Hate Speech Public Consultation

Boggles

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXqcbFspkvg

Aftermath of an attack on family on dawson street by antifa thugs. 3 men later arrested.

Rally for peace eh?

Where is Aniiiiiiiiiiifa?

Poor cops, should have should pepper sprayed the lot of them.

Absolute cretins.

ThunbergsAreGo

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

There are over 19,500 of these groups in Ireland and they fleece the taxpayer for over 5.5 billion a year.

Thanks I was wondering where I could get that information.

Crazy crazy numbers. Double the transport budget

MadYaker

Can we just ignore the racists instead of turning them into victims?

Gynoid

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Typical Bourgeoise liberal.

You'll never encounter such raw hatred, bile and vitriol directed at the working class as when the lower orders vote the 'wrong' way.
These people have wholesale taken over the left and in reality they utterly despise the working classes.

Haha I have been watching videos where people are chanting Boris Johnson, not my Prime Minist-aaaah! Can none of them pronounce the ends of words? I have no dog in this fight, but it is hilarious to watch. The rich and well off claiming depression and condescending to the badly behaved proles. And in response to defeat becoming even more entrenched in their trust funded identitarian politics that they dare to call left wing.
As for the Irish situation re hate speech I will happily go to jail if arrested for speaking my mind on ANY issue. Happily.

seenitall

Gynoid wrote: »

As for the Irish situation re hate speech I will happily go to jail if arrested for speaking my mind on ANY issue. Happily.

You have no dependants, correct? Perhaps there are some people who would also like to be able to speak their mind freely on any issue, however a possibility that they could be separated from their children for their trouble, happily or not, will be tempering their desire. It shouldn't be that way.

MadYaker

Gynoid wrote: »

Haha I have been watching videos where people are chanting Boris Johnson, not my Prime Minist-aaaah! Can none of them pronounce the ends of words? I have no dog in this fight, but it is hilarious to watch. The rich and well off claiming depression and condescending to the badly behaved proles. And in response to defeat becoming even more entrenched in their trust funded identitarian politics that they dare to call left wing.
As for the Irish situation re hate speech I will happily go to jail if arrested for speaking my mind on ANY issue. Happily.

And lose your job? Not be able to ay your mortgage? Not be able to get another job because you're a convict, share a cell with some heroin addict or sex offender. Sure you would.

These laws are dumb and I hope they don't get brought in here. If someone is really looking to stir up trouble there are other laws already on the books the gardai can use, incitement to violence etc. This just gives more ammo to all the idiots on the right who love to play the victim and are constantly whinging about being told how to think and who seem totally incapable of acting like adults, just ignoring all this nonsense and getting on with their lives.

Gynoid

seenitall wrote: »

You have no dependants, correct? Perhaps there are some people who would also like to be able to speak their mind freely on any issue, however a possibility that they could be separated from their children for their trouble, happily or not, will be tempering their desire. It shouldn't be that way.

I had dependents, grown up though. But all through their childhood I voiced opinions and made public protests (yes, on the streets) that were not considered right and proper by many, and they used to always say we will visit you in prison, mammy (Or the mad house, was another favourite of theirs!) As for losing a job, sure it would mean I would be poorer, but I would manage. Hate speech laws are far too open to corruption, especially considering the absolute fcukwits who enter politics. Make your opinion publicly, whatever it is so long as it is not incitement to actual violence, and live or die by your argumentation. That is the essence of demokratia - the power (kratia) rests in the common people (demos).

Dick_Swiveller

In light of this thread started yesterday by a respected member https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058038452 it's worth asking: will the already stretched Garda resources be further depleted by the appointment of a thought police branch , whose job it is to hound people for holding unfashionable opinions?

Snake Plisken

sabat wrote: »

Could you at least offer some fair disclosure and confirm that you work for an NGO involved in immigration/asylum and are, to some extent, talking from your pocket?

I was just going to post the same, he/they is clearly working for one of these NGO's!

seenitall

Gynoid wrote: »

I had dependents, grown up though. But all through their childhood I voiced opinions and made public protests (yes, on the streets) that were not considered right and proper by many, and they used to always say we will visit you in prison, mammy (Or the mad house, was another favourite of theirs!) As for losing a job, sure it would mean I would be poorer, but I would manage. Hate speech laws are far too open to corruption, especially considering the absolute fcukwits who enter politics. Make your opinion publicly, whatever it is so long as it is not incitement to actual violence, and live or die by your argumentation. That is the essence of demokratia - the power (kratia) rests in the common people (demos).

Fair play to ya. However, in a democratic society, it shouldn't come to the situation that one can stand trial for the public expression of their views, just because someone else finds them offensive or running counter the correct thinking. I had enough of my life lived under political repression, thank you.

Incitement to violence, as you say is a different matter, and as I understand has the legislation to deal with it already.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Soo - a remarkable selective problem then. Gotcha.

I think that poster was saying that if some idiots are claiming that others saying things that they might disagree with or find offence with can be deemed as hate speech, the definition should be extremely explicit and not open to multiple interpretations.

