The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 8 - 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

#15035465
foxdemon wrote:I don’t.

You see, when my father and mother divorced, my father married a woman from Macassar, Sulawesi. As everyone should know, the dominant ethnic group in that area is the Bugis, historically noted for being ferocious pirates. In fact, the myth of the boogie man came from Dutch stories about Bugis pirates, which they to.d their kids as horror stories

So why do I need a boogie man when my step mother is the real thing?


Anyway, I digress.

@anasawad

I agree that what is going on in West is of the same nature as the activities of the Brotherhood. I don’t know much of what is happening on the ground in the ME, but I do know what happens in Indonesia.

There is a modern Islam movement, dominated by aspirational class urban Muslims. Typically well educated. They are pushing a rather intolerant version of Islam on to Indonesian society. Status and power are very important to these aspirational class Muslims. An example movement is Hizb ur Tahrir, but there are other groups besides.


Basically, these progressive Muslim modernists are exactly the same sort of people as the Western progressive. They have very similar ways of looking at the world. I’d also say the Islamic extremists have a very similar way of looking at the world as the far right white supremacists. This probably shouldn’t be surprising as both the West and the Umma share a basic Abrahamic set of beliefs as a core culture.


Regrettably, Western progressives just can’t look in the mirror. They seem completely incapable of admitting to fault. Given their claim to power has a moral basis, I guess they can’t admit to fault without losing status. After all, they must believe they are the good guys.

It follows from a belief that one is the good guy that someone else must be the bad guy. And of course there must be victims to rescue from the bad guy. Hence all the talk about who can claim to be a victim.


But why? If you look at western economics for the last 50 years, you will observe a rising level of economic inequality. When there is a growing gap between the haves and have nots, there must be a system of prejudice that justifies the exclusion of the have nots. In the west, the dominant belief that most accepted was civil rights at the time (1970s).
So that is the belief system cooped to build the prejudice against those who were to become the new have nots, the white working class. Hence all the stuff about minorities, women, transgender, etc.


Basically rights for minorities were over emphasised and general rights were down played. In effect the aspirational class took to itself the prerogative of choosing who has rights and who doesn’t. The minorities were dependent on the aspirational class progressives and thus not a challenge to their power, while the white majority was a rival to their ambition for total social control.


Regarding universalism. Pax Americana needed it to spread their control in the wake of European imperial collapse. Liberalism went from a system enshrined in nation states to a universal system of beliefs more akin to religion. The problem with universalism is that it tends to intolerance.


So you put those things together, aspirational class using accepted moral causes to assert their political hegemony within western countries, and the needs of Pax Americana for universalism, and you get contemporary progressive liberalism, featuring positive rights for designated groups, intolerance of difference, and extreme moral self assured smugness.


But, I totally agree this outcome is not liberal in any meaningful sense. Liberalism is supposed to be about freedom from those who control the instruments of power.


Your ideology, whatever it is, equates to defending far-right Loyalist paramilitaries in NI.

So what right do you have to criticise 'liberals'?

You would have a point about neoliberals using civil rights to string people along/get them to bow down to the system.....Except your own ideology is a thousand times worse than theirs is.

Are you an Alt-Right little Englander? And it's absolutely fascinating that you're a minority yourself, fighting against civil rights.
#15035509
@Pants-of-dog
Because you would give the state the power to arrest and punish people for saying the wrong thing, and it would only be a matter of time before what you say becomes the "wrong thing".
That's effectively thought crimes.
#15035531
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
Because you would give the state the power to arrest and punish people for saying the wrong thing, and it would only be a matter of time before what you say becomes the "wrong thing".
That's effectively thought crimes.


The state already has that power.

Libel and slander are illegal. So is divulging private information. Uttering threats is a crime. There are many examples of the state arresting and punishing people for saying the wrong thing.

All of these are longstanding exceptions to free speech. None of this has resulted in the loss of free speech.
#15035544
@Pants-of-dog
Actually no, the state doesn't have that power in most democracies in the world.

