreme fringes. Forcing them to hide their thoughts and intentions via deplatforming could easily make those extreme fringes more able to recruit, avoid what they are saying and doing being picked up and also affords them the privacy to be able to pop up anywhere at anytime. Trump has been silenced?" In the most part he has by being booted of social media, of course he has the money to get around that, but he isn't the problem, it's the extreme people that followed him and commented publically on his posts that constitute the threat. Them being able to speak in a public forum keeps them in the limelight. Example, the KKK, once were very prominent and public, and were slowly pushed out and silenced. But they are still there. Still large numbers of extreme people, who like to commit violent and atrocious acts. But they are far less monitor able now because they went very very quiet and spread themselves thing across society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I often find that people who scream loudest about being silenced are the ones you hear the most. Farage and Hopkins are 2 particular examples ." True, but they are 2 people, with thousands if not millions of supporters, most of whom will not profess their support in public, and instead still support in far less monitorable spaces. Dark Web, anonymity protected forums, parler etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t quite I understand how the likes of Katie Hopkins don’t end up in court more often. There are legal ways to counteract hate speech but living in a democracy makes it more difficult to silence people. People who incite violence or are recognised to spread racism should be locked up. " She has been once or twice and lost. But mostly they are just brave enough to go just that far and no further. A cowards approach when all said and done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Who has been silenced? I know you like to play devil's advocate on here, I like that lol... Okay, one high profile example, Trump and trump supporters, he has been booted off the circuit for the most part and his supporters have gone eerily quiet. Bare in mind these are millions of people, who have very extreme fringes. Forcing them to hide their thoughts and intentions via deplatforming could easily make those extreme fringes more able to recruit, avoid what they are saying and doing being picked up and also affords them the privacy to be able to pop up anywhere at anytime. Trump has been silenced? In the most part he has by being booted of social media, of course he has the money to get around that, but he isn't the problem, it's the extreme people that followed him and commented publically on his posts that constitute the threat. Them being able to speak in a public forum keeps them in the limelight. Example, the KKK, once were very prominent and public, and were slowly pushed out and silenced. But they are still there. Still large numbers of extreme people, who like to commit violent and atrocious acts. But they are far less monitor able now because they went very very quiet and spread themselves thing across society. " But for 4 years he wasnt. He was the president of the united states and he was basically allowed to get away with telling bare faced lies to millions of people. It was only after he practically invited a riot that they decided enough was enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? Who has been silenced? I know you like to play devil's advocate on here, I like that lol... Okay, one high profile example, Trump and trump supporters, he has been booted off the circuit for the most part and his supporters have gone eerily quiet. Bare in mind these are millions of people, who have very extreme fringes. Forcing them to hide their thoughts and intentions via deplatforming could easily make those extreme fringes more able to recruit, avoid what they are saying and doing being picked up and also affords them the privacy to be able to pop up anywhere at anytime. Trump has been silenced? In the most part he has by being booted of social media, of course he has the money to get around that, but he isn't the problem, it's the extreme people that followed him and commented publically on his posts that constitute the threat. Them being able to speak in a public forum keeps them in the limelight. Example, the KKK, once were very prominent and public, and were slowly pushed out and silenced. But they are still there. Still large numbers of extreme people, who like to commit violent and atrocious acts. But they are far less monitor able now because they went very very quiet and spread themselves thing across society. But for 4 years he wasnt. He was the president of the united states and he was basically allowed to get away with telling bare faced lies to millions of people. It was only after he practically invited a riot that they decided enough was enough." Exactly, and he is one man, with millions of supporters, it's the millions of supporters that are the problem. You talk about inciting a riot, it was trump that made them go home? They listened. He needs to be able to be in public view to be able to have that connection with them. Otherwise they are unmonitored and uncontrolled. And that is dangerous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t quite I understand how the likes of Katie Hopkins don’t end up in court more often. There are legal ways to counteract hate speech but living in a democracy makes it more difficult to silence people. People who incite violence or are recognised to spread racism should be locked up. " The same way imams don't end up in court for preaching their hateful views of the west. On Edgware Road in London they do it weekly on the side of the road. If they stop short of directing actual violence then they are safe. And that side of the road speech is good, because it is in plain sight and monitorable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it actually scares me now what people want to interpret as racism nationalism whatever.... ive just read about the reverends tweet claiming if you clapped for captain tom you are a nationalist and supporter of colonialism or some crap, rather than clapping for a guy who raised millions to help the nhs! and this is a man of god tweeting this! he has now taken the tweet down and apologizes apparently... but scarey thought processes by many. "Yeah it's ridiculous. People love to politicise anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool." I know a huge amount of trump supporters (not necessarily right wing I know but are deemed as such my many) who were hoping he would pardon Assange as a final act. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. I know a huge amount of trump supporters (not necessarily right wing I know but are deemed as such my many) who were hoping he would pardon Assange as a final act. " Did Trump hate Assange? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. I know a huge amount of trump supporters (not necessarily right wing I know but are deemed as such my many) who were hoping he would pardon Assange as a final act. Did Trump hate Assange?" *Didn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool." The Jk Rowling thing isn't really a comparison to Assange either, one is a feminist being attacked and attempted to be cancelled for not being the right type of feminist or ally or whatever the term is and the other is someone some see as a traitor and threat to international national security and others see as a man who exposed wrongdoing and war crimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool." do they? always say? everytime? really? or have you just made that statement up? do the left not always say? never? or about the same as the right? exactly! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"True, but they are 2 people, with thousands if not millions of supporters, most of whom will not profess their support in public, and instead still support in far less monitorable spaces. Dark Web, anonymity protected forums, parler etc etc" It is true that the Dark Wed gave some anonymity once. That certainly isn't the case now and hasn't been since 9/11. The NSA and GCHQ have very deep monitoring roots into the Dark Web with more than adequate means of decrypting anything of interest to them. It could actually be argued that the Dark Web is the best place for dangerous groups to be monitored. For the simple reason that those groups think they are safe there and will be more open than they ever would be on the net or social media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. " If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. I know a huge amount of trump supporters (not necessarily right wing I know but are deemed as such my many) who were hoping he would pardon Assange as a final act. Did Trump hate Assange? *Didn't" I think people who supported trump hoped he would be able to pardon him due to the amount of information he made public about hilary and Obama. Trump owes Assange a great deal, without him hillary would have wiped the floor with trump but Assange (and Snowden) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. The Jk Rowling thing isn't really a comparison to Assange either, one is a feminist being attacked and attempted to be cancelled for not being the right type of feminist or ally or whatever the term is and the other is someone some see as a traitor and threat to international national security and others see as a man who exposed wrongdoing