The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 11 - 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

#15038691
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
Already did.
Literally a couple of posts ago.


What did you do, and where?

Please use complete sentences and clearly refer to whatever argument you are making.

And what do you think those raids are for? Handing flowers?
They're arrests.
Dozens of recent raids in 13 federal states means dozens of recent arrests.

With intention to expand efforts as quoted.


Quote the article where it says the number of arrests, or quote where it says that arrests were made.
#15038701
@anasawad

No, raids are not arrests.

    raid noun
    \ ˈrād \
    Definition of raid (Entry 1 of 2)
    1a : a hostile or predatory incursion
    b : a surprise attack by a small force
    2a : a brief foray outside one's usual sphere
    b : a sudden invasion by officers of the law
    c : a daring operation against a competitor
    d : the recruiting of personnel (such as faculty, executives, or athletes) from competing organizations
    3 : the act of mulcting public money
    4 : an attempt by professional operators to depress stock prices by concerted selling

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raid

Now, do you agree that no mention of arrests is made?
#15038702
@Pants-of-dog
You kidding right?

What the hell are police raids for?
Police raids are always arrests.

Police raids:
A police raid is a visit by police or other law-enforcement officers - often in the early morning or late at night, with the aim of using the element of surprise in an attempt to arrest suspects believed to be likely to hide evidence, resist arrest, be politically sensitive, or simply be elsewhere during the day.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_raid
#15038738
anasawad wrote:You kidding right?

What the hell are police raids for?
Police raids are always arrests.

Police raids:


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


As you can see, your own source shows that raids are invasions or visits by cops used in order to make arrests.

One raid can lead to a whole bunch of arrests. Another raid can lead to no arrests.

Do you understand?
#15038875
@Pants-of-dog
You do realize how ridiculous your excuse is right?

The main purpose of a police raid is to arrest one or more people; Police raids that do not result in arrests are raids that failed to capture the sought after target or suspect.

You can dance around the facts all you want, it's not going to change the fact that these raids and subsequent arrests were made under the banner of hate speech.
#15039286
@anasawad

I understand why you believe these raids would have led to arrests.

However, it is a possibility that these raids led to no arrests. The fact that your article mentions no arrests corroborates this point.

Finally, anti-Nazi laws in Germany are not something created by progressives in recent years. Instead, it was done by mainstream and conservative politicians in 1945.
#15039391
@Pants-of-dog
So, let me get this straight, you already concede that these laws exist, that states are expanding their efforts in cracking down, but trying to push an argument that it's ok because there is a very small possibility that the security forces have a 0% success rate in their attempt to enforce their laws?
LoL

And those arrests weren't just about Nazi stuff, it clearly said a variety of violations including racial hatred, banned symbols (this is the nazi stuff), and hate speech.
#15039406
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
So, let me get this straight, you already concede that these laws exist, that states are expanding their efforts in cracking down, but trying to push an argument that it's ok because there is a very small possibility that the security forces have a 0% success rate in their attempt to enforce their laws?
LoL


No, that would not be a correct summary of my position.

Yes, these laws do exist, but they according to your evidence, they are not due to progressives or deal solely with bigotry.

Nor are they expanding at a significant rate, according to your evidence. One or two expansion in thirty years is not a big deal.

Nor did I say if anything was okay or not.

And those arrests weren't just about Nazi stuff, it clearly said a variety of violations including racial hatred, banned symbols (this is the nazi stuff), and hate speech.


There were no arrests.
#15039432
@anasawad Canada, for instance, has had Hate speech laws for decades, now. What you say is false. There is not some progressive conspiracy to silence people and these laws are meant to deal with extreme prejudice, not simply dealing with simply bigotry, which you claim. They were also not even created by progressives.

Hate speech laws are there only to prevent hate speech where it can lead to violence and the spread of propaganda that can be used to incite such things. Simple bigotry won't even apply. You're fear-mongering.
#15039508
@Pants-of-dog
No, that would not be a correct summary of my position.

Yes, these laws do exist, but they according to your evidence, they are not due to progressives or deal solely with bigotry.

Nor are they expanding at a significant rate, according to your evidence. One or two expansion in thirty years is not a big deal.

The latter expansions coming in the past 2 decades were primarily led by progressives and those expansions aren't a "no big deal", they massively expanded the scope of the laws.

There were no arrests.

Police raids are done in pursuit of arrests.
For there not to be any arrests, the German police would need to have a 0% success rates, literally.
That's why saying there were no arrests is not only ridiculous, but would need an audience of idiots to fly.



@Godstud
@anasawad Canada, for instance, has had Hate speech laws for decades, now. What you say is false. There is not some progressive conspiracy to silence people and these laws are meant to deal with extreme prejudice, not simply dealing with simply bigotry, which you claim. They were also not even created by progressives.