Secrecy is contractual, if you signed a contract of secrecy or privacy and broke it, you get punished for breaking the legally binding contract you signed.
Threats are actually not illegal in and of themselves, otherwise, there'll be millions of people in jails. Threats of violence where intent of committing violence is established are only illegal.
Libel and slander laws vary between countries but as a general rule, libel and slander claims are those that does direct damage to another person.
If you called someone an asshole or kept swearing at them for the entire day in public, none of what you say is libel, only when it becomes to cause damage to the person primarily material or reputational.
For example, If I called someone an asshole or an idiot, this is not considered slander by law in most countries; If I, however, claim that person is a con or a fraud or something criminal or would cause serious reputational damage that could lead to material loss, then it is considered libel and slander because that would be me damaging another person.

None of those are examples of someone practicing free speech, nor are they in opposition to free speech.
On the other hand, if someone stated a racist or sexist or homophobic, etc opinion, even if it was distasteful, there was no reputational or material damage caused to anyone else, nor were any contractual bounds broken, nor were any intents of committing violence against a specific person or group established.

As such, that person has not stepped onto the freedoms and liberties of others and should not be punished.

When the state is given the power to limit someone's freedoms without that person violating the rights, freedoms, and liberties of someone else, then it is only a matter of time before the state abuses its power.
#15035605
anasawad wrote:Actually no, the state doesn't have that power in most democracies in the world.

Secrecy is contractual, if you signed a contract of secrecy or privacy and broke it, you get punished for breaking the legally binding contract you signed.
Threats are actually not illegal in and of themselves, otherwise, there'll be millions of people in jails. Threats of violence where intent of committing violence is established are only illegal.
Libel and slander laws vary between countries but as a general rule, libel and slander claims are those that does direct damage to another person.
If you called someone an asshole or kept swearing at them for the entire day in public, none of what you say is libel, only when it becomes to cause damage to the person primarily material or reputational.
For example, If I called someone an asshole or an idiot, this is not considered slander by law in most countries; If I, however, claim that person is a con or a fraud or something criminal or would cause serious reputational damage that could lead to material loss, then it is considered libel and slander because that would be me damaging another person.

None of those are examples of someone practicing free speech, nor are they in opposition to free speech.


Not all secrecy or privacy is contractual. It is illegal to, for example, share medical or financial information even if you never signed a contract.

Threats and planning a crime are illegal. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/c ... hreats.htm

So, yes, the state already limits free speech and this has not created a system where people cannot speak freely.

On the other hand, if someone stated a racist or sexist or homophobic, etc opinion, even if it was distasteful, there was no reputational or material damage caused to anyone else, nor were any contractual bounds broken, nor were any intents of committing violence against a specific person or group established.

As such, that person has not stepped onto the freedoms and liberties of others and should not be punished.

When the state is given the power to limit someone's freedoms without that person violating the rights, freedoms, and liberties of someone else, then it is only a matter of time before the state abuses its power.


How do you know there is no harm done?
#15035636
@Pants-of-dog
Not all secrecy or privacy is contractual. It is illegal to, for example, share medical or financial information even if you never signed a contract.

Medical privacy, Banking privacy, and Attorney's legal privacy are all contractual; The minute you request their service, you both enter a contract be it in an explicit or implicit manner.

Threats and planning a crime are illegal.

For threats to be illegal, there has to be an intent of crime established (as your source states).
And planning a crime is a conspiracy, which is an entirely different type of breach.

How do you know there is no harm done?

Because offense or hurt feelings are not physical harm.
There is no such thing as "the right not to be offended", as that would be contradictory to not only the freedom of speech but also the freedoms of belief, press, publication, along with others.

The whole argument arising on the banning of racist or sexist speech is based on the false belief that people have the right not to be offended, which doesn't exist, nor should it exist.

For example, take religions, and Islam in specific since that's the one I'm most educated on; In Islam, I should be killed as an apostate, considered inferior as a human being for being an infidel, and my wife and children are considered second class citizens by default due to being Christian and children of a Christian woman and, due to my wife being my wife (married to an apostate), she's is considered an enemy of Islam by association and as such the method of punishment for her would what's called Sabi which is slavery, not only for her but for her children as well.
Now I, along with countless many others, find this to be extremely uncomfortable and quite offensive.
If people had the right not to be offended, and I am part of the "people", then clearly these religious beliefs are to be considered hate speech and material and should be banned, along with similar things in all other religions.
But banning a religion, and religious expression in general is contradictory with the freedom of belief.



