Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Was Youtube Right to Ban Bismarck?

YES
18
51%
NO
17
49%
#15092689
noemon wrote:Only racists argue for racism, thanks for admitting you 're a racist. At least there is no pretension now.


What a foolish illogical argument based on nothing but your own hatred of me. I'm not "arguing for racism", I'm arguing for not banning all non-violent racist speech. I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Heard that one before? I've never smoked marijuana and I think it's stupid but I wouldn't ban it either ffs.
#15092692
noemon wrote:Yes, you said it yourself out loud that you support the rights of racists to be racists regardless if their racism is illegal or unethical and regardless on how much racists they are actually being.


Please show me that quote. You're making things up.

I support the right for people to say racist stuff generally, as long as it isn't violent or personally targeted to the point of harassment.
#15092695
No hatred of you whatsoever, don't even know you and don't even care, just going by your own words. It is not about disagreeing with something and you should defend everyone's right to disagree on anything but NOT agreeing to performing harm on others, that is not just an agreement with racists that is your endorsement of them causing harm to others.

Unthinking Majority wrote:Please show me that quote. You're making things up.


Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm not a racist. Defending the free speech of racists is not racism.


It is.

Unithinking Majority wrote:I support the right for people to say racist stuff generally, as long as it isn't violent or personally targeted to the point of harassment.


It's good that you change your position but all these are still vague, "I support racists unless they surpass a certain threshold of violence".... :lol: Which is totally arbitrary and based on your own feelings without consideration for the major or minor harm caused to the person receiving the racism which has not surpassed your threshold for you to actually seize your support for said racism. That is your own words and is sufficient proof that you endorse and support racism.

Funny also how you either support racism or don't care about this harm caused to others. Instead of saying, racism is violence, should not be permitted ever because its violence against another human being. Saying that should not be that difficult but you choose to sit here and make excuses for racism and racists and the only reason people would do that is because they are what they defend. This is not being said to you because anyone hates you, but because it's the truth.
#15092697
Pants-of-dog wrote:There are two things wrong with your argument.

1. You originally claimed you had statistics to support your claim. You have not shown statistics, just some pictures with names attached to them.


My claim was that poor people commit more crime than more well-off groups. My claim wasn't that immigrants commit more crimes as a whole than non-immigrants. My claim was also therefore that if you bring poor unskilled/uneducated people into a country, they will bring in crime. You want stats showing a correlation between poverty and crime? There's literally thousands of statistics to back that up. It's as true within countries as it is between countries. Please do a google search, i'm too lazy get the links honestly.

And now the stuff you ignored:

How is Canada Orwellian, as you claimed?


I never claimed Canada was Orwellian, although some of the provinces are. This journalist (who is often controversial, but also a lawyer) publsihed the Danish cartoons of Mohammad as a principle of free speech, nothing more, and was hauled in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission:



#15092699
Unthinking Majority wrote:My claim was that poor people commit more crime than more well-off groups. My claim wasn't that immigrants commit more crimes as a whole than non-immigrants. My claim was also therefore that if you bring poor unskilled/uneducated people into a country, they will bring in crime. You want stats showing a correlation between poverty and crime? There's literally thousands of statistics to back that up. It's as true within countries as it is between countries. Please do a google search, i'm too lazy get the links honestly.


As long as we are clear that there is no evidence to support a claim that more immigration leads to more crime.

I never claimed Canada was Orwellian, although some of the provinces are. This journalist (who is often controversial, but also a lawyer) publsihed the Danish cartoons of Mohammad as a principle of free speech, nothing more, and was hauled in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission:





You specifically mentioned the Criminal Code of Canada.

If you now want to single out Alberta, please provide evidence.

Youtube videos are not evidence. Or more specifically, they are a source and by providing said source, you expect me to watch it and get the evidence for you.

What exactly did Levant say, and what exactly was the government reaction?
#15092709
Pants-of-dog wrote:You specifically mentioned the Criminal Code of Canada.


You're getting mixed. up. Read what I wrote. I said the bar for what is considered hate speech in Canada is actually quite high. It's the provincial human rights commissions that have human rights tribunals that are Orwellian and haul people in based on small complains.

If you now want to single out Alberta, please provide evidence.

Youtube videos are not evidence. Or more specifically, they are a source and by providing said source, you expect me to watch it and get the evidence for you.

What exactly did Levant say, and what exactly was the government reaction?


