The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15035978
@Presvias
Yes, that one.
And his arrest was for a youtube video.

Eitherway, as long as he did not target a specific individual, then he should not have been arrested.
Freedom of speech is not only the things you like, but everything including even the most hateful and detestable speech and opinions there are.
If you start taking it based on what you like or dislike, then it is only a matter of time before someone takes yours as they don't like what you say.

Yet, for some reason, this seems hard to understand for many people, as if the countless examples of these policies backfiring every time they were implemented including to this very day are somehow still unconvincing.



You seem to think that what he said will somehow lead me to support his arrest and insinuating that how could I possibly support freedom of speech even for that type of guys.
I support absolute freedom of speech for everyone, and since he did not attack or harass a specific individual, then he's in his whole right to say whatever he wants irregardless of how racist or repugnant it might be.
If you don't like what he says, there is an 'x' button on the top right of the page which you can use to stop listening or reading what he says and writes.



To make the case very clear because I know you guys are trying to go there;
Even Nazis, literal Nazis, have the right to be Nazis under the freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and freedom of association.
As long as they don't pass over the rights, freedoms, and liberties of others, neither you nor I nor anyone has the right to harm them or stop them from practicing their freedoms.
If you don't like what they're saying, don't listen to them; If you want to counter their ideas, you debate them in the free market of ideas, you do not silence them or jail them or punish them as you'll simply drive them under ground and start a time bomb until someone like Trump comes along and blows the led off and burns the entire system.

Just like you don't like their ideas, they don't like yours, and if you support jailing and silencing your political opponents by force, then don't complain when the tide turns and they do the same to you.
When you take the rights of even one person, you might have as well taken the rights of all people.
#15035983
@anasawad

"I support absolute freedom of speech for everyone,"

Well, then you're in a minority and are calling for something quite OTT.

I don't believe that, for example, publicly calling for all Muslims to be killed, or calling for racism to be perpetrated against black people, or saying the holocaust was great is really alright - you're actively encouraging extremist hate and direct violence.

I'd treat those things as tangible threats, they're more than just 'speech'.
#15035993
@Presvias
If you think a given idea is bad, you can argue against it and convince people away from it.
If you ban speech, then it is only a matter of time before your beliefs are under the spotlight.

If the idea was so bad, then it wouldn't be hard to argue against it.


And also, no, I'm not a minority on this. Infact, millions died and still dying fighting to gain unrestricted freedom of speech, belief, and association; Those very same rights and freedoms you're casually arguing to take them away.
And be assured, if this far-left agenda did succeed in taking hold and spreading, and the freedom of speech was lost, the system will become oppressive, state power will be abused, and many more people will die fighting to gain that right yet again.
#15036000
^ You can't argue against folks who genuinely set to want to kill all the jews, that's the point. They're extremists and want to FORCE THEIR views on reasonable people like us guys here.

Therefore, no I could never agree that all speech without exception should be tolerated.
#15036012
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Ooh, so you mean I just have to go through every police report, media report, social media post, every arrest record, every constitution in the world, every study in the world, etc and if nothing came up then it's a proven negative.
So I have to be, to borrow a word from you, omniscient to be able to prove it.

You can't prove a negative.
You made a positive claim, now prove it.


At this point, I will assume that you have no evidence for your claim that racist speech causes no harm.

The articles I put explain why these are related.
The "PC police" have been on it for decades, Trump was simply the one who took the led off and it all blew up at once. It was suppressed by political correctness, and the minute a candidate took on political correctness, all the grudges went into the open.
Exactly what I've been saying all along, when you suppress something, it doesn't disappear, it just goes underground.


The articles you cited in out discussion were about arrests for online speech in the UK.

One arrest would be an infinite increase from zero arrests. 100s of arrests would be a massive increase from zero arrests.


And when were there zero arrests?

And considering that both the UK and Germany along with other nations in the EU are working to increase those numbers by increasing efficiency in cracking down on hate speech as the DW report states, then it's on the rise.
So yes, I already provided sufficient evidence and you're dancing around words.


Please provide a link for this DW report, or provide enough keywords that I may find it myself. Thanks.