That's the thing about censorship and banning if the goal is to clean the world of all nasty stuff, there are a whole bunch around and once you start doing it, it becomes inevitable to go out of control.
#15035649
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Medical privacy, Banking privacy, and Attorney's legal privacy are all contractual; The minute you request their service, you both enter a contract be it in an explicit or implicit manner.


If I reveal your medical,or financial information, it is still illegal even though you and I have never signed a contract. You are forgetting third parties.

For threats to be illegal, there has to be an intent of crime established (as your source states).
And planning a crime is a conspiracy, which is an entirely different type of breach.


Yes, but a does not change the fact that certain forms of speech are illegal.

Because offense or hurt feelings are not physical harm.
There is no such thing as "the right not to be offended", as that would be contradictory to not only the freedom of speech but also the freedoms of belief, press, publication, along with others.

The whole argument arising on the banning of racist or sexist speech is based on the false belief that people have the right not to be offended, which doesn't exist, nor should it exist.

For example, take religions, and Islam in specific since that's the one I'm most educated on; In Islam, I should be killed as an apostate, considered inferior as a human being for being an infidel, and my wife and children are considered second class citizens by default due to being Christian and children of a Christian woman and, due to my wife being my wife (married to an apostate), she's is considered an enemy of Islam by association and as such the method of punishment for her would what's called Sabi which is slavery, not only for her but for her children as well.
Now I, along with countless many others, find this to be extremely uncomfortable and quite offensive.
If people had the right not to be offended, and I am part of the "people", then clearly these religious beliefs are to be considered hate speech and material and should be banned, along with similar things in all other religions.
But banning a religion, and religious expression in general is contradictory with the freedom of belief.



That's the thing about censorship and banning if the goal is to clean the world of all nasty stuff, there are a whole bunch around and once you start doing it, it becomes inevitable to go out of control.


What if there was evidence that bigotry and discrimination did cause harm?
#15035657
@Pants-of-dog
If I reveal your medical,or financial information, it is still illegal even though you and I have never signed a contract. You are forgetting third parties.

It is illegal to reveal my information if you're my doctor since, even if we didn't sign any document, by law we have an implicit contract between me and you established the moment I requested your services.
When you seek to create a patient file of me, you need to do the paper work which requires my signature and this is when the contract becomes explicit.

Yes, but a does not change the fact that certain forms of speech are illegal.

True, but those forms are illegal, and even criminal, because they breach the rights, freedoms, and liberties of others.
Your rights and freedoms ends when those of other people begin.

What if there was evidence that bigotry and discrimination did cause harm?

If it was done against a certain person and repeatedly and did create an unwelcoming environment, then that would be considered harassment and abuse.
If it was a person posting a racist opinion online and saying something sexist in general not directed at anyone, then there can be no harm taken from it as the offense was not given even if it was taken.


Now, you might say that if for example we were talking about gay men for example, the accumulation of homophobic speech could and occasionally would lead to a hostile environment against them; True, but even so we shouldn't ban such speech because:
1- The only way to fight prejudice is to confront it, not to silence those who hold it as if you silenced them you'd only be creating hostility, hatred, resentment, and in general drive it underground.
2- The minute we decide to start policing speech based on what could the society become and what effects does every social, economic, or political speech and commentary has, then it is again only a matter of time before almost all expressions of opinions and speech in general.
This is why all the countries that start doing this end up with entire departments or ministries devoted to policing speech (e.g. the ministry of truth) because we'd have created a political structure where there is a specific acceptable speech and nothing else, and that tends to contract to the acceptable narrative of a ruling minority as power naturally concentrate and consolidate.
#15035691
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

It is illegal to reveal my information if you're my doctor since, even if we didn't sign any document, by law we have an implicit contract between me and you established the moment I requested your services.
When you seek to create a patient file of me, you need to do the paper work which requires my signature and this is when the contract becomes explicit.


People who are not your doctor are also legally barred from revealing your private info.

Third parties never signed a contract and are still not allowed to reveal confidential information.

True, but those forms are illegal, and even criminal, because they breach the rights, freedoms, and liberties of others.
Your rights and freedoms ends when those of other people begin.


And by that logic, bigotry and discrimination in the form of speech should not be allowed, since it can and often does restrict the rights of others.