Levant published the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohamed. Which is not illegal. But a Muslim Imam in Canada (Alberta I'm guessing) got offended by it, because publishing such cartoons is against the Muslim religion. So the Imam filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Levant. So Levant was hauled in front of the commission to explain himself. The government asked Levant "what was your intent in publishing the cartoons?" and Levant basically said "it's none of the government's g*d damn business. I have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so go to hell. In fact, I want you to assume the most offensive and worst intent you can think of. Because there's still nothing you can do about it, because I have freedom of speech and press under Canada's Charter of Rights and hundreds of years of British common law backing up my rights. And I hope you pursue these charges because i'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court and expose these tribunals for what they are and bring them down" All because some Imam was "offended". I recommend watching the videos, they're quite entertaining if anything.

The point is, freedom of speech trumps being freedom from being offended. Unless it goes to an extreme, like harassment or threatening violence.
#15092710
noemon wrote:No hatred of you whatsoever, don't even know you and don't even care, just going by your own words. It is not about disagreeing with something and you should defend everyone's right to disagree on anything but NOT agreeing to performing harm on others, that is not just an agreement with racists that is your endorsement of them causing harm to others.


Nobody has a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt. Do you understand this? Saying mean and nasty and hurtful things aren't illegal, unless it's slander or some such or crosses the line into harassment or threatening violence, or slander/libel. Someone can call a person fat or ugly if they want, it's legal, it may hurt their feelings, it may be unethical, we may not agree with it, but the state isn't going to lock you up for it.

1. It's good that you change your position

2. but all these are still vague, "I support racists unless they surpass a certain threshold of violence".... :lol: Which is totally arbitrary and based on your own feelings without consideration for the major or minor harm caused to the person receiving the racism which has not surpassed your threshold for you to actually seize your support for said racism.


1. I've never changed my position. You either haven't been reading everything i've written in this thread or your reading comprehension is poor. Either way, you're misrepresenting my position based on lies and leaps in logic which are libelous, which BTW is illegal speech.

2. It's not vague. Go look at the laws on speech, harassment, threatening violence etc. in current law of the USA.

1. Funny also how you either support racism or don't care about this harm caused to others.


It's not that I don't care, it's that I believe the harm in the government banning speech and using violence to drag people off into prison for it is worse than the crime.

1. Instead of saying, racism is violence, should not be permitted ever because its violence against another human being.
2. Saying that should not be that difficult but you choose to sit here and make excuses for racism and racists and the only reason people would do that is because they are what they defend. This is not being said to you because anyone hates you, but because it's the truth.


1. Words are not violence. Violence is violence, IMO it's physical. Equating somebody being physically assaulted to somebody being offended and their feelings hurt is morally disgusting, it's SJW hogwash and purposefully misrepresenting speech in order to push an ideological agenda to have speech you don't like banned. Hears an idea: grow some thicker skin. Sticks and stones, yo. Instead of insisting people who hurt your feelings should be forced by ACTUAL violence by the police into handcuffs and thrown in prison.

2. What a terrible opinion based on bad logic. Are you one of those SJW's who try and bully people with labels like "racist", "bigot", "sexist" etc. to shame them into conforming to your ideology? How cowardly. Too bad it doesn't work on me. Anyone else who can read will know what I meant.
#15092717
Unthinking Majority wrote:You're getting mixed. up. Read what I wrote. I said the bar for what is considered hate speech in Canada is actually quite high. It's the provincial human rights commissions that have human rights tribunals that are Orwellian and haul people in based on small complains.


I am not going to quote your own posts to you.

Levant published the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohamed. Which is not illegal. But a Muslim Imam in Canada (Alberta I'm guessing) got offended by it, because publishing such cartoons is against the Muslim religion. So the Imam filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Levant. So Levant was hauled in front of the commission to explain himself. The government asked Levant "what was your intent in publishing the cartoons?" and Levant basically said "it's none of the government's g*d damn business. I have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so go to hell. In fact, I want you to assume the most offensive and worst intent you can think of. Because there's still nothing you can do about it, because I have freedom of speech and press under Canada's Charter of Rights and hundreds of years of British common law backing up my rights. And I hope you pursue these charges because i'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court and expose these tribunals for what they are and bring them down" All because some Imam was "offended". I recommend watching the videos, they're quite entertaining if anything.

The point is, freedom of speech trumps being freedom from being offended. Unless it goes to an extreme, like harassment or threatening violence.


So, nothing really happened to him?

So why are you making this a big deal?
#15092718
Pants-of-dog wrote:
So, nothing really happened to him?

So why are you making this a big deal?


They dragged him in front of the government for it. They intimidated him, he had lawyers, he is a lawyer, if neither were the case as it is for many he would get charged for it as it happens every day. It's ridiculous.
#15092719
Unthinking Majority wrote:They dragged him in front of the government for it. They intimidated him, he had lawyers, he is a lawyer, if neither were the case as it is for many he would get charged for it as it happens every day. It's ridiculous.


Yes,, he had to go to court.

