321–330 of 443 posts
I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice , but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.
This one of The Crown's protectors who is being disrespected. Now do you understand?
I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice , but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.
It's just standard 'edgy' anti-english diatribe from a Scot. It's really nothing I don't hear regularly either out in public or from friend-adjacent people here. It's bad taste and trashy but that's kind of it. The problem is exactly that it's not an unusual attitude to hear. The difference is who it was aimed at. So for me the real issue is that we're cherry picking when we apply a very vague and loosely applied law…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with banning things like "racism" is that words change meaning over time. Maybe some time in the future, any reference to "White Privlege" may be considered racist, for instance.
The OK hand sign is racist now. There's rumbles of milk being racist. The scary thing that should terrify everyone is we are going to come to a point where being called racist no longer matters or nobody cares, and then your gonna see REAL racism come back with a fury and force you wont like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Racism is wrong and dangerous, and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it. Censoring it might keep the racists to their ugly selves, but that's OK with me.
> and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you actually care about fighting racism, you have to be able to see it. You have to be able to understand it. You have to be able to track it. Driving racist rhetoric underground, making it hard to follow what groups are being targeted or what lies are being told, making it more difficult to identify who is involv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>"I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. " Why not,and who gets to make the determination? I'm an atheist, and having so many blasphemy and religion protection laws in liberal democracies misused (or rather, used exactly as they are truly intended) so horribly has really taught me what poorly defined restrictions on speech mean in the real world. As for racist speech, I really truly b…
There is merit to the idea of the 'paradox of intolerance.' If we tolerate someone explicitly being intolerant, what have we achieved except changed who is allowed to be intolerant?
no there isn’t
I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice , but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.
18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here. This one of The Crown's protectors who is being disrespected. Now do you understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why "slippery slope" was listed among other logical fallacies. It is exactly the opposite.
When the UK brought in laws around lockdowns and handling covid people here were complaining that it was a slippery slope and the government would never give up those restrictions yet they did exactly that and those laws are no longer in play. In that case the slippery slope argument was a fallacy.
“this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now. Laws that you think are in stone -- they're gonna evaporate, man. You'll be able to marry a goat -- you mark my words!” - Bill O'Reilly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with banning things like "racism" is that words change meaning over time. Maybe some time in the future, any reference to "White Privlege" may be considered racist, for instance.
Well "white privledge" IS racist. So that's already the case. Just some people don't consider it that way.
Privilege is concept that certain attributes a person has confer relative advantages in the ways they interact with the world and the outcomes thereof. Acknowledging that is not and cannot be bigotry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privilege
Unless you're saying that white privilege is a consequence of racism, which would be correct, but not really relevant to the discussion here.
There's something I find loathesome about this "Send a message" sentencing. What the judge has done is send a clear message, that he won't sentence you on the merits of the case but will sentence you to serve his own agenda. The only message this sends is that justice has failed. It's always completely transparent who exactly gets made an example of, and who gets off with a slap on the wrist. We'll spend months hunti…
The entire concept of "setting an example" seems like a bit of fascism that has snuck its way into liberal democracy.
There's something I find loathesome about this "Send a message" sentencing. What the judge has done is send a clear message, that he won't sentence you on the merits of the case but will sentence you to serve his own agenda. The only message this sends is that justice has failed. It's always completely transparent who exactly gets made an example of, and who gets off with a slap on the wrist. We'll spend months hunti…
The entire concept of "setting an example" seems like a bit of fascism that has snuck its way into liberal democracy.
Not that I disagree that setting an example is a part of liberal democracies, but at least in the US, we've been "setting examples" since forever. It's just that as a society we deem most of the people who the courts have historically used to "set an example" expendable.