The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 12 - 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

#15039815
Godstud wrote:@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:

So you can't argue with the evidence.
Atleast you chose to withdraw instead of trying to deny or dance around the facts like some others here.

And no, not really; You see, this is happening in your country not mine, you're the ones who're going down this path not me nor anyone close to me.
Worst-case scenario if this trend spread further, we go back to Baalbek where no one can control or censor anyone, while you guys enjoy the hell you're creating.
#15039828
The "evidence" does not support what you are saying, and is in fact saying quite the opposite, as hate speech is decreasing. I guess you missed that part, since it wouldn't have confirmed what you were saying.

Fear-mongering about the Bogey Man. Sad.

anasawad wrote: Worst-case scenario if this trend spread further, we go back to Baalbek where no one can control or censor anyone, while you guys enjoy the hell you're creating.
Good job. End it with a purely emotional argument to tear at heart-strings, and to ensure maximum melodrama. :lol:
#15039829
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

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.


@anasawad

We looked at the evidence: a wiki article about these laws in the UK. Pease quote the exact number of expansions, and tell us when they happened, and how they expanded the law.

Quote the article.

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.


Again, you have no evidence for arrests.

If you are so certain of these arrests, you would find another source that actually supports your claim.

The stats are public and were already linked for here.


No. Canada is a new subject, we did not discuss it. Present the evidence.

The article is about hate speech:


It is partly about hate speech.

It is not solely about hate speech.

Quote the passage in the article that describes the law.
#15039831
@Godstud
The argument is whether people are being arrested for hate speech, the evidence proves that the arrests number in the 100s.
The evidence proves my point.
Even your own reference proves my point since a drop in crimes of hate speech means that there are crimes of hate speech, i.e. proving my point that they exist.

Try to read the discussion before you post, it goes a long way.
#15039835
@Pants-of-dog
We looked at the evidence: a wiki article about these laws in the UK. Pease quote the exact number of expansions, and tell us when they happened, and how they expanded the law.

Quote the article.

We already gone through it a dozen times so far, in the UK it's under the communication act, specifically section 127 where the courts expanded the scope of the law by expanding its definition.
In Germany and many other countries, hate speech laws are expanding and states are already expanding their efforts to enforce them, as quoted 5 or so times so far, with Germany's last expansions being in 2017 and 2018.

Again, you have no evidence for arrests.

If you are so certain of these arrests, you would find another source that actually supports your claim.

Police raids are meant to arrest people. How many times should we go through this before you can understand the meaning of the word.
For there not to be any arrests of the 1400 cases, the police success rate needs to be zero.

No. Canada is a new subject, we did not discuss it. Present the evidence.

Look at the piece godstud quoted, and see the stats they referenced.

It is partly about hate speech.

It is not solely about hate speech.

Quote the passage in the article that describes the law.


Already did, several times, you ignoring it and dancing around it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
#15039836
@anasawad So there are crimes of hate speech because there are anti-discrimination laws(nothing new, incidentally). What's your fucking point, aside from a melodramatic fear-mongering conspiracy theory about progressives being out to get you?

You are normally very logical and reasonable, but on this topic you've gone off the rails on the crazy train.

anasawad wrote:Try to read the discussion before you post, it goes a long way.
Try not being a condescending ass. :roll:
#15039847
@Godstud
@anasawad So there are crimes of hate speech because there are anti-discrimination laws(nothing new, incidentally). What's your fucking point, aside from a melodramatic fear-mongering conspiracy theory about progressives being out to get you?

And of those crimes, in the stats your article references, a third of all of them are not incitement, not discrimination, not harassment, but hate speech, i.e. opinions. (edit: a third of the speech-related crimes online, not a third of all hate crimes since those include discrimination, assaults, etc as well)

People have the right to hold and express whatever opinions they have, even if those were bad opinions, because the minute we start silencing people from expressing their opinions even if those opinions were not targetted at anyone nor inciting any violence of any sort, then not only the people, all of them, just lost their freedom of speech, freedom of beliefs, and freedom of affiliation, but also a precedent would be established that gives the state the power to silence and arrest people based on political speech, which means the minute one power-hungry politician or group reach power they can use it to crack down on their opposition.
That's how democracy ends and tyranny begins.

It might be small at first, but once the state has that power, it becomes inevitable that this power will be abused.
It's the same story every time.

Look at surveillance for example in the US, it started small, only meant to track credible threats and required tons of procedures to be able to even track or surveil a person; 20 years later, everyone is constantly watched and the state has immense powers because of that very small law that began with a very small scope.
And now, someone like Trump has the keys to that power.

You want the progressive line, listen to Bernie Sanders, long term consequences, always watch for long term consequences.