He was arrested for publishing a comedy piece where he taught his girlfriend's dog to do Nazi salutes.
It was all over social media and I believe there is even a thread here about it.

In short, he got arrested for comedy.


What exactly was he charged with?
#15036033
@Pants-of-dog
At this point, I will assume that you have no evidence for your claim that racist speech causes no harm.

I don't because it's not possible.
It's a negative claim. You're committing a logical fallacy.

The articles you cited in out discussion were about arrests for online speech in the UK.

Yes, tweets and facebook posts that were described as homophobic and racist.
i.e. hate speech.

And when were there zero arrests?

I would assume right before these laws were passed that criminalizes speech, there were zero arrests for hate speech.

Logically.

Please provide a link for this DW report, or provide enough keywords that I may find it myself. Thanks.

Already did, couple of pages ago.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-dozens-of ... a-49080109

The suspects are also believed to have openly called for members to commit crimes,incited racial and religious hatred, and used banned symbols — the use of Nazi-associated imagery is illegal in Germany.

Germany has been struggling to enforce its strict hate speech laws when it comes to comments made online, but the lack of concern most social media platforms have exhibited towards reining in racist and hateful content has left authorities and politicians searching for ways to get hateful speech offline.



What exactly was he charged with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
#15036041
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

I don't because it's not possible.
It's a negative claim. You're committing a logical fallacy.


Not only did I provide an explanation as to how you are wrong from a professor of logic, but I also provided an example of proving a negative.

If it were a fallacy, it would have been impossible for me to actually prove a negative as i did.

Yes, tweets and facebook posts that were described as homophobic and racist.
i.e. hate speech.


So we agree that they were not about Trump’s rise to power as a reaction to PC speech,

I would assume right before these laws were passed that criminalizes speech, there were zero arrests for hate speech.

Logically.


And when was this?

Already did, couple of pages ago.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-dozens-of ... a-49080109


Please note that there is no mention of anyone being arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan


What exactly was he charged with?
#15036044
anasawad wrote:You can show how bad their ideas to the rest of the population.


They desire to force their beliefs on others, regardless of what anyone else thinks or does.

Simply disproving their ideas is not going to stop them.
#15036178
@Pants-of-dog
Not only did I provide an explanation as to how you are wrong from a professor of logic, but I also provided an example of proving a negative.

If it were a fallacy, it would have been impossible for me to actually prove a negative as i did.

You're asking to prove a universal negative.
Which is not possible.

So we agree that they were not about Trump’s rise to power as a reaction to PC speech,

Ha?
I put 2 on the UK, and 2 others about Trump in the US.

And when was this?

Depends on the country.

Please note that there is no mention of anyone being arrested.

Please note the quoted parts.

What exactly was he charged with?

Breach of section 127 of the communication act, which is essentially about publishing or sending offensive or threatening materials.
He was charged with publishing grossly offensive material, specifically the so-called Nazi Pug video which in itself was done as a joke.
So he was arrested for an offensive prank or joke to put it shortly.
#15036183
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: When we look at the mainstream, we find an increase in far right wing movements in power, or close to it - Trump, Orban, Duterte, Bolsonaro, the Front National in France . Thankfully, Salvini and his League have lost power in Italy. When we look at the mainstream, we find an increase in far right wing movements in power, or close to it - Trump, Orban, Duterte, Bolsonaro, the Front National in France . Thankfully, Salvini and his League have lost power in Italy. But there's nowhere in Europe or the west where the far left is growing in power. You're just making that up. It's rare for the centre-left to be in power.

That is great news if true.
HalleluYah
#15036598
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

You're asking to prove a universal negative.
Which is not possible.


No, I am not, and it is also possible to prove a universal negative.

I can, for example, prove that there are no snowflakes in the centre of any burning sun.

Ha?
I put 2 on the UK, and 2 others about Trump in the US.


Please link them again,

Depends on the country.


Since we are already discussing the UK, when did these laws come about there?

Please note the quoted parts.


You did not quote anything.

Breach of section 127 of the communication act, which is essentially about publishing or sending offensive or threatening materials.
He was charged with publishing grossly offensive material, specifically the so-called Nazi Pug video which in itself was done as a joke.
So he was arrested for an offensive prank or joke to put it shortly.