If it was done against a certain person and repeatedly and did create an unwelcoming environment, then that would be considered harassment and abuse.
If it was a person posting a racist opinion online and saying something sexist in general not directed at anyone, then there can be no harm taken from it as the offense was not given even if it was taken.


Yes, you keep saying there is no harm, but you have yet to support that claim.

Now, you might say that if for example we were talking about gay men for example, the accumulation of homophobic speech could and occasionally would lead to a hostile environment against them; True, but even so we shouldn't ban such speech because:
1- The only way to fight prejudice is to confront it, not to silence those who hold it as if you silenced them you'd only be creating hostility, hatred, resentment, and in general drive it underground.


I am not sure that is true. The act of deplatforming bigots has led to them simply stopping their speaking engagements, losing money, and otherwise dropping out of the debate.

2- The minute we decide to start policing speech based on what could the society become and what effects does every social, economic, or political speech and commentary has, then it is again only a matter of time before almost all expressions of opinions and speech in general.

This is why all the countries that start doing this end up with entire departments or ministries devoted to policing speech (e.g. the ministry of truth) because we'd have created a political structure where there is a specific acceptable speech and nothing else, and that tends to contract to the acceptable narrative of a ruling minority as power naturally concentrate and consolidate.


We already discussed the fact that speech is already limited and this slippery slope thing never happened.
#15035821
@Pants-of-dog
People who are not your doctor are also legally barred from revealing your private info.

Third parties never signed a contract and are still not allowed to reveal confidential information.

Third parties sign a contract with your service provider, and in the contract you agree to or sign, you agreed that they can share your information in a secretive manner with a third party.

And by that logic, bigotry and discrimination in the form of speech should not be allowed, since it can and often does restrict the rights of others.

Bigotry and discrimination are two entirely different things from each other.
Discrimination is illegal because it involves active prejudice and treatment, bigotry, on the other hand, is purely mental and does not involve discrimination.

And when a speech is bigoted, it does not restrict the rights and freedoms of others unless it was targetted at a particular person as clarified earlier.

Yes, you keep saying there is no harm, but you have yet to support that claim.

You're the one claiming there is harm and thus making a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with you not with me.

Expressions of opinions do not cause harm, regardless of what opinion might be.
If someone said an anti-semitic thing on the internet, Jews will not suddenly feel pain or lose their jobs and money.
If someone published racist or sexist material, that doesn't stop or put any active barrier in front of women or any racial group.

For something to be considered harmful, it must cause actual harm in that whoever received it will become worse off after receiving it.

Again, being offended is not harm, taking offense when it was not given is not harm, having irrational fears based over prejudice is not harm(<noting that this specifically applies both ways).

I am not sure that is true. The act of deplatforming bigots has led to them simply stopping their speaking engagements, losing money, and otherwise dropping out of the debate.

You mean push them underground and letting the hatred dwell.

Didn't Trump winning the election show you the great deal of damage pushing this underground could cause?

We already discussed the fact that speech is already limited and this slippery slope thing never happened.

Quite the opposite actually, everything so far shows that this slippery slope does indeed exist.
The limitations on freedom of speech aren't falling in countries like the UK and Germany, they're increasing.
The arrests, silencings, and bans aren't stopping or staying the same, they're expanding in size and scope.
#15035893
anasawad wrote:
Third parties sign a contract with your service provider, and in the contract you agree to or sign, you agreed that they can share your information in a secretive manner with a third party.


It would be illegal even if I never signed a contract and, for example, simply found someone’s information lying around.

Bigotry and discrimination are two entirely different things from each other.
Discrimination is illegal because it involves active prejudice and treatment, bigotry, on the other hand, is purely mental and does not involve discrimination.

And when a speech is bigoted, it does not restrict the rights and freedoms of others unless it was targetted at a particular person as clarified earlier.


Bigoted speech is almost always targeted at someone.

You never answered my question earlier about whether or not you would change your mind if evidence was found that it cause harm.

You're the one claiming there is harm and thus making a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with you not with me.

Expressions of opinions do not cause harm, regardless of what opinion might be.
If someone said an anti-semitic thing on the internet, Jews will not suddenly feel pain or lose their jobs and money.
If someone published racist or sexist material, that doesn't stop or put any active barrier in front of women or any racial group.