This is not a big deal. If you ever had to fight a traffic ticket, you also had to go to court. Does this mean that traffic laws are unjust?

And you cannot simultaneously claim that he was intimidated and claim that he bravely stood up to them. Was he punished?
#15092721
Unthinking Majority wrote:The only hate speech laws should be threatening groups with violence/genocide.


So a person should be allowed to scream racial insults at random passerby, advocating that all the non-whites should be put in jail or forcibly deported, and reinforce the same prejudices and stereotypes that lead to structural inequality.

Why?

Why should we allow it?
#15092723
So it's OK to defame someone?

Ezra Levant loses libel case, must pay $80,000 to man he defamed as ‘illiberal Islamic fascist’
In his blogging about Canada’s hate speech laws, right-wing pundit Levant defamed a young law student as a serial liar, a bigot and a Jew-hater, a judge has found

In his blogging about Canada’s hate speech laws, right-wing personality Ezra Levant defamed a young law student as a serial liar, a bigot and a Jew-hating “illiberal Islamic fascist,” bent on destroying Canada’s tradition of free expression, a judge has found.

For these unfair, false and “extremely serious” written comments, which were motivated by “ill will,” and showed a “reckless disregard for the truth,” Mr. Levant must pay Khurrum Awan $80,000, Judge Wendy Matheson of Ontario Superior Court ruled Thursday.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ez ... ic-fascist

Levant is a well-known right-wing EXTREMIST, in Canada.
#15092729
Unthinking Majority wrote:Nobody has a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt. Do you understand this?


This is a question that you should ask yourself because you are the only crying and whining for being called the position you are defending.

Saying mean and nasty and hurtful things aren't illegal, unless it's slander or some such or crosses the line into harassment or threatening violence, or slander/libel. Someone can call a person fat or ugly if they want, it's legal, it may hurt their feelings, it may be unethical, we may not agree with it, but the state isn't going to lock you up for it.
1. I've never changed my position. You either haven't been reading everything i've written in this thread or your reading comprehension is poor. Either way, you're misrepresenting my position based on lies and leaps in logic which are libelous, which BTW is illegal speech.


Calling you a racist for supporting racism is neither illegal nor libellous, it's just a fact of the matter and you can stop being racist if you stop supporting racism. If you think that with implicit threats you are going to get your way you should think again because you are in no position to threaten anybody.

2. It's not vague. Go look at the laws on speech, harassment, threatening violence etc. in current law of the USA.
It's not that I don't care, it's that I believe the harm in the government banning speech and using violence to drag people off into prison for it is worse than the crime.
1. Words are not violence. Violence is violence, IMO it's physical. Equating somebody being physically assaulted to somebody being offended and their feelings hurt is morally disgusting, it's SJW hogwash and purposefully misrepresenting speech in order to push an ideological agenda to have speech you don't like banned. Hears an idea: grow some thicker skin. Sticks and stones, yo. Instead of insisting people who hurt your feelings should be forced by ACTUAL violence by the police into handcuffs and thrown in prison.


You being offended for being called a racist and claiming that calling people fat, or ugly is the same as someone calling black people "monkeys" is indeed SJW level of hogwash coming from racists. Calling Black people "monkeys" involves no direct physical harm but it legitimises their dehumanisation leading to making violence directed at them more acceptable. So even though there is no direct physical violence against the person being called a monkey it can and does cause Black people getting killed by some trigger happy officer or thug because that person considers Black people as "animals". You supporting the right of the person to call Black people "monkeys" because it involves no direct physical violence you are at the same time endorsing their dehumanisation which then leads to increased murders against Black people so you are endorsing a racist position that has the potential to cause a lot of harm to another human being and that dear makes you a racist person, even more so when you sit here shamelessly defending that position.

This is the truth whether you have the capacity to admit or comprehend it.
#15092731
Pants-of-dog wrote:So a person should be allowed to scream racial insults at random passerby, advocating that all the non-whites should be put in jail or forcibly deported,


Well about as much as someone should be allowed to scream "ugly" or "fat" insults to random passerbys and they should be all jailed/deported. The police might limit that based on disturbing the peace if they're "screaming" or something. Or harassment, I don't know.

Should they be able to punish a book about how much they hate minority races? Sure, why not.

Why? Why should we allow it?


Freedom of speech, opinion, expression. There is a line, but the bar should be reasonably high. Our feelings aren't protected by law, except in severe cases or where there's liability, financial harm etc.

The harm from the KKK having meetings and talking about how they hate people to each other, and publishing pamphlets etc. is minimal, especially compared to the harm of the violence of arresting them by threat of beating or being shot & locking them in jail. The harm from beating or killing people they hate or threatening to do so is far, far higher than yapping about who they dislike. Just ignore them.
#15092735
Godstud wrote:So it's OK to defame someone?