and war crimes. " Or one promotes hate towards the trans community and one is a proponent for free speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. I know a huge amount of trump supporters (not necessarily right wing I know but are deemed as such my many) who were hoping he would pardon Assange as a final act. Did Trump hate Assange? *Didn't I think people who supported trump hoped he would be able to pardon him due to the amount of information he made public about hilary and Obama. Trump owes Assange a great deal, without him hillary would have wiped the floor with trump but Assange (and Snowden)" Interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. " Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. " It all needs to be treated equally whatever side of the political spectrum it comes from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. The Jk Rowling thing isn't really a comparison to Assange either, one is a feminist being attacked and attempted to be cancelled for not being the right type of feminist or ally or whatever the term is and the other is someone some see as a traitor and threat to international national security and others see as a man who exposed wrongdoing and war crimes. Or one promotes hate towards the trans community and one is a proponent for free speech." I haven't really looked into the Jk Rowling thing, but I highly doubt she promoted hate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. It all needs to be treated equally whatever side of the political spectrum it comes from." 100 percent agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. " When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political-right always say they want to defend free speech yet are curiously missing when it doesn’t suit them. They get upset when JKRowling has a book signing cancelled. But where are they over say Julian Assange or for that reverend. Suddenly when they here from someone they don’t like cancel culture seems rather cool. The Jk Rowling thing isn't really a comparison to Assange either, one is a feminist being attacked and attempted to be cancelled for not being the right type of feminist or ally or whatever the term is and the other is someone some see as a traitor and threat to international national security and others see as a man who exposed wrongdoing and war crimes. Or one promotes hate towards the trans community and one is a proponent for free speech. I haven't really looked into the Jk Rowling thing, but I highly doubt she promoted hate. " Look into it. It's insane. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? " There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. " The left barely have any voice at all here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. " I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter " Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. " Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter " See we can point to the right of the spectrum, because there's very clear lines for them, racism, nationalism, and based on that we can point the worst once out, Tommy Robinson, Britain first, Farage, Katie Hopkins, but on the left, there is no line in the sand, and it crosses into violence a lot and can be excused by saying they were racist or they were sexist or homophobic etc. Even if they weren't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? " Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter See we can point to the right of the spectrum, because there's very clear lines for them, racism, nationalism, and based on that we can point the worst once out, Tommy Robinson, Britain first, Farage, Katie Hopkins, but on the left, there is no line in the sand, and it crosses into violence a lot and can be excused by saying they were racist or they were sexist or homophobic etc. Even if they weren't. " Just give me a few examples of these people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. " Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is one thing that would help reducing the influence of these loonies: education. If our kids were taught how to be measured, decent, honest, and how to spot excessive behaviours or hatred on social networks and media, that’d be a good start. However, this can only happen in a society where education is recognised as the number one priority not as transaction. Make teaching one of the best paid and attractive jobs in the country and invest in schools big time. We need the best historians, linguists, mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers etc... working in schools. Instead the job has been devalued and salaries have been more or less frozen for 20 years with some s hook bro g proper shitholes. I’m not trying to make it a political argument here but teaching kids how to understand information, how to decipher propaganda, fake news and how to be decent human beings should be a priority. " The media has a lot to answer for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? " He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him " Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is one thing that would help reducing the influence of these loonies: education. If our kids were taught how to be measured, decent, honest, and how to spot excessive behaviours or hatred on social networks and media, that’d be a good start. However, this can only happen in a society where education is recognised as the number one priority not as transaction. Make teaching one of the best paid and attractive jobs in the country and invest in schools big time. We need the best historians, linguists, mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers etc... working in schools. Instead the job has been devalued and salaries have been more or less frozen for 20 years with some s hook bro g proper shitholes. I’m not trying to make it a political argument here but teaching kids how to understand information, how to decipher propaganda, fake news and how to be decent human beings should be a priority. " There's on problem with that, if a person isn't fully aligned with the views of the left they actively move to have them banned. One example, who teaches extensively about the dangers of ideology on both side is Jordan peterson, and preaches the idea of personal responsibility being the way to avoid being pulled to the extremes, and rather than interviewers trying to learn about him, they attempt to attach a label to him and accuse him of racism and homophobia. because he keeps himself in the centre and berates both sides. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you " No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. " I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here" Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is one thing that would help reducing the influence of these loonies: education. If our kids were taught how to be measured, decent, honest, and how to spot excessive behaviours or hatred on social networks and media, that’d be a good start. However, this can only happen in a society where education is recognised as the number one priority not as transaction. Make teaching one of the best paid and attractive jobs in the country and invest in schools big time. We need the best historians, linguists, mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers etc... working in schools. Instead the job has been devalued and salaries have been more or less frozen for 20 years with some s hook bro g proper shitholes. I’m not trying to make it a political argument here but teaching kids how to understand information, how to decipher propaganda, fake news and how to be decent human beings should be a priority. There's on problem with that, if a person isn't fully aligned with the views of the left they actively move to have them banned. One example, who teaches extensively about the dangers of ideology on both side is Jordan peterson, and preaches the idea of personal responsibility being the way to avoid being pulled to the extremes, and rather than interviewers trying to learn about him, they attempt to attach a label to him and accuse him of racism and homophobia. because he keeps himself in the centre and berates both sides. " Jordan peterson's arguments are confused and often nonsensical. He accuses non-racists of identity politics. As if being not racist is an identity, rather than it being a lack of an identity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. " JK Rowling is your only example, and she is still on Twitter with 14.2 million followers, are you sure your not looking to deep into this ? Give he examples if people who have been unfairly cancelled | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, " You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is one thing that would help reducing the influence of these loonies: education. If our kids were taught how to be measured, decent, honest, and how to spot excessive behaviours or hatred on social networks and media, that’d be a good start. However, this can only happen in a society where education is recognised as the number one priority not as transaction. Make teaching one of the best paid and attractive jobs in the country and invest in schools big time. We need the best historians, linguists, mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers etc... working in schools. Instead the job has been devalued and salaries have been more or less frozen for 20 years with some s hook bro g proper shitholes. I’m not trying to make it