Hate speech laws are there only to prevent hate speech where it can lead to violence and the spread of propaganda that can be used to incite such things. Simple bigotry won't even apply. You're fear-mongering.


Canada is no different from the UK and Germany where people are being arrested for tweets and hate speech.
And no, it's not limited to just incitement and the bigger crimes, it does go as far as criminalizing tweets, jokes, media content that is deemed "offensive", and generally hate speech.
Those laws have always been the gateway to implementing full-on thought crimes. This time won't be any different.

You might say that it'll be different and all, and it's done for the greater good, but every single authoritarian movement before has also said the exact same things to excuse such laws.


Like this for example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a ... 64246.html
2500 arrests over hate speech on social media in just one city.
Must be no big deal guys, this is totally not an expansion in the scope and would totally not go out of control anytime in the future.

Cut the bullshit, you guys are sounding more and more like Baathist apologists and propagandists.
#15039518
anasawad wrote:Canada is no different from the UK and Germany where people are being arrested for tweets and hate speech.
And no, it's not limited to just incitement and the bigger crimes, it does go as far as criminalizing tweets, jokes, media content that is deemed "offensive", and generally hate speech.
Those laws have always been the gateway to implementing full-on thought crimes. This time won't be any different.
Really, so you have some source to prove this silly claim of yours?

Statistics simply don't support what you're saying.
Hate crimes drop in Canada for first time in years
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49078558

anasawad wrote:You might say that it'll be different and all, and it's done for the greater good, but every single authoritarian movement before has also said the exact same things to excuse such laws.
Authoritarian? Now you're talking dumb conspiracy theory stuff. :knife:

anasawad wrote:Cut the bullshit, you guys are sounding more and more like Baathist apologists and propagandists.
Your stupid ad hominems only undermine your ridiculous claims and lack of real argument.
#15039520
@Godstud
Really, so you have some source to prove this silly claim of yours?

Statistics simply don't support what you're saying.
Hate crimes drop in Canada for first time in years
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49078558

Hate crimes and hate speech are not the same thing.
Hate crimes include far more than just hate speech violations.
Now, if you looked at the stats, you'll see a new section called online hate crimes, that's the part we're discussing.



Authoritarian? Now you're talking dumb conspiracy theory stuff. :knife:

The minute a movement starts pushing to silence people and opinions, it becomes authoritarian. By definition.
Now, sure, degree varies, but no worries, all authoritarian movements start with just a little authoritarianism, until they get full power.

Your stupid ad hominems only undermine your ridiculous claims and lack of real argument.

:lol: :lol:
I'm the one lacking a real argument?
This discussion was reduced to arguing that the German police force has a 0% success rate in that of the dozens of police raids, none resulted in any arrests.
With the rest arguing that arresting people for speech is either not a big deal or some people should be silenced, or in your case, it's ok because the reported crimes is down while completely ignoring that included was speech crimes.

And it's not ad-homs actually, just listen to earlier Baathist propaganda and compare it to this thread alone or any of these "progressive" media outlets calling for more hate speech laws; They're both using the same arguments to silence opposing views and people.
#15039585
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

The latter expansions coming in the past 2 decades were primarily led by progressives and those expansions aren't a "no big deal", they massively expanded the scope of the laws.


No.

According to your evidence, there have been only two expansions in the last thirty years, and progressives were responsible for one of them.

The expansion did not create new laws. It simply added LGB people to the list of groups that are recognised as being targeted by hate speech.

Police raids are done in pursuit of arrests.
For there not to be any arrests, the German police would need to have a 0% success rates, literally.
That's why saying there were no arrests is not only ridiculous, but would need an audience of idiots to fly.


You did not provide evidence of any arrests.

Canada is no different from the UK and Germany where people are being arrested for tweets and hate speech.
And no, it's not limited to just incitement and the bigger crimes, it does go as far as criminalizing tweets, jokes, media content that is deemed "offensive", and generally hate speech.
Those laws have always been the gateway to implementing full-on thought crimes. This time won't be any different.

You might say that it'll be different and all, and it's done for the greater good, but every single authoritarian movement before has also said the exact same things to excuse such laws.


Provide evidence for this claim that Canada is on a path to thought police.

Like this for example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a ... 64246.html
2500 arrests over hate speech on social media in just one city.
Must be no big deal guys, this is totally not an expansion in the scope and would totally not go out of control anytime in the future.

Cut the bullshit, you guys are sounding more and more like Baathist apologists and propagandists.


This article is not solely about hate speech. It is about people being arrested for criminal speech including threats.