For something to be considered harmful, it must cause actual harm in that whoever received it will become worse off after receiving it.

Again, being offended is not harm, taking offense when it was not given is not harm, having irrational fears based over prejudice is not harm(<noting that this specifically applies both ways).


Actually, you were the one who claimed there was no harm first, so you have the burden of proof.

You mean push them underground and letting the hatred dwell.

Didn't Trump winning the election show you the great deal of damage pushing this underground could cause?


Trump won on overt racism. There was nothing underground at any point.

Quite the opposite actually, everything so far shows that this slippery slope does indeed exist.
The limitations on freedom of speech aren't falling in countries like the UK and Germany, they're increasing.
The arrests, silencings, and bans aren't stopping or staying the same, they're expanding in size and scope.


Please provide evidence for this claim.
#15035941
@Pants-of-dog
It would be illegal even if I never signed a contract and, for example, simply found someone’s information lying around.

That fact that you requested the service makes you a party to an implicit contract, even if you didn't personally sign.

Bigoted speech is almost always targeted at someone.

Groups are not the same as individuals.

You never answered my question earlier about whether or not you would change your mind if evidence was found that it cause harm.

Such as?

If it caused physical or material harm, then an adequate and sufficing policy should be formulated to balance between the two; however, if the only "harm" caused is some people taking offense, then that's not sufficient reason for limiting free speech.

Actually, you were the one who claimed there was no harm first, so you have the burden of proof.

Yes, there is no material or physical harm, that's a negative claim.
You claim there is harm, which is a positive claim, and as such you must provide the proof that harm was inflicted.

Trump won on overt racism. There was nothing underground at any point.

There was; Almost all the new right wing movements that rose in the recent years and made Trump the president rose under the banner of anti-political correctness.
The constant policing of speech was a major factor in pushing the right to power in the US; Before that in the prior decades, political correctness was rampant.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Already provided, the whole conversation started on the matter of these arrests and new laws.
#15035949
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

That fact that you requested the service makes you a party to an implicit contract, even if you didn't personally sign.


Except I did not request anything. In this hypothetical situation, I simply found the information lying on the street.

Groups are not the same as individuals.


Yes, and that does not refute my point.

Such as?

If it caused physical or material harm, then an adequate and sufficing policy should be formulated to balance between the two; however, if the only "harm" caused is some people taking offense, then that's not sufficient reason for limiting free speech.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 100558.htm
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... ct/2696519

These are just some of the studies that have shown a link between racism and physical health problems.

Yes, there is no material or physical harm, that's a negative claim.
You claim there is harm, which is a positive claim, and as such you must provide the proof that harm was inflicted.


This is the second time today that someone has incorrectly stated that one cannot prove a negative.

You can.

In fact, the claim itself is negative, and if it is correct, you cannot prove it is correct.

There was; Almost all the new right wing movements that rose in the recent years and made Trump the president rose under the banner of anti-political correctness.
The constant policing of speech was a major factor in pushing the right to power in the US; Before that in the prior decades, political correctness was rampant.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

Already provided, the whole conversation started on the matter of these arrests and new laws.


And when we looked at that evidence, we concluded that you were unable to show that any arrests of bigots were made, since the data also included other illegal uses of speech.

So, you did not provide evidence.
#15035955
@Pants-of-dog
Except I did not request anything. In this hypothetical situation, I simply found the information lying on the street.

If you found a patient's file in the street and released it, you're not committing a crime; However, the person responsible for it did, that is negligence.

These are just some of the studies that have shown a link between racism and physical health problems.

Both discuss discrimination, an active prejudice.
And both discuss the effect of stress caused by discrimination or fear of discrimination, i.e. action guided by racism not racism itself.

Discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc is already illegal and punishable, and it is not the same thing as speech that carry racist or sexist context.

If racist speech not directed at a specific individual caused this stress, then we went back to the offense being taken even if not given point.


This is the second time today that someone has incorrectly stated that one cannot prove a negative.


The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ ... -Proof.htm

Please provide evidence for this claim.

You're free to look throughout this forum for it, you participated in most if not all of these discussions.
The main theme of Trump's campaign and crowd was the anti-PC message.