a political argument here but teaching kids how to understand information, how to decipher propaganda, fake news and how to be decent human beings should be a priority. There's on problem with that, if a person isn't fully aligned with the views of the left they actively move to have them banned. One example, who teaches extensively about the dangers of ideology on both side is Jordan peterson, and preaches the idea of personal responsibility being the way to avoid being pulled to the extremes, and rather than interviewers trying to learn about him, they attempt to attach a label to him and accuse him of racism and homophobia. because he keeps himself in the centre and berates both sides. Jordan peterson's arguments are confused and often nonsensical. He accuses non-racists of identity politics. As if being not racist is an identity, rather than it being a lack of an identity." he accuses everyone of identity politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. " Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is one thing that would help reducing the influence of these loonies: education. If our kids were taught how to be measured, decent, honest, and how to spot excessive behaviours or hatred on social networks and media, that’d be a good start. However, this can only happen in a society where education is recognised as the number one priority not as transaction. Make teaching one of the best paid and attractive jobs in the country and invest in schools big time. We need the best historians, linguists, mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers etc... working in schools. Instead the job has been devalued and salaries have been more or less frozen for 20 years with some s hook bro g proper shitholes. I’m not trying to make it a political argument here but teaching kids how to understand information, how to decipher propaganda, fake news and how to be decent human beings should be a priority. There's on problem with that, if a person isn't fully aligned with the views of the left they actively move to have them banned. One example, who teaches extensively about the dangers of ideology on both side is Jordan peterson, and preaches the idea of personal responsibility being the way to avoid being pulled to the extremes, and rather than interviewers trying to learn about him, they attempt to attach a label to him and accuse him of racism and homophobia. because he keeps himself in the centre and berates both sides. Jordan peterson's arguments are confused and often nonsensical. He accuses non-racists of identity politics. As if being not racist is an identity, rather than it being a lack of an identity. he accuses everyone of identity politics. " Exactly. It's nonsence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. " You'll go round in circles all day with him. It'll be question after question. I've seen the examples you've given but he won't accept them. Can't believe you haven't mentioned Momentum. Or where they just defending themselves | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. " Who? You have named 1 person who I've never heard off. The media are overwhelmingly right wing. Most outspoken commentators are right wing..Hopkins Farage, toby young,Hartley brewer etc etc We live in a conservative country with a right wing gmnt and a right wing press. Yet somehow the 'left'have a huge influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum" Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. You'll go round in circles all day with him. It'll be question after question. I've seen the examples you've given but he won't accept them. Can't believe you haven't mentioned Momentum. Or where they just defending themselves" Good to see you decided not to leave the forums  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. " Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Who? You have named 1 person who I've never heard off. The media are overwhelmingly right wing. Most outspoken commentators are right wing..Hopkins Farage, toby young,Hartley brewer etc etc We live in a conservative country with a right wing gmnt and a right wing press. Yet somehow the 'left'have a huge influence. " Right wing are the national front, bnp, kkk, neo nazis... how you managed to lump in conservatives who are hated by all of those actual racist right wing groups is a big part of the problem. Anything that isn't left is far right and that includes anything in the middle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. You'll go round in circles all day with him. It'll be question after question. I've seen the examples you've given but he won't accept them. Can't believe you haven't mentioned Momentum. Or where they just defending themselves Good to see you decided not to leave the forums "Mostly reading
How could I leave you? And my mate Lionel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. " I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Who? You have named 1 person who I've never heard off. The media are overwhelmingly right wing. Most outspoken commentators are right wing..Hopkins Farage, toby young,Hartley brewer etc etc We live in a conservative country with a right wing gmnt and a right wing press. Yet somehow the 'left'have a huge influence. Right wing are the national front, bnp, kkk, neo nazis... how you managed to lump in conservatives who are hated by all of those actual racist right wing groups is a big part of the problem. Anything that isn't left is far right and that includes anything in the middle. " 
So the gmnt isnt right wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. " But picking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... " I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"like i said earlier about the reverend, who tweeted if you clapped for captain tom you are a nationalist colonialist etc etc not just clapping an old guy who raised money! theres some fucked up thinking! "Very fucked up, why would he say such an ignorant and stupid thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Who? You have named 1 person who I've never heard off. The media are overwhelmingly right wing. Most outspoken commentators are right wing..Hopkins Farage, toby young,Hartley brewer etc etc We live in a conservative country with a right wing gmnt and a right wing press. Yet somehow the 'left'have a huge influence. Right wing are the national front, bnp, kkk, neo nazis... how you managed to lump in conservatives who are hated by all of those actual racist right wing groups is a big part of the problem. Anything that isn't left is far right and that includes anything in the middle.
So the gmnt isnt right wing?"No, do they have policies based on racism? No. If we had a bnp government then yes, that is right wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. " You need to look into what's she's said if you're going to use her as your example. It's nothing to do with women's rights. Nearly all the mainstream media is right leaning. It is owned and represents the interests of corporations and the government. I'm all for free speech btw. I would be more lenient than most. My opinion is that we need an educated population who can analyse what they're seeing, reading, hearing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"like i said earlier about the reverend, who tweeted if you clapped for captain tom you are a nationalist colonialist etc etc not just clapping an old guy who raised money! theres some fucked up thinking! "1 person Who got absolutely slaughtered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Who? You have named 1 person who I've never heard off. The media are overwhelmingly right wing. Most outspoken commentators are right wing..Hopkins Farage, toby young,Hartley brewer etc etc We live in a conservative country with a right wing gmnt and a right wing press. Yet somehow the 'left'have a huge influence. Right wing are the national front, bnp, kkk, neo nazis... how you managed to lump in conservatives who are hated by all of those actual racist right wing groups is a big part of the problem. Anything that isn't left is far right and that includes anything in the middle.
So the gmnt isnt right wing?
No, do they have policies based on racism? No. If we had a bnp government then yes, that is right wing. "Right wing does not equal racism. And yeah some of the current government and the PM say racist things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. " Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake. "Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme. As a country we have shifted to the right. Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart. Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted. Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Who? You have named 1 person who I've never heard off. The media are overwhelmingly right wing. Most outspoken commentators are right wing..Hopkins Farage, toby young,Hartley brewer etc etc We live in a conservative country with a right wing gmnt and a right wing press. Yet somehow the 'left'have a huge influence. Right wing are the national front, bnp, kkk, neo nazis... how you managed to lump in conservatives who are hated by all of those actual racist right wing groups is a big part of the problem. Anything that isn't left is far right and that includes anything in the middle.
So the gmnt isnt right wing?
No, do they have policies based on racism? No. If we had a bnp government then yes, that is right wing.
Right wing does not equal racism.