How many arrests were made solely for hate speech?
#15039676
@Pants-of-dog
No.

According to your evidence, there have been only two expansions in the last thirty years, and progressives were responsible for one of them.

The expansion did not create new laws. It simply added LGB people to the list of groups that are recognised as being targeted by hate speech.

Most of the laws introduced in the 2000s and 2010s were new, and they did expand the scope of the law to a radical degree.

You did not provide evidence of any arrests.

I did, you dancing around it wont work.
Both in the UK and in Germany.
Police raids are meant for arrests, for it to have zero arrests in Germany, the police success rate would have to be literally 0% which is not possible.
You're not only dancing around the evidence in attempt to distract from it, but you're doing it a way that only an idiot would fall for it.

Provide evidence for this claim that Canada is on a path to thought police.

The stats are public and were already linked for here.

This article is not solely about hate speech. It is about people being arrested for criminal speech including threats.

How many arrests were made solely for hate speech?

The article is about hate speech:

a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media.

The legislation has been used to arrest Twitter users responsible for racist hate speech. According to Vocativ, among many recently arrested was a Scottish citizen who had posted hate speech about Syrian refugees on his Facebook page.
#15039678
anasawad wrote:The stats are public and were already linked for here.
False. I showed you stats showing that Hate Speech is on a decline and provided a source, You're pussyfooting around your unsupported argument.

You're fear-mongering about something that simply isn't happening.

2500 Londoners over 5 years.
So about 500 per year, out of a population of 8 million people.
Wow. :roll: Definitely a real problem.

Also, arrested do not mean convicted.
#15039695
@Godstud
False. I showed you stats showing that Hate Speech is on a decline and provided a source

You showed stats, if you bothered looking at the stats references and cited in the article ( you didn't), you'd notice two things: First is that cyber hate crime part which around a third of these "crimes" are hate speech, not threats or incitement or harassment, but hate speech, and second, you'd notice that they also mention under reporting and why these stats are understated.

Now, why does this prove my point and shows that you're wrong?
First, it shows that these laws do exist, which you're arguing that they don't.
And second, it proves another point I made earlier which is that states are actively seeking to expand efforts to crack down on "hate speech", meaning this will get worse.

You're pussyfooting around your unsupported argument.

Ooh, my unsupported argument that even your own source proves.
How unsupported.

2500 Londoners over 5 years.
So about 500 per year, out of a population of 8 million people.
Wow. :roll: Definitely a real problem.

The percentage of the total population is irrelevant, as long as the scope of the laws are expanding and the various states promising to crack down and expand the effort, those numbers will keep getting larger.

You really don't see how flawed that numbers' logic is?
So if the state decided to hang 500 people every year for petty crimes, or no crimes at all, because a new law said it should; Would that be ok? I mean after all, 500 out of millions is nothing so it can't be a big problem right? is that the argument you really want to use?

Also, arrested do not mean convicted.

Ooh, so the argument now turns from police raids and logged cases doesn't mean arrests, to arrests doesn't mean convictions. Nice.
I guess a couple of more pages we'll arrive at the expected already hinted at the conclusion that yes there were arrests and yes, people were convicted but it's not a big number.

See, that's why I said authoritarianism; I've heard this exact type of apologies, excuses, and defenses, using the exact same patterns from Baathists, from Nasrallah's followers after Hezbollah's recent split, from clerics' supporters in Iran during the last election cycle, and on daily basis from Putin's supporters in Russia.
It always starts like this, it's just a few little stuff, minor restrictions on liberties, some censorship here and there, but never too big to make people too angry or worried, and it gradually grows until it gets out of control, and when people start having a problem with it, it's already too late. We've seen this happen in dozens of countries thus far, and many western countries are going down the exact same paths with different themes of the exact same policies and different themes of the exact same reasoning and apologetics.

Also, the article mentions that 857 people were detained, and the punishment for it is 6 months in prison or 5k pound fine. Noting that even if a case did not result in a conviction, just like the referenced case in the article, it would cost thousands of dollars (or pounds in this instance) for the person to hire a defense, which means that, at the very least, saying something that might in any way be deemed offensive by any group and being unlucky enough to be reported would costs you thousands of dollars, mostly money you wont have because of the current economic conditions all around, even if whatever you posted did not target anyone, did not call for anything, did not incite anything, rather simply an opinion or a joke.
#15039760
@anasawad Everything you are talking about comes down to pure fear-mongering and a "feeling" that there's a Bogey Man called Hate Speech, out to get everyone.

:lol:
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 16

@wat0n 1. So you were not making an argument […]

Well, I'll cite somebody I dont remember, I think[…]

Other countries do not have the ongoing debacle o[…]

I expect someone to correct me if I mischaracteriz[…]