If he was arrested for being offensive, then this is not about hate speech. But even so, this is just one case.

You are arguing that there is a recent significant increase.
#15038059
@Pants-of-dog
No, I am not, and it is also possible to prove a universal negative.

I can, for example, prove that there are no snowflakes in the centre of any burning sun.

That's an entirely different thing.
One is a theoretical conclusion to a scientific fact.
The other includes records and individual stories.

To prove a negative of such nature, one has to go through all possible existing records. i.e. be omniscient in that context.



Please link them again,

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ump-214472
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opin ... -vote.html

Both point to the same point I'm making.
Canceling or silencing people never works, it only pushes them underground and increases the hatred and anger dwelling there.
You want to remove bad ideas, you have to confront them in public.
You show why they're bad, you don't make them seem anti-establishment or anti-mainstream.

Since we are already discussing the UK, when did these laws come about there?

Honestly forgot, but generally late 2000s (2000-2010) and kept expanding in coverage and scope in the last few years.

You did not quote anything.

It's 2 posts ago.

If he was arrested for being offensive, then this is not about hate speech. But even so, this is just one case.

He was arrested and fined over an offensive joke that was not directed at any specific person, meaning it is about hate speech.

And it only takes one case to prove that these laws are active.
And they're increasing since:
1- A jump from no arrests to arrests is an increase.
2- Reports about 10s and 100s of cases and the security forces in multiple countries seeking to increase efforts in this manner does mean they're increasing in size and scope.
#15038070
anasawad wrote:@Presvias
They need recruits to force their ideas don't they?


People who are easily swayed owing to their various imbalances/issues.

Airing greivances is not always a good idea, when those who are easily swayed latch onto mob mentality and it all goes sour.

It's just my opinion anyways.
#15038080
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

That's an entirely different thing.
One is a theoretical conclusion to a scientific fact.
The other includes records and individual stories.

To prove a negative of such nature, one has to go through all possible existing records. i.e. be omniscient in that context.


Not really, no.

For example, one could design an experiment where people of colour are subjected to blatant racism and subtle racism and see which causes a negative impact.

If you are correct and things like racist speech, which are more subtle than things like violence or inciting violence, would have measurably less impact.

So, they did this.

And it turns out subtle racism is sometimes even worse than blatant racism:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 0212468170

    Cognitive costs of contemporary prejudice

    Mary C. Murphy, Jennifer A. Richeson, J. Nicole Shelton,

    Abstract
    Two studies examined the cognitive costs of blatant and subtle racial bias during interracial interactions. In Study 1, Black participants engaged in a 10-minute, face-to-face interaction with a White confederate who expressed attitudes and behaviors consistent with blatant, subtle, or no racial bias. Consistent with contemporary theories of modern racism, interacting with a subtly biased, compared with a blatantly biased, White partner impaired the cognitive functioning of Blacks. Study 2 revealed that Latino participants suffered similar cognitive impairments when exposed to a White partner who displayed subtle, compared with blatant, racial bias. The theoretical and practical implications for understanding the dynamics of interracial interactions in the context of contemporary bias are discussed.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ump-214472
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opin ... -vote.html

Both point to the same point I'm making.
Canceling or silencing people never works, it only pushes them underground and increases the hatred and anger dwelling there.
You want to remove bad ideas, you have to confront them in public.
You show why they're bad, you don't make them seem anti-establishment or anti-mainstream.


Those seem to be editorials by conservatives.

While I understand why conservatives would like to see it as a reaction to behaviour by progressives, Trump’s rise to power is more complicated than that.

Racism helped him. The fact that Clinton was considered to be extremely unlikable, obviously corrupt, and uncharismatic is also a factor.

Also important was the fact that he was not a politician before running for POTUS. He was seen as not part of the establishment, despite the obvious fact that he was part of the establishment.

So, while a backlash against perceived oppression by people who oppose bigotry may have been part of Trump’s rise to power, it was neither the only reason nor the most important one.

Honestly forgot, but generally late 2000s (2000-2010) and kept expanding in coverage and scope in the last few years.


It was actually started in 1986, and has really only expanded twice: once to also protect homosexuals, and once to protect religions.

