Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 22 - 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
19
50%
NO
19
50%
#15092742
Unthinking Majority wrote: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'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.


First of all, the "law" in this forum that you signed to become a member is that if you call Black people "monkeys" you will be banned. Second, the law in Britain and Germany where this forum is located is that if you call Black people "monkeys" you will be charged with hate-speech and be fined and or go to prison.

Third, even in the US, calling Black people "monkeys" would place you in the category of racist regardless of law. Sitting here and trying to argue in favour of calling Black people "monkeys" makes you a racist both by law(of the forum, and the countries the forum is located) and by moral ethics as well.

You can call me whatever names you like, but it will still not change the fact that you are a racist because you are shamelessly arguing that you(and everybody) should have the right to call Black people "monkeys" which is intended to dehumanise them and ostracise them from society, economy, politics, business and in extreme cases from life itself.

Your hate speech is intended to cause harm to the person that it is directed at and to the group that the person belongs to, and your "right" to cause harm to another is less important than the right of the person to not be harmed by you.

You being called out by others for being a racist is also an exercise of the free speech of the people calling you out what you are. You being a racist is far more discernible, obvious and easier stated than a Black person being called a "monkey" by you. As such your arguments are not just pathetic they are totally hypocritical. You claim that people calling you a racist have no right to free speech, while you(or anyone) calling Black people "monkeys" do have a right to free speech. :lol: :lol: :lol: How do you figure that equation?
#15092743
Unthinking Majority wrote: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?
If someone were to argue for someone having the freedom to say hateful things against such people, then yes, they would be a "sexist bigot who hates Muslims".

Unthinking Majority wrote:Look up the definition of libel. You're making false published accusations against me.
You cannot claim libel if you are, quite obviously(as you do in this thread), supporting racism. The accusation would not be false, and therefore, not libel. You'd first have to prove that supporting racism doesn't mean you're a racist, and I doubt anyone would believe that malarky.
#15092744
noemon wrote:First of all, the "law" in this forum that you signed to become a member is that if you call Black people "monkeys" you will be banned. Second, the law in Britain and Germany where this forum is located is that if you call Black people "monkeys" you will be charged with hate-speech and be fined and or go to prison.

Third even in the US, calling Black people "monkeys" would place you in the category of racist regardless of law. Sitting here and trying to argue in favour of calling Black people monkeys makes you a racist both by law(of the forum, and the countries the forum is located) and by moral ethics as well.

You can call me whatever names you like, but it will still not change the fact that you are a racist because you are shamelessly arguing that you(and everybody) should have the right to call Black people "monkeys" which is intended to dehumanise them and ostracise them from society, economy, politics, business and in extreme cases from life as itself.


I'm not in favour of people calling other people monkeys or any other racist names. I'm not in favour of people being dragged away by the cops for it. There's a BIG difference. Do you understand that difference? So far, you haven't. I don't smoke marijuana, I don't like marijuana, I don't condone the use of any recreational drugs, I think marijuana is harmful to society, but I don't think people should be thrown in jail for using marijuana thus they should have the right to smoke it. Do you understand the difference?
#15092745
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think i've made that clear.


I must have missed it. Can you please summarise it?

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.


I understand that.

Please note that this legal distinction does not contradict the causal claim that racist speech enables racist violence.
#15092746
Godstud wrote:You cannot claim libel if you are, quite obviously(as you do in this thread), supporting racism. The accusation would not be false, and therefore, not libel. You'd first have to prove that supporting racism doesn't mean you're a racist, and I doubt anyone would believe that malarky.


I don't support racism, I support your right to say racist stuff. I don't support porn, I don't like porn, I hate porn I think it's evil, I wish porn didn't exist, but I support your right to look at porn.
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 19 May 2020 01:29, edited 1 time in total.
#15092747
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm not in favour of people calling other people monkeys or any other racist names. I'm not in favour of people being dragged away by the cops for it. There's a BIG difference. Do you understand that difference? So far, you haven't. I don't smoke marijuana, I don't like marijuana, I don't condone the use of any recreational drugs, I think marijuana is harmful to society, but I don't think people should be thrown in jail for using marijuana thus they should have the right to smoke it. Do you understand the difference?


You being called out by others for being a racist is also an exercise of the free speech of the people calling you out what you are. You being a racist is far more discernible, obvious and easier stated than a Black person being called a "monkey" by you(or someone else). You already stated that being called a "racist" is good enough reason to pursue legal damages, but being called a "monkey" is not. As such your arguments are not just pathetic they are totally hypocritical. You claim that people calling you a racist have no right to free speech, while you(or anyone) calling Black people "monkeys" do have a right to free speech. :lol: :lol: :lol: How do you figure that equation?
#15092749
Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't support racism, I support right to say racist stuff.
That's a racist stance to take, as racism causes harm. We've already established this. If you support the right to say racist stuff, then you are a racist, by default.

Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't support porn, I don't like porn, I hate porn I think it's evil, I wish porn didn't exist, but I support your right to look at porn.
You're comparing someone looking at porn to hate speech? :roll:
#15092751
Thankfully judges and lawyers are smart, very well educated people and can understand the differences in all the things I'm saying, therefore the law is the law and it won't change despite the arguments from all you guys. I've made my arguments, I can't force you to understand them.
#15092753
Thankfully judges and lawyers are smart, very well educated people and can understand the differences in all the things I'm saying
Yes, and that's why Ezra Levant had to pay $80,000 for his hate speech.

You are making arguments that are very poor.
#15092754
Unthinking Majority wrote:Thankfully judges and lawyers are smart, very well educated people and can understand the differences in all the things I'm saying, therefore the law is the law and it won't change despite the arguments from all you guys. I've made my arguments, I can't force you to understand them.


You already stated that being called a "racist" is and should be good enough reason to pursue legal damages, but being called a "monkey" is not and should not be good enough reason to pursue legal damages. Do tell us your amazing argument that makes this ridiculously hypocritical statement, true.

I'm all ears.
#15092759
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.

- So in what way is that not hate speech? please, enlighten me.

I, and others, are pointing out that supporting racism, and racist hate speech, makes you a racist.
#15092778
Godstud wrote: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.

- So in what way is that not hate speech? please, enlighten me.


Because Levant wasn't sued for hate speech, he broke no hate speech laws, he was sued for libelous statements: "Ezra Levant loses libel case, must pay $80,000 to man he defamed as ‘illiberal Islamic fascist". Do you understand the difference between libel, defamation, and hate speech?

I, and others, are pointing out that supporting racism, and racist hate speech, makes you a racist.


Yes it does. Luckily I don't support either of those things. I support someone's right to make racist hate speech as a matter of free speech, I don't support anyone actually making racist hate speech, and therefore I'm not racist, i'm a free speech advocate. This is how logic works.

Saying I support making marijuana use legal does not in any way mean I support the use of marijuana.
#15092782
Unthinking Majority wrote:Thankfully judges and lawyers are smart, very well educated people and can understand the differences in all the things I'm saying, therefore the law is the law and it won't change despite the arguments from all you guys. I've made my arguments, I can't force you to understand them.




people understand you , it's just you cannot force people to agree with you.
#15092786
Pants-of-dog wrote:In fact, he has not been punished for any hate speech at all, has he?


I'm not sure. As far as I know he just has to keep hiring lawyers and burning big-time money because people try to intimidate him and shut him up by filing complaints against him, which must be heard and by law can't be thrown out before the hearing because they're ridiculous unlike a real court of law. These cases also aren't heard by judges or lawyers, they're decided by bureaucrats within a "quasi-judicial" process.
#15092789
Unthinking Majority wrote:I support someone's right to make racist hate speech as a matter of free speech, I don't support anyone actually making racist hate speech, and therefore I'm not racist, i'm a free speech advocate. This is how logic works.
Again, by default, by wanting to allow racist speech(which is harmful), you are condoning it. That is also how logic works.
#15092792
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm not sure. As far as I know he just has to keep hiring lawyers and burning big-time money because people try to intimidate him and shut him up by filing complaints against him, which must be heard and by law can't be thrown out before the hearing because they're ridiculous unlike a real court of law. These cases also aren't heard by judges or lawyers, they're decided by bureaucrats within a "quasi-judicial" process.


So you previously argued that Alberta is Orwellian even though you had no idea if Levant had ever been punished.

But if you think that suing people or otherwise forcing them into legal battles is a form of censorship, then I will support you in denouncing Ezra Levant for doing that exact thing.
#15092793
@Unthinking Majority the truth is that real racism starts in people's heads Unthinking Majority. The USA already has a lot of very heavy, violent and discriminatory racist history.

This is a scene from the movie Loving. Based on a real case in Virginia in which people of different races weren't allowed to marry. It had to go to the Supreme Court to be dealt with. How can states tell people who they can or can't marry? It starts in a some racist group's social psychology and becomes law.



There is other scenes in which a sheriff comes barging in on the couple and drags them away. The pregnant wife is jailed like a criminal. Yes, justice. Racism. It does no harm.

The law reflects the mindset of the people making it happen. It starts as an idea that is usually related to economic or social institution. The USA had to deal with it for years and still uses racist legal arguments to deny rights to people even in 2020. So the racists are still using the law.

Got to deal with racist thoughts that then takes the next step into 'allowing' racist speech. In Germany? they made it illegal. Because they had to live an entire lost generation of youth of German ethnicity to a regime that pushed racism as its many foundational principles. It affected them extremely negatively and as such? They created anti Racist speech laws. Most laws reflect the history of the society and the cultural matrix of that society. The USA is and has been in its past very racist.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 26

I know the big five, the factor model of personal[…]

Election 2020

@ingliz I find these clips in black and white of[…]

November 26, Wednesday President Lincoln goes d[…]

I did say that he governed like a 4chan troll once[…]