And those aren't small countries we're talking about, the UK, Germany, the US, Canada, etc are all world-leading countries, meaning the minute they go in a certain path, many countries follow.
That's why Trump's victory kicked off an entire chain of right-wing authoritarians all across.

And It's not a strawman comparing it to the early beginnings of the Baath party, read the writings of Michel Aflaq and Salah Al-Din Bitar; The laws they pushed and formulated all the way back in the 50s and 60s establishing the state's authority to censor people and media in sects-related subjects in order to reduce and prevent sectarian tensions from exploding again are the same laws that would permit Hafez Al-Assad decades latter to throw 10s of thousands in jail under the guise of keeping national unity and preventing sectarian divide, and the same laws that would cause the descent in Syria that would grow underground until it blew up in the current civil war.

Irregardless of what the intent is, you must always be careful not to concentrate too much powers in the hands of the state that could backfire whenever the wrong person or group takes over.
Try not being a condescending ass. :roll:

A bit hard when it's been 5 pages running in circles. :p


@Pants-of-dog
@anasawad

Quote the portions of the wiki article and the article from the UK.

Once you do that, we can look at it together.

We already did. We went through the communication act and the Network enforcement act, and the stats and the articles.
You ignored all of them.
#15039855
@anasawad

Quote the relevant text.

First, the UK article.

Quote the exact text that describes the law.

When you do, it will be immediately obvious that this law is about all online speech, and not just hate speech.
#15039858
@Pants-of-dog
It's not only about hate speech, it's about a whole set of things, and the reason why the cases and arrests have gone up in the recent years is because the laws states offensive and\or threatening communications, which means the courts decide what is considered offensive.
That's why a comedian can be arrested and fined for a joke that was deemed "offensive" by the police.

We already went through this at the beginning.
#15039859
@anasawad

So we agree that it is not just about hate speech.

Since that is the case, the number of Londoners charged under this crime is not an indication of how many are being prosecuted for hate speech.

—————

@anasawad

Now quote the wiki article for the UK hate speech laws.
#15039861
@Rancid
From an outside perspective, the left is moving away from the liberal left and into the authoritarian left.
(Yes, there is such thing as an authoritarian left, it's the top left square on the spectrum)
(No, I'm not saying everyone on the left is authoritarian, but that within the left wing movements at the moment, there is a push towards authoritarianism and away from libertarianism, being yet small doesn't meant it shouldn't be addressed)


@Pants-of-dog
@anasawad

So we agree that it is not just about hate speech.

Since that is the case, the number of Londoners charged under this crime is not an indication of how many are being prosecuted for hate speech.

Read the article about the arrest stats I posted earlier, and you can go back to the example cases earlier when we discussed this law (Because this is the third time on a row), many have already been arrested for offensive speech, not threats or harassment, offense.

I already quoted all the relevant parts multiple times, go read them and when you have an argument that isn't denial or logical fallacies, we can continue.
#15039862
@anasawad

If you insist on repeating your claims, we can do this again.

Does the UK law against online speech deal only with hate speech, or does it also involve other uses of illegal speech such as threats? Yes or no?
#15039863
@Pants-of-dog
It includes all of them.

How many times will you repeat these same fucking strawman arguments?

It deals with hate speech, threats, harassments, and incitement, and as quoted before, people are being arrested for offensive material even when it was not targetted at anyone.
The law leaves the decision subjectively to the judge and jury to determine whether the material is offensive or not.
That's why 100s of cases are registered every year on it.

We already been through the fact there are many cases of people being arrested and convicted due to offensive material, multiple times.

Now quite using the same strawmans and red herrings over and over again and start presenting an argument.
#15039877
@anasawad

So we agree that the number of Londoners charged under this law may or may not be charged because of hate speech, and can be charged for things other than hate speech.

Yes or no?
#15039882
@Pants-of-dog
There wasn't a disagreement to begin with.
We already been through this 5 times.

It still doesn't disprove my argument that people are getting arrested over hate speech, as previously demonstrated.
And it still does make this argument you're pushing, for the fifth time, yet again a strawman.
#15039904
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
There wasn't a disagreement to begin with.
We already been through this 5 times.

It still doesn't disprove my argument that people are getting arrested over hate speech, as previously demonstrated.
And it still does make this argument you're pushing, for the fifth time, yet again a strawman.


@anasawad

How many people are being arrested in the UK for hate speech?
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 16
Turn, turn, turn

Not even close, but I can focus, unlike some I co[…]

Thanks, that was my first laugh of the day. Proj[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

@Drlee I am a firm believer that you never […]

The cure for that disease is single payer. It's t[…]