Ezra Levant loses libel case, must pay $80,000 to man he defamed as ‘illiberal Islamic fascist’
In his blogging about Canada’s hate speech laws, right-wing pundit Levant defamed a young law student as a serial liar, a bigot and a Jew-hater, a judge has found

In his blogging about Canada’s hate speech laws, right-wing personality Ezra Levant defamed a young law student as a serial liar, a bigot and a Jew-hating “illiberal Islamic fascist,” bent on destroying Canada’s tradition of free expression, a judge has found.

For these unfair, false and “extremely serious” written comments, which were motivated by “ill will,” and showed a “reckless disregard for the truth,” Mr. Levant must pay Khurrum Awan $80,000, Judge Wendy Matheson of Ontario Superior Court ruled Thursday.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ez ... ic-fascist


Libel, slander etc. can damage people's reputation and thus livelihood. You're talking about financial damage and liability etc. You're not talking about someone's feelings being hurt or being offended. You don't have a legal right not to be offended, except in extreme cases (harassment etc). Why don't people understand this?

Levant is a well-known right-wing EXTREMIST, in Canada.


He's a rightwing dolt, he's not "an extremist". He doesn't commit violence or threaten or condone violence. He says controversial conservative stuff, yippee.
#15092738
Unthinking Majority wrote:Freedom of speech, opinion, expression. There is a line, but the bar should be reasonably high. Our feelings aren't protected by law, except in severe cases or where there's liability, financial harm etc.


How is hate speech not one of these extreme cases?

Why should we put hate speech in the “freedom of speech” pile and not the “restricted speech” pile?

The harm from the KKK having meetings and talking about how they hate people to each other, and publishing pamphlets etc. is minimal, especially compared to the harm of the violence of arresting them by threat of beating or being shot & locking them in jail. The harm from beating or killing people they hate or threatening to do so is far, far higher than yapping about who they dislike. Just ignore them.


When the KKK and other groups do things like that, and then organise on a national level, they end up with things like Heather Heyers being killed by a white supremacist, your own government locking kids in cages for the “crime“ of being undocumented, and white nationalist terrorism being the leading cause of political violence, it obviously does lead to physical harm.
#15092739
noemon wrote:Calling you a racist for supporting racism is neither illegal nor libellous, it's just a fact of the matter and you can stop being racist if you stop supporting racism. If you think that with implicit threats you are going to get your way you should think again because you are in no position to threaten anybody.


Saying things doesn't make them true, including you claiming me a racist. You're a sexist bigot who hates Muslims. See how that works? Why do you hate Muslims, please tell us?

You don't know anything about how the law works, about liability, etc. Look up the definition of libel. You're making false published accusations against me.

You being offended for being called a racist and claiming that calling people fat, or ugly is the same as someone calling black people "monkeys" is indeed SJW level of hogwash coming from racists. Calling Black people "monkeys" involves no direct physical harm but it legitimises their dehumanisation leading to making violence directed at them more acceptable. So even though there is no direct violence agaisnt the person being called a monkey it can and does cause another Black person to get killed by some trigger happy officer or thug because thaty person considers Black people as "animals". You supporting the right of the person to call Black people "monkeys" because it involves no direct physical violence you are at the same time endorsing their dehumanisation which then leads to increased murders against Black people so you are endorsing a racist position that has the potential to cause a lot of harm to another human being and that dear makes you a racist person, even more so when you sitr here shamelessly defending that position.


You're making all sorts of slippery slope arguments and leaps in logic. No judge in the western world would find Steve liable for Bob shooting a black guy just because Steve called black people "monkeys". The only person responsible for violence is someone committing violence, advocating violence, or threatening violence. That's the law, everywhere.
#15092740
Pants-of-dog wrote:How is hate speech not one of these extreme cases?

Why should we put hate speech in the “freedom of speech” pile and not the “restricted speech” pile?


I think i've made that clear.

When the KKK and other groups do things like that, and then organise on a national level, they end up with things like Heather Heyers being killed by a white supremacist, your own government locking kids in cages for the “crime“ of being undocumented, and white nationalist terrorism being the leading cause of political violence, it obviously does lead to physical harm.


The people who are liable for violence are those that commit, threaten, or advocate violence. That's how liability works. If I say that Donald Trump is an arsehole piece of crap i'm not liable if Henry punches Trump in the face, just like CNN isn't liable if someone shoots Trump. If CNN says Trump should be shot it's different. That's how the law works.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 26
Election 2020

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i[…]

@James Redford @ckaihatsu Here is a website […]

Trump and Russiagate

Don the Con commuted the sentence of Roger Stone o[…]

Who is right?

False. Israel is mentioned in the Holy Bible, but[…]