De-platforming fascists works

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

Milo Yiannopoulos is an under-informed, over-confident, provocative little prick. That is not what a Fascist is. It isn't illegal to be an asshole, nor should it be.

who spreads hatred and division. you missed that out. hatred and division that feeds others. you also missed that out.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Fascism doesn't start with death camps. Perhaps as a society we need to do a better job of learning from history.

No, you're absolutely right, it starts with one set of people (usually in a more powerful position) preventing another set of people from expressing their views and also justifying violence being used against them.

Now who is doing that I wonder.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, you're absolutely right, it starts with one set of people (usually in a more powerful position) preventing another set of people from expressing their views and justifying violence against them.

Now who is doing that I wonder.

you can keep repeating that nonsense as much as you want. it wont make it true.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who spreads hatred and division. you missed that out. hatred and division that feeds others. you also missed that out.

I know what the little bollocks tries to do. And he's about as Fascist as Dame Edna Everage. :pac:

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who spreads hatred and division. you missed that out. hatred and division that feeds others. you also missed that out.

He also highlights the absurdity of the far left.

I disagree with a lot of what he says (as I am sure do you) but the difference is, I don't want him deplatformed.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can keep repeating that nonsense as much as you want. it wont make it true.

Of course it's true. You said earlier that Fascism doesn't begin with death camps. Of course it doesn't. It begins with perfectly nice, ordinary people who tell you they know what you want, what scares you, that they're exactly like you and they will make everything hunky-dory by hook or by crook. It's always the same oul' Kyrie eleison. :pac:

biko

The left and the right are like two guys arguing in a club, but the left is telling the bouncers to throw the other guy out.

The lefty guy thinks that if others hear what the righty guy says they may start thinking like the righty guy and that would be a disaster.
The lefty guy think that other people are too stupid to make their own minds up and needs to be protected by the lefty guy.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I know what the little bollocks tries to do. And he's about as Fascist as Dame Edna Everage. :pac:

I've no doubt he is less than sincere in what he does and is only in it for the money. that doesn't make him any less dangerous.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can keep repeating that nonsense as much as you want. it wont make it true.

Liberals haven't tried and succeeded at getting people whose views they don't like deplatformed??
Antifa haven't tried and succeeded at preventing people they disagree with from speaking at colleges??
Liberals haven't tried to justify Antifa's use of violence against those they fundamentally disagree with??

Would ya come off it ffs. All three of the above have occurred and multiple times too.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

He also highlights the absurdity of the far left.

I disagree with a lot of what he says (as I am sure do you) but the difference is, I don't want him deplatformed.

i am quite happy for him to be removed from the major platforms. Let him shout into the void on telegram. hearing him squeal because the money has dried up was quite wonderful.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can keep repeating that nonsense as much as you want. it wont make it true.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i am quite happy for him to be removed from the major platforms. Let him shout into the void on telegram. hearing him squeal because the money has dried up was quite wonderful.

lol.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i am quite happy for him to be removed from the major platforms. Let him shout into the void on telegram. hearing him squeal because the money has dried up was quite wonderful.

Having said all of the above, I'm not exactly shedding tears either. Various platform providers are quite entitled to deny same to anyone they perceive to be not aligned with their values, of course they are - again, that is not what "Free Speech" means, contrary to much screeching - and it isn't any great harm to quieten most of these knobjockeys whether they call themselves Left-wing, Right-wing or Final-fuckin'-front-ear-wing.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol.

LOL. You seem to be quite happy with yourself for some reason. good for you.

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were posting honestly. Your constant use of the phrase "mental gymnastics" has proven that you aren't and instead are trolling.

I can't quite place why you are doing this but I hope you are enjoying yourself. I, for one, won't be engaging with you any further.

Edit, Beasty dealt with some issues above, won't comment.

RandomName2

sk8erboii wrote: »

There is no leeway with fascism. If it holds the status quo it leads to mass killings every single time.

Fascists Are fair game to be murdered and humiliated. if you feel personally attacked by this statement then thats on you. Fascism is an indefensible position and its defeat in real life every single time is proof of that

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lads there is no defensible position in being a fascist. If your ideology is inherently hostile to anyone who isn’t (whatever category you choose to be superior to everyone else) then dont be surprised when you are not tolerated.

And no, the USA , UK and the Allies were not being fascist when they killed as many of them as they could during WW2. Fascism is not something to be tolerated or protected by a legislation.

It is a hostile and murderous ideology, hence why in real life it gets cut down. if you find yourself personally attacked by this statement that is 100% on you

sk8erboii wrote: »

The better question here is, why do YOU (certain people in this thread) feel personally attacked when someone says fascists (authoritarian mass murderers) should be cut down?