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

And when we looked at that evidence, we concluded that you were unable to show that any arrests of bigots were made, since the data also included other illegal uses of speech.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a ... 64246.html
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/1 ... d-for-that

Even the famous case of Mark Meechan.

The data I provided, which you answered that it's about illegal use of online communications, was specifically about hate speech since that's what the "illegal use of online communications" law is about.

The only part I didn't push through is the percentage of people arrested for hate speech among the general arrests, simply because I didn't bother going through in further research because even the existence of one case of someone being arrested for racist or sexist general speech proves my point.
#15035960
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

If you found a patient's file in the street and released it, you're not committing a crime; However, the person responsible for it did, that is negligence.


I disagree. I believe it would still be a crime,

Both discuss discrimination, an active prejudice.
And both discuss the effect of stress caused by discrimination or fear of discrimination, i.e. action guided by racism not racism itself.

Discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc is already illegal and punishable, and it is not the same thing as speech that carry racist or sexist context.

If racist speech not directed at a specific individual caused this stress, then we went back to the offense being taken even if not given point.


Please provide evidence for the claim that racist speech is not also a cause of harm.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ ... -Proof.htm


The person who wrote that is incorrect to claim that omniscience is required in order to prove a negative.

That is only true when discussing the entire universe. It does not require omniscience to show that racist speech does not cause harm since that is a finite set of instances.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/ric ... heory.html

You're free to look throughout this forum for it, you participated in most if not all of these discussions.
The main theme of Trump's campaign and crowd was the anti-PC message.


You once again fail to support your claim.

This claim (that pc speech was the cause of the rise of the right) is dismissed as unsupported.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a ... 64246.html


You already quoted this and this is the one that also included other illegal uses of free speech.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/1 ... d-for-that


Please quote the relevant text.

Even the famous case of Mark Meechan.


Who is that?

The data I provided, which you answered that it's about illegal use of online communications, was specifically about hate speech since that's what the "illegal use of online communications" law is about.

The only part I didn't push through is the percentage of people arrested for hate speech among the general arrests, simply because I didn't bother going through in further research because even the existence of one case of someone being arrested for racist or sexist general speech proves my point.


No. I even quoted the text that shows that the law is not solely about hate speech. You are incorrect.
#15035964
@Pants-of-dog
Please provide evidence for the claim that racist speech is not also a cause of harm.

Because it's not a physical nor directed at any specific person. It's common sense, speech is not violence.

And it's a negative claim, you can't prove a negative.
You claim it does cause harm, the burden of proof lies on you since you're the one claiming it does.

This is like debating the existence of god, you can't proof the god doesn't exist, those who claim he does have the burden of proof.

The person who wrote that is incorrect to claim that omniscience is required in order to prove a negative.

That is only true when discussing the entire universe. It does not require omniscience to show that racist speech does not cause harm since that is a finite set of instances.

Speech, unless targetted, can not cause harm physical or material harm.
To claim otherwise, you'd have to show it does.

Thus far, you've shown that active discrimination causes harm, discrimination=/= speech.
Offense=/= harm.

You once again fail to support your claim.

This claim (that pc speech was the cause of the rise of the right) is dismissed as unsupported.

Well, I mean I guess it was only Trump's main message and the main theme of every right wing site supporting Trump in the US, and the anger driven by it. But what does that prove right?

And, read the pieces I put.

You already quoted this and this is the one that also included other illegal uses of free speech.

The existence of a single case proves my point.

Who is that?

Count Dankula.

No. I even quoted the text that shows that the law is not solely about hate speech. You are incorrect.

But, hate speech is part of it, and since it is, and since more than 1 case of arrests has been made on the basis of hate speech, then that proves the point.
#15035967
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Because it's not a physical nor directed at any specific person. It's common sense, speech is not violence.

And it's a negative claim, you can't prove a negative.
You claim it does cause harm, the burden of proof lies on you since you're the one claiming it does.

This is like debating the existence of god, you can't proof the god doesn't exist, those who claim he does have the burden of proof.


You can prove a negative exists.

Watch: there are no letter “A”s in the word “snoring”.

I can prove this by showing that the word is entirely composed of the letters s, n, o, r, i, and g.