And yeah some of the current government and the PM say racist things. "No, in actuality, far right wing is anarchy and zero government and left wing is big government which includes the nazis but like I said before, everything is back to front for some reason. One of the biggest hallmarks of current right-wing is racism. Don't nit pick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal."Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. " I'd never heard of her. Apparently she has had a run in with one of our favourite newspapers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? " You mmean cencorship political correctness etc? Well I believe that political correctness encourages racialism. openess encourages understanding in people so much is censored in modern socoety yet there are more racist,more extremist etc I believe these factors are linked. Monitoring is not needed education is best.I believe that the reason black footballers getting more abuse noe is because of taking the knee and slogans like black lives matter people do not like getting it rammed down there throats how they should think. They need to be taught that all lives matter love all mankind etc I believe modern indoctrination is a sickness in society making things worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol"Like I said before. For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. I'd never heard of her. Apparently she has had a run in with one of our favourite newspapers. " Have a look into her and I will look further in Jk Rowling. I honestly don't know what she did lol, one minute she was the Harry Potter woman and next everyone was mad at her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. " One name out of this large group ? Can you remind which political leaders held a rally and told their supporters to ‘fight like hell’ that led to a riot at congress? which left wing leaders wouldn’t accept democracy and kept lying about voter fraud? Can you remind me which left wing political leader endorsed and stood in front of a photo of a queue of migrants with the slogan ‘breaking point’ and btw Farage is still on social media. You talk about cancel cultures yet you can’t fine me a single example of a person who has been ‘cancelled ‘ unfairly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. I'd never heard of her. Apparently she has had a run in with one of our favourite newspapers. Have a look into her and I will look further in Jk Rowling. I honestly don't know what she did lol, one minute she was the Harry Potter woman and next everyone was mad at her "Yeah that all passed me by. Apparently she said something controversial and everyone went nuts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot."Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. One name out of this large group ? Can you remind which political leaders held a rally and told their supporters to ‘fight like hell’ that led to a riot at congress? which left wing leaders wouldn’t accept democracy and kept lying about voter fraud? Can you remind me which left wing political leader endorsed and stood in front of a photo of a queue of migrants with the slogan ‘breaking point’ and btw Farage is still on social media. You talk about cancel cultures yet you can’t fine me a single example of a person who has been ‘cancelled ‘ unfairly " Yeah, all trumps opposition did exactly that during the riots and then turned around and they and the rest of the world condemned trump when he did the same thing. There's the imbalance. If I punched trump I'd be a hero to anyone who hates trump, so there's the imbalance again. It's okay to punch people you disagree with to large parts of the left. Again, there's the imbalance. It's why trump got in in the first place for fuck sake you should watch johnathan pies stand up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance. "The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. One name out of this large group ? Can you remind which political leaders held a rally and told their supporters to ‘fight like hell’ that led to a riot at congress? which left wing leaders wouldn’t accept democracy and kept lying about voter fraud? Can you remind me which left wing political leader endorsed and stood in front of a photo of a queue of migrants with the slogan ‘breaking point’ and btw Farage is still on social media. You talk about cancel cultures yet you can’t fine me a single example of a person who has been ‘cancelled ‘ unfairly Yeah, all trumps opposition did exactly that during the riots and then turned around and they and the rest of the world condemned trump when he did the same thing. There's the imbalance. If I punched trump I'd be a hero to anyone who hates trump, so there's the imbalance again. It's okay to punch people you disagree with to large parts of the left. Again, there's the imbalance. It's why trump got in in the first place for fuck sake you should watch johnathan pies stand up. "I would rather not. If I punched Biden I would be hero to many, what is your point again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350 "I'd have given him a medal tbf | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. I'd never heard of her. Apparently she has had a run in with one of our favourite newspapers. Have a look into her and I will look further in Jk Rowling. I honestly don't know what she did lol, one minute she was the Harry Potter woman and next everyone was mad at her
Yeah that all passed me by.
Apparently she said something controversial and everyone went nuts "More than just said a controversial thing. She's been campaigning against trans people for years. Speaking about it, writing open letters about it etc. I don't think she should be cancelled for her abhorrent views. But I think we should be allowed to openly criticise her without being accused of trying to cancel her. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. One name out of this large group ? Can you remind which political leaders held a rally and told their supporters to ‘fight like hell’ that led to a riot at congress? which left wing leaders wouldn’t accept democracy and kept lying about voter fraud? Can you remind me which left wing political leader endorsed and stood in front of a photo of a queue of migrants with the slogan ‘breaking point’ and btw Farage is still on social media. You talk about cancel cultures yet you can’t fine me a single example of a person who has been ‘cancelled ‘ unfairly Yeah, all trumps opposition did exactly that during the riots and then turned around and they and the rest of the world condemned trump when he did the same thing. There's the imbalance. If I punched trump I'd be a hero to anyone who hates trump, so there's the imbalance again. It's okay to punch people you disagree with to large parts of the left. Again, there's the imbalance. It's why trump got in in the first place for fuck sake you should watch johnathan pies stand up.
I would rather not. If I punched Biden I would be hero to many, what is your point again? "You have to be able to climb walls to do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf"And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. One name out of this large group ? Can you remind which political leaders held a rally and told their supporters to ‘fight like hell’ that led to a riot at congress? which left wing leaders wouldn’t accept democracy and kept lying about voter fraud? Can you remind me which left wing political leader endorsed and stood in front of a photo of a queue of migrants with the slogan ‘breaking point’ and btw Farage is still on social media. You talk about cancel cultures yet you can’t fine me a single example of a person who has been ‘cancelled ‘ unfairly Yeah, all trumps opposition did exactly that during the riots and then turned around and they and the rest of the world condemned trump when he did the same thing. There's the imbalance. If I punched trump I'd be a hero to anyone who hates trump, so there's the imbalance again. It's okay to punch people you disagree with to large parts of the left. Again, there's the imbalance. It's why trump got in in the first place for fuck sake you should watch johnathan pies stand up.