The exact same argument could be made for Communism. Should communists be physically attacked for being communists? Generally no. The only exception to this is if they were attempting some sort of coup, insurrection, or terrorist campaign, but there's little chance of that (at least in the west). I feel the exact same in relation to fascism. It doesn't really matter what someone's political ideology is, it's their means that matter. Say you have a party that are in favor of banning nuclear power, but their method to achieve the banning of nuclear power involves planting bombs in populated areas, then it doesn't matter if they ascribe to Green politics, they need to be arrested and jailed.

Anybody who is familiar with my posting will know that I'm no major fan of Irish republican and Unionist terrorist groups, but that's not because I'm against either Republicanism, or Unionism, but because I am against terrorism.

You have fascist governments who were not murder machines, some that certainly were. Exact same thing with communist governments. Both forms of government (both fascist and communist) are pretty vile, but I think that they can be defeated in the polls through reasoned argument and facts. Since the second world war it has always worked to make these ideologies be neutralized (unless you consider Trump to be a fascist, which is a bit silly, as you agree).

But you say that you shouldn't defeat political movements with words, but with violence. That is seriously wrong, and I think once you get off your high horse you should be able to see that.

Note that fascist and communist movements have been known to engage in violence as part of their modus operandi, and that is something which can and should be opposed, and it should be opposed with recourse to the law. No political movement, for no reason, should have the freedom to act outside the confines of the law.

Also note that when fascists and communists have historically 'won' politically, it has usually involved these groups using violence to achieve their ends (often with large armed groups that were answerable to nobody but themselves).

biko

sk8erboii wrote: »

The better question here is, why do YOU (certain people in this thread) feel personally attacked when someone says fascists (authoritarian mass murderers) should be cut down?

Possibly because some here think that if you don’t believe in free speech for people who you hate, fear and disagree with, then you don’t believe in free speech.

Pa ElGrande

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's the democratic rule of law that hate speech is illegal. What people or private enterprise choose to censor is their right to censor unless it contravenes somebodies legal rights.

As a rule of thumb go with the 8th ommandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." it's much less hasstle than having to get up each day and wonder what the latest hate speech laws are for that particular day which will vary with the political correctness diktat which you willsomeday find yourself on the wrong side.

Unless you reside in a United States territory you do not have the freedom of speech so anything you say can deemed hate speech even of it is the truth all you have to do is say or publish something that is not political correct. And who decides what is politically correct?

In Ireland the purpose of the term hate speech is to silence dissent. Anyone who objects to direct provision centres in their locality rapidly discovers this when the national media pounces on them. Political correctness means that can't say what they think in public unless it complies with the reigning PC mantra of the day and they have to dance around the topic and stick the knife in when it comes to election time and that is how the center opinion is removed from politics and it veers towards the extremities.

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

As a rule of thumb go with the 8th ommandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." it's much less hasstle than having to get up each day and wonder what the latest hate speech laws are for that particular day which will vary with the political correctness diktat which you willsomeday find yourself on the wrong side.

Unless you reside in a United States territory you do not have the freedom of speech so anything you say can deemed hate speech even of it is the truth all you have to do is say or publish something that is not political correct. And who decides what is politically correct?

In Ireland the purpose of the term hate speech is to silence dissent. Anyone who objects to direct provision centres in their locality rapidly discovers this when the national media pounces on them. Political correctness means that can't say what they think in public unless it complies with the reigning PC mantra of the day and they have to dance around the topic and stick the knife in when it comes to election time and that is how the center opinion is removed from politics and it veers towards the extremities.

Sounds to me that you want hate speech. I have to disagree. Do you think we should just make up our own rules individually? What other laws do you dismiss?

For me hateful scumbaggery being silenced is needed. If that means a few soft touches get their back up, so what?

Pa ElGrande

Matt Barrett wrote: »

For me hateful scumbaggery being silenced is needed. If that means a few soft touches get their back up, so what?

Your point of view is based on fickle political correctness. The definition of what constitutes hate speech changes from day to day and eventually you too will personally be accused of being that scumbag and you will find yourself being fined or imprisoned for thought crime.

If that sounds far fetched, then consider that you already risk being a social outcast by not endorsing some politically correct point of view on direct provision centres. The movement toward the totalitarian begins, not necessarily with a government law, but with political and social correctness exerted on people by social forces and at social levels short of the direct presence of government. Yet government is there behind the scenes via regulations and broad laws that have a totalitarian impact. The totalitarianism is defined by attempts to impose one view on everyone by force and sanction.

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Your point of view is based on fickle political correctness. The definition of what constitutes hate speech changes from day to day and eventually you too will personally be accused of being that scumbag and you will find yourself being fined or imprisoned for thought crime.