Now, if it was impossible to prove a negative, I would not have been able to do that.

So now we know that you can prove a negative.

Please do so.

Speech, unless targetted, can not cause harm physical or material harm.
To claim otherwise, you'd have to show it does.

Thus far, you've shown that active discrimination causes harm, discrimination=/= speech.
Offense=/= harm.


At this point, I feel it is safe to assume that you will not provide evidence for your claim,

Well, I mean I guess it was only Trump's main message and the main theme of every right wing site supporting Trump in the US, and the anger driven by it. But what does that prove right?

And, read the pieces I put.


The Wall.

The Muslim ban.

Both of these are important factors that had nothing to do with PC speech.

The existence of a single case proves my point.


No. Your claim was that these arrests were increasing. One arrest would refute your claim.

Count Dankula.


And what about him?

But, hate speech is part of it, and since it is, and since more than 1 case of arrests has been made on the basis of hate speech, then that proves the point.


See above.
#15035971
@Pants-of-dog
You can prove a negative exists.

Watch: there are no letter “A”s in the word “snoring”.

I can prove this by showing that the word is entirely composed of the letters s, n, o, r, i, and g.

Now, if it was impossible to prove a negative, I would not have been able to do that.

So now we know that you can prove a negative.

Please do so.

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.

The Wall.

The Muslim ban.

Both of these are important factors that had nothing to do with PC speech.

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.

No. Your claim was that these arrests were increasing. One arrest would refute your claim.

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

And what about him?

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.
#15035976
@anasawad

Do you mean this Mark Meechan?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... s-48094266

My Discord'
Discord said that, after being approached for comment by the BBC, it had taken down the forum for violating its terms of service.

These prohibit "hatred, harassment, threatening messages, calls to violence or any illegal activity".

Mr Meechan often referred to the forum as "my Discord".

He told the BBC he did not own it and was not the chief moderator.

On the forum, Mr Meechan, who posts under his online persona Count Dankula, used racist language, including the N-word.

He also posted memes about black people, including one implying they were thieves.

It shows a picture of film character Indiana Jones about to steal a golden relic in a cave and is captioned: "Black people. Anything that doesn't belong to them."

Another meme shows Labour MP Diane Abbott and her supposed reaction when white people do not apologise for slavery "at the beginning of every sentence".

The BBC has decided not to publish the images.

Offensive memes
In response to the BBC, Mr Meechan said that he was a comedian.

He said: "I posted an offensive meme, something I do all the time, I tell offensive jokes and do offensive comedy… do you really think anyone is going to be surprised at the fact I post offensive memes?"

He said the meme about Ms Abbott "makes fun of her for statements she has made in the past, not for the colour of her skin".

Mr Meechan and the other moderators in the forum's hierarchy set the rules of the forum and decided what posts from its almost-9,000 members were acceptable.

But the BBC has seen various discussion threads where users frequently used threatening and racist terms about ethnic minorities, including one which posted offensive terms to suggest they should kill all Jews, enslave all black people and torture all gay people.

Discord grab
In one thread, users posted about gassing black people and "nuking" Muslims.

Others use homophobic language, derogatory terms about disabled people and display apparent support for neo-Nazi groups, including the violent American neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen Division.

It has been linked to five murders in the US, and espouses a violent white supremacist ideology.

One user writes: "Atomwaffen division did nothing wrong. The degenerates got what they deserved."

Another user posts about a UK neo-Nazi organisation modelled on Atomwaffen Division, known as Sonnenkrieg Division, saying they wished the group "would actually [do] something".

Two members of Sonnenkrieg Division have been convicted of terror offences, including circulating material suggesting that Prince Harry should be shot as a "race traitor" for marrying a woman of mixed race.

British Neo-Nazis suggest Prince Harry should be shot
Both groups have previously been revealed by the BBC to communicate via Discord.

Last month's deadly terror attacks on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, were also discussed on the forum.

One user posted that the killer "proved white supremacy". It says he got "a lot more done with a lot less firepower" than Islamist attackers.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 16
Trump and the Rule of Law

Look up the first impeachment in US history. The […]

Election 2020

Just pointing out that my grammar correction post[…]

Come on POD. Read the OP. As usual, when losing […]

Do you realize that is authoritarian, repressive[…]