I would rather not. If I punched Biden I would be hero to many, what is your point again? "The point is I'd be congratulated on all fronts including large parts of the media for my actions against trump. You just have to look at the reaction to the Farage incident to know that. If I did it to corbyn or Biden, I'd be crucified and condemned all over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. When has that happened? Who are these ‘left side’ of politics people? There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. I am sure there are, I am just not aware of a left wing version of Katie Hopkins who is allowed to spew hate on sites like Twitter Anyone who assigns labels towards anything they disagree with. Which twitter and wider social media is full of. As soon as you have the power to point the accusation of nazi, racist, homophobe, bigot etc at people, you have the power of violence because whether that person is guilty or not, everyone loves to punch the nazi. Give me an example of a ‘left winger’ who is allowed to spew hate speech on social media, and give me an example of a right winger who has been banned unfairly ? Munroe Bergdof for one. And there aren't any right wingers I have said have been banned unfairly, that wasn't the point in the post so stop trying to take it there, but I can give you a huge example of someone who is nowhere near right wing but people try to cancel constantly and have hatred towards because he promotes free speech and invites open conversation with all spectrums. Joe Rogan. Never heard of Munroe, I have definitely heard of Joe Rogan, I like his podcasts and UFC work, when did he get banned from Twitter etc? He didn't because he doesn't really use them, my point is he is hated for no reason and accused of being right wing when he isn't, and there have been many attempts to cancel him over the years, they've failed because he has no bosses, or at least didn't until Spotify. The only reason Spotify will fight for him is because they paid 100m for him, if they hadn't, he'd be in a tricky position and be asked to no host certain guests and not say certain things by Spotify under pressure from people who disagree with him Who hates him? Obviously he hasn’t done anything wrong , otherwise he would have been removed from Twitter or sacked. I am struggling to see what your point is, are you saying that he shouldn’t be trolled on social media, if so , then I agree with you No I'm saying there is a huge cancel culture culture where simply accusing people of something can have their lives destroyed. He is on shaky ground right now because he now has an employer, his freedom of speech is under threat, if he says something that people from the left of politics don't like they will put pressure on Spotify to get rid of him, whether they do or not is not the point, the fact they have that power of "oh I don't like that, cancel it" is very very bad. I think your overplaying this, give me an example when someone has been unfairly ‘cancelled’ ? You do realise he will have a contract with Spotify that will protect him from any unfair accusations, You're just nit picking now. Focusing on cancelled, and ignoring the fact that there are large parts of the left that can say and do what they like and be protected and accepted. When you have groups of people that can assign a label to someone they disagree with and then that same group is fine if violence is used against that person there's a huge imbalance in society. I am not but picking, just give me examples from this large group from the ‘left’ who can say and do what they like? It isn’t a difficult question to answer. Munroe bergdoff is one. Research that name. I gave you that ages ago. How about the government leaders who encourage the riots and anarchy in the US in the aftermath of George Floyd? Have they been held to account in the way that Farage would be, or that trump was? No. One name out of this large group ? Can you remind which political leaders held a rally and told their supporters to ‘fight like hell’ that led to a riot at congress? which left wing leaders wouldn’t accept democracy and kept lying about voter fraud? Can you remind me which left wing political leader endorsed and stood in front of a photo of a queue of migrants with the slogan ‘breaking point’ and btw Farage is still on social media. You talk about cancel cultures yet you can’t fine me a single example of a person who has been ‘cancelled ‘ unfairly Yeah, all trumps opposition did exactly that during the riots and then turned around and they and the rest of the world condemned trump when he did the same thing. There's the imbalance. If I punched trump I'd be a hero to anyone who hates trump, so there's the imbalance again. It's okay to punch people you disagree with to large parts of the left. Again, there's the imbalance. It's why trump got in in the first place for fuck sake you should watch johnathan pies stand up.
I would rather not. If I punched Biden I would be hero to many, what is your point again?
You have to be able to climb walls to do that. "Or break into his bunker... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from. "For sure. But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins. There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous. "Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore? "Tommy Robinson is now irrelevant, Trump will be in a couple of years, social media were right to ban them both | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore? "I disagree with the all violence is equal. For example in my opinion throwing a milkshake is less serious than say the murder of Jo Cox. I would argue that the recipient of the milkshake being a racist, is more than just "someone I disagree with". For example, I don't agree with Clarkson, but he got milkshaked, and I think he was less deserving of it than Farage. I've no idea if Tommy Robinson gained or lost support for being kicked off Twitter or wherever he was. Same with Trump, I don't know if they gained supporters because of their deplatforming. It's a tricky subject, they broke the user agreements they ticked boxes for when they signed up. So Twitter has the right to remove them. But they should still have the right to speak, no matter how abhorrent the things they say are. We need a better educated public to be able to see through the bullshit and be analytical about what they consume. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Asking for a friend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"like i said earlier about the reverend, who tweeted if you clapped for captain tom you are a nationalist colonialist etc etc not just clapping an old guy who raised money! theres some fucked up thinking!
1 person
Who got absolutely slaughtered. "What are you saying, there's only one person in UK who thinks every old white guy represents colonialism lol I guess you want me to name them all lol It's an example that people have no idea what right wing or nationalist is, they also have no idea what iconic is, awesome or legendary..... it's all just thrown out there, on this site they get confused between England and English! Your a legend Lionel lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I am curious..... Did the milkshake bring the boys to the yard.
Asking for a friend. "https://images.app.goo.gl/ojXSfZRaH2n5LBxT7 Seems to have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I am curious..... Did the milkshake bring the boys to the yard.
Asking for a friend.
https://images.app.goo.gl/ojXSfZRaH2n5LBxT7
Seems to have."Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore?
Tommy Robinson is now irrelevant, Trump will be in a couple of years, social media were right to ban them both "It's a mistake that you think that way. I'll put money on a trump return. And Tommy has gone full martyr, he may be gone out of the spotlight physically but all you need to do is look at the comments of a YT video of him and you'll see that his support is still very very strong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore?
I disagree with the all violence is equal. For example in my opinion throwing a milkshake is less serious than say the murder of Jo Cox.
I would argue that the recipient of the milkshake being a racist, is more than just "someone I disagree with".
For example, I don't agree with Clarkson, but he got milkshaked, and I think he was less deserving of it than Farage.
I've no idea if Tommy Robinson gained or lost support for being kicked off Twitter or wherever he was. Same with Trump, I don't know if they gained supporters because of their deplatforming. It's a tricky subject, they broke the user agreements they ticked boxes for when they signed up. So Twitter has the right to remove them. But they should still have the right to speak, no matter how abhorrent the things they say are.
We need a better educated public to be able to see through the bullshit and be analytical about what they consume.
"I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. There are incidents where left wing violence occurs too and it isn't just milkshakes, the US is really bad for it, republicans being shot, people going to talks being attacked just for being there. Luckily our country isn't that mad yet. I simply think that pushing everything that doesn't fit in the confines of "accepted speech" and throwing labels at anything outside of that realm is very dangerous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore?