If that sounds far fetched, then consider that you already risk being a social outcast by not endorsing some politically correct point of view on direct provision centres. The movement toward the totalitarian begins, not necessarily with a government law, but with political and social correctness exerted on people by social forces and at social levels short of the direct presence of government. Yet government is there behind the scenes via regulations and broad laws that have a totalitarian impact. The totalitarianism is defined by attempts to impose one view on everyone by force and sanction.

Fickle? Define fickle? Was Milo fickle in his stirring? What is it that you are losing, or feel you are losing? Is it worth keeping on hate mongers who endanger sections of society because you want the Golly back on the Marmalade?

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

I'm accusing you of trying to belittle women who are claiming to be victims and antifacists.

Or...you know... Not allowing someone's gender be a deciding factor on whether I believe them.

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Your point of view is based on fickle political correctness. The definition of what constitutes hate speech changes from day to day and eventually you too will personally be accused of being that scumbag and you will find yourself being fined or imprisoned for thought crime.

Absolutely.

Pa ElGrande

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fickle? Define fickle? Was Milo fickle in his stirring? What is it that you are losing, or feel you are losing? Is it worth keeping on hate mongers who endanger sections of society because you want the Golly back on the Marmalade?

No. I want people I disagree with out in the open where I can see them and evaluate their views of the world and arguments and if necessary be able to remonstrate with them. Telling people to shut-up and stay in their box which is what de-platforming is just breeds resentment, as more people are marginalised by de-platforming then their only outlet becomes violence or finding common cause with the extremists to defeat their common enemy.

Veritas Libertas

Ironicname wrote: »

Or...you know... Not allowing someone's gender be a deciding factor on whether I believe them.



Absolutely.

Sexist misogynist pig. How dare you belittle women like that.

(/sarcasm)-added to negate Poe's Law.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

Or...you know... Not allowing someone's gender be a deciding factor on whether I believe them.

....

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Sexist misogynist pig. How dare you belittle women like that.

(/sarcasm)-added to negate Poe's Law.

Getting your threads mixed up lads?

As I said on the other alt-right is alright 'triggered' snow flake thread, it's how the legal system works

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No. I want people I disagree with out in the open where I can see them and evaluate their views of the world and arguments and if necessary be able to remonstrate with them. Telling people to shut-up and stay in their box which is what de-platforming is just breeds resentment, as more people are marginalised by de-platforming then their only outlet becomes violence or finding common cause with the extremists to defeat their common enemy.

Well you can argue that we should have no censorship then. It's not like riling up and creating hate groups ever did anyone any damage...

batgoat

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Your point of view is based on fickle political correctness. The definition of what constitutes hate speech changes from day to day and eventually you too will personally be accused of being that scumbag and you will find yourself being fined or imprisoned for thought crime.

If that sounds far fetched, then consider that you already risk being a social outcast by not endorsing some politically correct point of view on direct provision centres. The movement toward the totalitarian begins, not necessarily with a government law, but with political and social correctness exerted on people by social forces and at social levels short of the direct presence of government. Yet government is there behind the scenes via regulations and broad laws that have a totalitarian impact. The totalitarianism is defined by attempts to impose one view on everyone by force and sanction.

Eh hate speech legislation has a pretty well defined list of what falls under its remit.

Veritas Libertas

batgoat wrote: »

Eh hate speech legislation has a pretty well defined list of what falls under its remit.

hahahahhahah:D:D:D:Dhahahhaha:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:hahahhaha Good one.

oh wait.. you're serious?

Can you please provide said list. I appreciate it I have been ignorant all this time. I was of the understanding that it depended on how much offence the person took to said hate speech.

RandomName2

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

hahahahhahah:D:D:D:Dhahahhaha:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:hahahhaha Good one.

oh wait.. you're serious?

Can you please provide said list. I appreciate it I have been ignorant all this time. I was of the understanding that it depended on how much offence the person took to said hate speech.

The only reasonable definition in my mind is 'incitement to violence', although that can be a pretty murky term. Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi saying that the faithful should kill infidel is clearly incitement to violence. Being an actress that appears in a lot of films (that somehow inspires someone to attempt to assassinate the US president), less so.

The thing is, if you don't commit a violent crime yourself, and get someone to do it for you, you are still guilty of the crime (and this makes sense). However, when there is no direct connection between the public act, and the act of violence, then we get into mess.

batgoat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

hahahahhahah:D:D:D:Dhahahhaha:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:hahahhaha Good one.

oh wait.. you're serious?

Can you please provide said list. I appreciate it I have been ignorant all this time. I was of the understanding that it depended on how much offence the person took to said hate speech.

Haha all you want but it's defined and rarely enforced in Ireland unfortunately.

“hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/section/1/enacted/en/html

Pa ElGrande

batgoat wrote: »

Haha all you want but it's defined and rarely enforced in Ireland unfortunately.

Luckily for some of the anti-Trumpers in Ireland that is not.