151–160 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.
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
> people always show that it has never really been about freedom (emphasis mine)
Which people? They always act this way? It was never about freedom, for anyone? Who could possibly say this authoritatively?
I think the last ~5 years has put a bright light onto freedom of speech. It is a complicated topic with some surprisingly nuanced positions. Does it include the ability to say what you want wherever you want? Or without consequence? There are multiple vectors to it.
I consider myself a free speech advocate. But i have no military fetishism that you claim is one of the root causes for free speech support (a weird combo). I support free speech because... i think people speaking their mind freely is a net positive. That appears to be increasingly controversial these days. That's fine, more room for discussion.
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
I think you may be looking for an issue where there is none on this one. While "the usual crowd" absolutely rightly believes in canceling the cancelers as pushback for anti-freedom policies like the cancel culture embraced by the left and progressives, I just Googled the guy's name and there's barely any news articles on it at all aside from a few tabloid-tech style sites like this one, starting a day or two ago. I'd…
Unironically canceling the cancelers to pushback against cancel culture? Maybe the horseshoe theory has some merit after all.
Death threats, after all, are worse than being glad someone is dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We've established - quite clearly - that in an emergency the government can lock everything down for 2 years and that lip service to liberty or human rights means nothing. Emergencies happen every 2-3 years. Why won't we see similar anti-liberty measures again in the next 20 years? 'We' 'know' it 'works'. It isn't even clear that we'll be spared another pandemic through that timeframe, the world is quite small these…
Yet we continue as if nothing is off.
This is society, where politeness is codified in law.
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
Personally, I'm of two minds about it: this isn't a "cancel culture" situation, because evidently he did break a law. He's not being shunned by society, he's just getting arrested for a crime — however ridiculous the crime may be.
The main argument against this sentence is that other people do the same thing all the time and don't get punished for it. That's not a strong defense. The other argument is that the law itself is inappropriately applied, which it probably is. But this guy wasn't engaged in civil disobedience, he was a drunken idiot who thought he could shoot his mouth off with impunity, and to his surprise he got caught in the system. He should appeal, and the law should be clarified, changed, or struck down, because it's being selectively applied and that's a bit scary. But, this isn't shocking, and the guy isn't a sympathetic hero.
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
The problem with your view is 1) It is unsubstantiated - where do you see "crickets from the usual crowd"? 2) It is exaggerated and playing into partisan tribalism of people. 3) Creates more division than helps, does not address anything really except teach toxicity.
You're flaming the fumes.
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
Disc: american commenting on uk legal matters. > people always show that it has never really been about freedom (emphasis mine) Which people? They always act this way? It was never about freedom, for anyone? Who could possibly say this authoritatively? I think the last ~5 years has put a bright light onto freedom of speech. It is a complicated topic with some surprisingly nuanced positions. Does it include the abilit…