Tommy Robinson is now irrelevant, Trump will be in a couple of years, social media were right to ban them both
It's a mistake that you think that way. I'll put money on a trump return. And Tommy has gone full martyr, he may be gone out of the spotlight physically but all you need to do is look at the comments of a YT video of him and you'll see that his support is still very very strong "Trumps is finished. Robinson is , and always was a puppet, he know he can’t appeal to his fan base anymore because he will end up in prison again. Twitter banning them both has weakened them considerably. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from. "Left wing violence throwing a milkshake Right wing violence knifing a mp to death Slight difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"like i said earlier about the reverend, who tweeted if you clapped for captain tom you are a nationalist colonialist etc etc not just clapping an old guy who raised money! theres some fucked up thinking!
1 person
Who got absolutely slaughtered.
What are you saying, there's only one person in UK who thinks every old white guy represents colonialism lol
I guess you want me to name them all lol
It's an example that people have no idea what right wing or nationalist is, they also have no idea what iconic is, awesome or legendary..... it's all just thrown out there, on this site they get confused between England and English!
Your a legend Lionel lol "Nope there are probally more but they highlighted one and vilified. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
Left wing violence throwing a milkshake
Right wing violence knifing a mp to death
Slight difference"Wasn't a group of republican senators shot at the other year? Didnt a person going to hear Shapiro talk het smashed in the head with a bike lock? By a professor from that same university? The riots in Paris that happen on an almost monthly basis? Antifa? Communism - a left wing ideology, maoism - the same, every ideology based around revolutionising the way the world works is backed up by violence that is excused by its base message of compassion! And its that that is a huge problem, "we thought he was a nazi so we raided and trashed his home" - that's the justification given by left wing extremists after they did just that to an innocent family. When violence has a supposed motive of compassion, it doesn't matter if the wrong person gets caught up because it is "for the cause". Right wing violence does not have that get out clause, everyone knows it is wrong and condemns it, the only people that don't are the ones doing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore?
Tommy Robinson is now irrelevant, Trump will be in a couple of years, social media were right to ban them both
It's a mistake that you think that way. I'll put money on a trump return. And Tommy has gone full martyr, he may be gone out of the spotlight physically but all you need to do is look at the comments of a YT video of him and you'll see that his support is still very very strong
Trumps is finished. Robinson is , and always was a puppet, he know he can’t appeal to his fan base anymore because he will end up in prison again. Twitter banning them both has weakened them considerably. "I disagree on both counts, see, the problem is you are caught up in the personalities, Robinson and trump, and underestimating their support. Their support can resurrect them at any time and when that happens you want it to be public not on the low | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The issue is everything has been hijacked by the media for cause and effect purposes. There is no true biased media coverage anymore. I tend to look at both sides and try and have middle ground. There is no more 1st amendment rights anymore because the majority of social media suppreses individuality. Social platforms are named social it's a way of communicating. You can't change other people's views by supression. You push people to the outer fringe." Completely agree! The only way to ever get close to changing any views is to pull everyone into the conversation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The issue is everything has been hijacked by the media for cause and effect purposes. There is no true biased media coverage anymore. I tend to look at both sides and try and have middle ground. There is no more 1st amendment rights anymore because the majority of social media suppreses individuality. Social platforms are named social it's a way of communicating. You can't change other people's views by supression. You push people to the outer fringe. Completely agree! The only way to ever get close to changing any views is to pull everyone into the conversation" I have proven people wrong with certain aspects of my life by showing learning by example not by fear mongering. People will always fear the unknown and if that unknown is hyped up enough people perception of reality is skewed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it healthy to allow silencing of speech that is deemed (rightly or wrongly) hateful? As has been seen over recent years, many voices have been silenced, deplatformed, banned etc... Is it healthy? Of course, people may get offended by their speech, but if they are in the limelight, isn't that safer? Id rather have them bang square in the limelight where they can be watched and spoken to... If they are pushed out of the spectrum and are talking where they can't be heard, how can they be monitored? What are your thoughts? I don’t think people should be allowed to profiteer from hate speech. How can a person like Katie Hopkins be allowed to make a living from the horrible , racist things she says ? I agree, she shouldn't be able to make money from it, but the ideas she spouts should be kept in the limelight as with any extreme views so that they can be managed. If we allow any kind of hateful speach to have an equal platform the problem escalates massively when enough impressionable people get brainwashed into thinking it's true or convert to that way of thinking. Hate speech and general lies peddlled through any platform needs to be stamped down hard and fast. Okay, I accept your premise, but, if that is the case, why are the left side of politics allowed to speak openly and organise? And when their speech turns into violence its allowed? If speech that could create violence needs to be stamped out then there needs to be a balance. The left barely have any voice at all here Really? You believe that? Social media, traditional media, all of them give platforms to the left and promote their ideas. They also allow the left to pressure them over people who don't align 100% with the lefts views, Jk Rowling is a prime example. Mainstream media is dominated by the right wing. JK Rowling pumps out hate against the trans community. So of course normal people are going to call her out on it via whatever platform they're on. And it's not only left wingers who are against transphobia, it's people from all over the political spectrum Standing up for women's right isn't transphobic. That's all I know she has done. How can you say media is right wing dominated? How? Where? Anyway, we are well off topic, the original post was about keeping the extremes on both sides in the limelight so they can be monitored. Newspapers..right wing..mail,express,times,sun.tthe observer,metro, can we count the star? Centre indy,guardian,mirror Left....erm... I'm not gonna get started on how back to front the political spectrum is, that's a huge subject on its own lol, so, How are they right wing? Right wing is groups who The guardian is left wing, you don't more left wing than what Owen Jones says for suck sake . There are really dangerous people on the right and lumping them in with anything that disagrees with Owen Jones is a huge and dangerous mistake.
Yep I was gonna say owen jokes but he is hardly extreme.
As a country we have shifted to the right.
Remember when that nick Griffin was on qt and he got ripped apart.
Now you get Farage saying similar things and its accepted.
Over the last 20 the country as a whole has moved to the right and whereas you may have left wing voices on the likes if Twitter.. the right are more vocal.
Yeah more vocal and more heavily criticised and monitored for saying despicable shit. Which is unbalanced. And needs to be balanced lol
Like I said before.
For a group who are so heavily silenced, we don't half hear them a lot.
Violence against those people is not only accepted but advocated. Look at the milkshakes thing. If I did that (or worse, let's say I punched) to anyone else it's unacceptable, but if I did it to Farage I'd be lauded across the country by huge numbers of people. And that's the imbalance.
The man who threw the milkshake was fined £350
I'd have given him a medal tbf
And that's the imbalance, applauding violence against someone you don't agree with is wrong, no matter what side its comes from.
For sure.
But it's also a mistake to suggest there is an equivalence between someone throwing a milkshake at a racist. And someone like Tommy Robinson or Farage or Hopkins.
There are degrees from inappropriate to dangerous.