If the problem is the expansion of these laws, then conservatives are equally responsible since half of the expansion came about to protect religions.

It's 2 posts ago.

He was arrested and fined over an offensive joke that was not directed at any specific person, meaning it is about hate speech.

And it only takes one case to prove that these laws are active.
And they're increasing since:
1- A jump from no arrests to arrests is an increase.
2- Reports about 10s and 100s of cases and the security forces in multiple countries seeking to increase efforts in this manner does mean they're increasing in size and scope.


1- The jump from no arrests to arrests happened in 1986. I doubt you can blame modern progressives for something that happened over thirty years ago.

2- If these reports are so numerous, please link to some of them.
#15038087
Behind the mask: The people in Antifa
CNN Aug 13, 2018
Antifa often show up to counterprotest dressed in black, wearing masks. They say it’s to prevent violence, but many believe Antifa members provoke violence. CNN’s Sara Ganim went in search of Antifa members to find out who the people are, behind the masks/

However, we know that CNN will portray these people as outstanding citizens trying to do the right thing. :lol:
#15038272
@Pants-of-dog
Not really, no.

For example, one could design an experiment where people of colour are subjected to blatant racism and subtle racism and see which causes a negative impact.

If you are correct and things like racist speech, which are more subtle than things like violence or inciting violence, would have measurably less impact.

So, they did this.

And it turns out subtle racism is sometimes even worse than blatant racism:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 0212468170

Cognitive costs of contemporary prejudice

Mary C. Murphy, Jennifer A. Richeson, J. Nicole Shelton,

Abstract
Two studies examined the cognitive costs of blatant and subtle racial bias during interracial interactions. In Study 1, Black participants engaged in a 10-minute, face-to-face interaction with a White confederate who expressed attitudes and behaviors consistent with blatant, subtle, or no racial bias. Consistent with contemporary theories of modern racism, interacting with a subtly biased, compared with a blatantly biased, White partner impaired the cognitive functioning of Blacks. Study 2 revealed that Latino participants suffered similar cognitive impairments when exposed to a White partner who displayed subtle, compared with blatant, racial bias. The theoretical and practical implications for understanding the dynamics of interracial interactions in the context of contemporary bias are discussed.

1- That's not a universal claim.
2- That's not a negative claim.
3- That study along with many many others reach a conclusion that subjecting someone to racism causes stress, which all stress causes a temporary reduction in cognitive abilities.
And by that logic, pretty much everything in life from the various social interactions, traffic, relationships, work, debt, deadlines, loud noise, any form of inconvenience, etc should be banned as well, because they all cause the same effect which, by your definition, is physical harm.

Causing inconvenience or stress is not a crime and should not be so; Active discrimination is already illegal, thoughts or words of racism, sexism, etc, however, should not be since by that logic everything will be.

Those seem to be editorials by conservatives.

While I understand why conservatives would like to see it as a reaction to behaviour by progressives, Trump’s rise to power is more complicated than that.

Racism helped him. The fact that Clinton was considered to be extremely unlikable, obviously corrupt, and uncharismatic is also a factor.

Also important was the fact that he was not a politician before running for POTUS. He was seen as not part of the establishment, despite the obvious fact that he was part of the establishment.

So, while a backlash against perceived oppression by people who oppose bigotry may have been part of Trump’s rise to power, it was neither the only reason nor the most important one.

It sure was the one that pushed these things underground and allowed them to grow.

It was actually started in 1986, and has really only expanded twice: once to also protect homosexuals, and once to protect religions.

If the problem is the expansion of these laws, then conservatives are equally responsible since half of the expansion came about to protect religions.

1- The jump from no arrests to arrests happened in 1986. I doubt you can blame modern progressives for something that happened over thirty years ago.

And both are bad, having conservative snowflakes banning things doesn't mean it's ok for progressive snowflakes to start banning as well.

2- If these reports are so numerous, please link to some of them.

Already did.
You can just search arrested for tweets for one, and that alone is a miss.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 16

Gaza is not under Israeli occupation. Telling […]

https://twitter.com/ShadowofEzra/status/178113719[…]

Lies. Did you have difficulty understanding t[…]

Al Quds day was literally invented by the Ayatolla[…]