Violence because you disagree with someone is wrong, there are no degrees to it. No matter what they are saying. And to go back to my original point, pushing extremists and their suporters underground through threat of violence or by cancelling them just makes them a martyr in their supporters eyes. Do you think Tommy lost support when he got kicked off everywhere or gained it? What about trump? You think him being kicked off twitter lost him supporters or made them more hardcore?
Tommy Robinson is now irrelevant, Trump will be in a couple of years, social media were right to ban them both
It's a mistake that you think that way. I'll put money on a trump return. And Tommy has gone full martyr, he may be gone out of the spotlight physically but all you need to do is look at the comments of a YT video of him and you'll see that his support is still very very strong
Trumps is finished. Robinson is , and always was a puppet, he know he can’t appeal to his fan base anymore because he will end up in prison again. Twitter banning them both has weakened them considerably.
I disagree on both counts, see, the problem is you are caught up in the personalities, Robinson and trump, and underestimating their support. Their support can resurrect them at any time and when that happens you want it to be public not on the low "I disagree , Robinson and Trump thrive on media coverage and notoriety. Without social media neither would have become as ‘popular’ as they became. Trump had 84 million followers on Twitter, that is a huge audience that thankfully has now gone . Robinson had his YouTube followers where he tried to spread his hate and racism, that has now gone , the same with Katie Hopkins. Without a platform these people are now consigned to the fringes, let them rot . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. " Please give me one example of one violent left wing group? Or even one real example of left wing violence, beyond that of a riot that does some damage to a shop? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Or one promotes hate towards the trans community and one is a proponent for free speech." This! 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. Please give me one example of one violent left wing group? Or even one real example of left wing violence, beyond that of a riot that does some damage to a shop?" There are plenty of violent left wing groups all over Europe. Just Google it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. Please give me one example of one violent left wing group? Or even one real example of left wing violence, beyond that of a riot that does some damage to a shop? There are plenty of violent left wing groups all over Europe. Just Google it " Where is the left wing violence here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are many left wings groups that like to use violence against what they deem as hate speech or just simply thing they don't agree with. Pretending there isn't doesn't help. Please give me one example of one violent left wing group? Or even one real example of left wing violence, beyond that of a riot that does some damage to a shop? There are plenty of violent left wing groups all over Europe. Just Google it Where is the left wing violence here?" It's mostly milkshake related violence from the "left" here. (Although personally think it's ridiculous to label all non-racist people as "left wing", but people do) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X" What is the 'institutional left? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been right violence here for decades There is no left wing equivalent. The only possible example would be the early 80s riots but they were a reaction against the police and social conditions. They were not organised by the left." https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/right-wing-extremism-fastest-growing-threat-says-uks-top-cop-in-counter-terrorism-12135071 Right wing violence is a serious threat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left?" The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been right violence here for decades There is no left wing equivalent. The only possible example would be the early 80s riots but they were a reaction against the police and social conditions. They were not organised by the left." In this country they prefer verbal violence, like being glad to see Tony Blair dead or Thatcher hanging from a tree. Ring any bells for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left?" You need me to explain this to you Lionel? Really your just pulling my leg aren’t you?x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? You need me to explain this to you Lionel? Really your just pulling my leg aren’t you?x" Explain it to me as well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been right violence here for decades There is no left wing equivalent. The only possible example would be the early 80s riots but they were a reaction against the police and social conditions. They were not organised by the left. In this country they prefer verbal violence, like being glad to see Tony Blair dead or Thatcher hanging from a tree. Ring any bells for you? " So not actual violence then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? You need me to explain this to you Lionel? Really your just pulling my leg aren’t you?x" Nope.. what's the institutional left? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? You need me to explain this to you Lionel? Really your just pulling my leg aren’t you?x Nope.. what's the institutional left?" Gorbachev, who lost power in 1991. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . " You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X" Here's some countries with left or centre left governments: "The top 10 happiest countries According to the 2020 report, the 10 happiest countries in the world are: Finland Denmark Switzerland Iceland Norway The Netherlands Sweden New Zealand Austria Luxembourg" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X" So we have to prove that the institutional left doesn’t exist rather than you explain that it does? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X So we have to prove that the institutional left doesn’t exist rather than you explain that it does? " No you made the statement that there is no such thing as the institutional left it’s a made up thing by the right wing ffs, we both know that your talking crap, it’s like someone else saying there isn’t an institutional right, that would be bollocks too because we know there is x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been right violence here for decades There is no left wing equivalent. The only possible example would be the early 80s riots but they were a reaction against the police and social conditions. They were not organised by the left. In this country they prefer verbal violence, like being glad to see Tony Blair dead or Thatcher hanging from a tree. Ring any bells for you? So not actual violence then?" Who knows. But when you support people who say things like that, or think they are the future, what does it say about you and your mindset? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X" I'm part of the institutional left?
I wish someone would have told me
Are there any perks?
But in all seriousness, I simply asked you a question, I'm not sure how that constitoes closing down debate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X So we have to prove that the institutional left doesn’t exist rather than you explain that it does? No you made the statement that there is no such thing as the institutional left it’s a made up thing by the right wing ffs, we both know that your talking crap, it’s like someone else saying there isn’t an institutional right, that would be bollocks too because we know there is x " Ok, so which sections of society are institutional left and right? The press? The government ? The police? The Army? The Banks? Because you can’t have both institutional left and right for the same section . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it seems the right's phoney culture war rumbles on against a fantasy enemy." And the bigger question is why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been right violence here for decades There is no left wing equivalent. The only possible example would be the early 80s riots but they were a reaction against the police and social conditions. They were not organised by the left. In this country they prefer verbal violence, like being glad to see Tony Blair dead or Thatcher hanging from a tree. Ring any bells for you? So not actual violence then? Who knows. But when you support people who say things like that, or think they are the future, what does it say about you and your mindset? " Well we do know. The examples of racist attacks for example dwarfes any left wing equivalent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it seems the right's phoney culture war rumbles on against a fantasy enemy. And the bigger question is why." Because they are scared, they realise that their racism, homophobia etc etc is being called out and challenged. They are terrified | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it seems the right's phoney culture war rumbles on against a fantasy enemy. And the bigger question is why." We live in a country where do gooder and human rights have become derogatory terms. It's very insidious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It reminds me of the comedian Stewart Lee ‘You're telling me that if you say you're English these days, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail? joke, they believe that there is an invisible entity left wing entity ‘ that is persecuting them and denying their freedom " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It reminds me of the comedian Stewart Lee ‘You're telling me that if you say you're English these days, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail? joke, they believe that there is an invisible entity left wing entity ‘ that is persecuting them and denying their freedom " I'll repeat myself again, have a watch of Jonathan pie - Back to the studio. A very left leaning comedian. But he sees the issues you are denying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It reminds me of the comedian Stewart Lee ‘You're telling me that if you say you're English these days, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail? joke, they believe that there is an invisible entity left wing entity ‘ that is persecuting them and denying their freedom I'll repeat myself again, have a watch of Jonathan pie - Back to the studio. A very left leaning comedian. But he sees the issues you are denying. " Yeah , he is funny, not a patch on Stewart Lee though . It does make me laugh that you have started a thread and a debate that hasn’t given you the answers and support you wanted and you are now leaving in a huff stating that you were right all along and anyone who doesn’t agree is wrong . Priceless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It reminds me of the comedian Stewart Lee ‘You're telling me that if you say you're English these days, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail? joke, they believe that there is an invisible entity left wing entity ‘ that is persecuting them and denying their freedom I'll repeat myself again, have a watch of Jonathan pie - Back to the studio. A very left leaning comedian. But he sees the issues you are denying. " Yep I saw that one..he hs great johnathon pie. Although tbf calling out johnsons bufoonery doesn't necessarily mean you are left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
"Welcome to the politics section  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
"
And debate is being shut down by the left in the very places where it should be encouraged, ie colleges and universities | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
"I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer. Now what's the equivalent on the left? Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down. There is no comparison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
And debate is being shut down by the left in the very places where it should be encouraged, ie colleges and universities "What debate is being shut down exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer.
Now what's the equivalent on the left?
Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down.
There is no comparison."Does being racist automatically make you right wing and being against racism automatically left wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer.
Now what's the equivalent on the left?
Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down.
There is no comparison.
Does being racist automatically make you right wing and being against racism automatically left wing?"Racists on the whole tend to be right wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It reminds me of the comedian Stewart Lee ‘You're telling me that if you say you're English these days, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail? joke, they believe that there is an invisible entity left wing entity ‘ that is persecuting them and denying their freedom I'll repeat myself again, have a watch of Jonathan pie - Back to the studio. A very left leaning comedian. But he sees the issues you are denying. Yeah , he is funny, not a patch on Stewart Lee though . It does make me laugh that you have started a thread and a debate that hasn’t given you the answers and support you wanted and you are now leaving in a huff stating that you were right all along and anyone who doesn’t agree is wrong . Priceless "I don't want any answers, I just can't be bothered asking questions and being answered with questions. The point about Jonathan pie wasn't about him being funny or not, it was about how he, a left leaning person is pointing out the serious issues with the culture of intolerance, labelling, cancelling, shutting down of debate and the excusing of violence that is growing in the left. But you bypassed that because it someone, among many, from the left that is telling you exactly what you're denying to me. I honestly couldn't care, both sides are fucking idiots and just cause more and more division, but like it says in that article by the Atlantic that I posted, pushing one side or the other to the fringes just creates more extremism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer.
Now what's the equivalent on the left?
Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down.
There is no comparison.
Does being racist automatically make you right wing and being against racism automatically left wing?
Racists on the whole tend to be right wing."That's not what I asked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer.
Now what's the equivalent on the left?
Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down.
There is no comparison.
Does being racist automatically make you right wing and being against racism automatically left wing?"Definitely not, I think we are getting confused slightly here . Nobody is being shut down or ‘cancelled ‘ for being right wing, they are being silenced because they are making racist, homophobic, sexist etc comments . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer.
Now what's the equivalent on the left?
Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down.
There is no comparison.
Does being racist automatically make you right wing and being against racism automatically left wing?
Racists on the whole tend to be right wing.
That's not what I asked"Yes you did. Racism is historically right wing. Those on the left tend to be anti racism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't be bothered with this thread anymore keep thinking that there isn't an inbalance or that only one side has a destructive quality. It will only serve to destroy all debate. When you have a feminist (Jk Rowling) speaking up for women being publically bombarded and calls for her deplatforming and her being sent deaths threats simply for talking about womens issues, and all of it coming from the so called tolerant side of politics and yet they still deny it, there's a serious problem. Far Right wing actions are hallmarked by racism and violence, and condemned universally by everything left of them, far left wing is hallmarked by intolerance, use of government force and revolutionist thought which is also backed by violence, and has been for centuries, I've given you loads of examples and I don't know why you'd deny it, it's in the history books.
Regardless, no voices should be removed from discourse, you want an open educated society, give voice to both people that should be avoided and people that should be looked up to. Education by example is the best education, and You can't educate by example about people that should be avoided if they aren't there to be an example.
I get what you are trying to say but look at right wing violence in this country..Stephen Lawrence,jo cox,those fuckwits who marched through london in the summer.
Now what's the equivalent on the left?
Shouting at people on twitter,pulling a statue down.
There is no comparison.
Does being racist automatically make you right wing and being against racism automatically left wing?
Racists on the whole tend to be right wing."But there's a whole host of people from the left that give horrendous abuse to people of colour if that person or people doesn't agree that racism is the primary cause of whatever occurrence is being talked about at the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture yet have turned it into a very efficient & effective weapon, we hear you shouting “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE” show me examples, it’s the right wing media blah blah blah the fact you want to close down debate & freedom of speech & no I’m not saying hate speech should be tolerated, but if people in the past had not debated such things then opinions might of still been what they where. The problem the left have with this self perpetuating weapon of righteousness is that it’s continually catching up with them & at some point they will be canceled by those they once considered their friends, they will of lost their right to tell us how righteous they are, & no longer have the ability to move the centre line in politics again & for evermore be known as right wingers lol. X What is the 'institutional left? The ‘institutional left’ is a fantasy, made up group created by the right wing . You are part of & therefore proof of the institutional left, the fact you can’t see it, the only things you post about the way you can only validate any of your points with left wing links. Here’s one for you, you prove that the institutional left is a made up group by the right wing. I know I will have to ask you many times & you will use some more of your institutional left wing tricks to close down debate. I’ve told you before just because you disagree with someone/thing does not make it right wing, & because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not left wing to others. Would you of said the same thing if I had used the institutional right, it’s a made up group by the left wing no you wouldn’t you’d of agreed with it. X I'm part of the institutional left?
I wish someone would have told me
Are there any perks?
But in all seriousness, I simply asked you a question, I'm not sure how that constitoes closing down debate?"Yes Lionel you are, there are no perks accept the feeling you are on the right side of the debate, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing being to the left it’s just one of the tactic they use cancellation x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