I tend to agree.

For example; is stating that islam is an evil ideology hate speech or a misinformed opinion?

Is saying you believing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman hate speech?

Is saying that you believe feminism in its current form is toxic hate speech?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Gynoid

seenitall wrote: »

in a democratic society, it shouldn't come to the situation that one can stand trial for the public expression of their views, just because someone else finds them offensive or running counter the correct thinking.

This is it in a nutshell. Nothing else needs to be said. 1000 times this.

MadYaker

alastair wrote: »

(Translated - NGO bodies take on many state responsibilities, and funding is channelled through them - see Irish Aid, Homeless services provision, Training and education, civil society grants, etc). The taxpayer meets those overheads regardless of the distribution mechanism.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

I was just going to post the same, he/they is clearly working for one of these NGO's!

Can you lads counter the point he made or his questioning his motvies all your capable of?

wellwhynot

alastair wrote: »

All refugees are background checked. Those who make their claim here are checked here, the few that we’ve taken in from foreign UN camps are checked by the UN. The vast majority of asylum claims here are rejected, but that’s not to say their backgrounds don’t check out - their claim may be valid but not meet the criteria for protection.

Programme refugees have been given allocated housing, but they comprise a minority of refugees that make their way here. And yes - a family will generally rank higher on housing wait lists than a single adult - irrespective of any other criteria.

In 2012 a study found that two thirds of failed asylum seekers who arrived here had used fake names and were known to the British Border agency. A third had lied about their nationality. It also found that the majority had U.K. visas. An Irish official said it was ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The study was only conducted on failed asylum seekers in conjunction with the U.K. How can you do a back ground check on some one with no identification and who gives you a false name?

Snake Plisken

A lot of the organisations on the Antifa side of the road get the majority of their funding from the government. Have a watch of the following, it's quite maddening how much of our taxpayers money is wasted on these NGO's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS4K63xW4OA

MadYaker wrote: »

Can you lads counter the point he made or his questioning his motvies all your capable of?

MadYaker

You should never ever ever get any information from YouTube on politics. Maybe from some of the major news channels on there like sky or whatever but that’s about it. It’s just people’s biased opinions and not facts.

So you can’t counter the point then? The gov pays certain NGOs to perform services on its behalf. Seems reasonable enough to me?

MadYaker

wellwhynot wrote: »

In 2012 a study found that two thirds of failed asylum seekers who arrived here had used fake names and were known to the British Border agency. A third had lied about their nationality. It also found that the majority had U.K. visas. An Irish official said it was ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The study was only conducted on failed asylum seekers in conjunction with the U.K. How can you do a back ground check on some one with no identification and who gives you a false name?

You got a link to that study I’d like to read it. So far I don’t think anyone we’ve taken have turned to be violent criminals or terrorists but I do worry about the process. How can you vet someone if there’s no info on them?

Gynoid

MadYaker wrote: »

You should ..... get any information .....on politics.....from some of the major news channels on there like sky or whatever but that’s about it. I

Emmmm. No thanks.

Will I Am Not

MadYaker wrote: »

You should never ever ever get any information from YouTube on politics. Maybe from some of the major news channels on there like sky or whatever but that’s about it. It’s just people’s biased opinions and not facts.

So you can’t counter the point then? The gov pays certain NGOs to perform services on its behalf. Seems reasonable enough to me?

Taking all your news from major news outlets owned by multi-billionaires that control what can and can’t be expressed on said outlets is not a great idea to be fair.
Extremely naive to think that there’s no bias in Sky, BBC, RTE etc not to even mention the US organisations.

Wibbs

Gynoid wrote: »

Emmmm. No thanks.

Jaysus, yeah, Sky news would not be on a list of non biased political information. It veers too close to Daily Mail leanings. I mean Fox news is a major news outlet, yet if they told me the sky was blue, I'd look out a window to check it for myself. Some sections of the BBC, another major news outlet, is so Right On it can look like they just copied it from someone with purple hair on Tumblr.

Actual independent news and information is hard enough to come by, with people pointing at one lot or another feeling their outlet is "independent" depending on their own already decided worldview and biases and side. And it seems to me at least that it's getting more slanted on all sides, not less.

If I were to pick an outlet it tends to be Reuters, who are much more about "just the facts".

Boggles

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Sky, BBC, RTE

I'm pretty sure his point was they would be infinitely more reliable then some díckhead whittling nonsense in his living room.

The 3 above all have standards to adhere to.

Some cretin working out of his mothers spare room doesn't.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Jaysus, yeah, Sky news would not be on a list of non biased political information. It veers too close to Daily Mail leanings.

No it doesn't.

Sky News is pretty balanced.

There is no fúckery in England the likes of we see in the States with the news channels.

suicide_circus

all news outlets have editorial bias incl the bbc and rte, theres no was round that

Gynoid

Boggles wrote: »

I'm pretty sure his point was they would be infinitely more reliable then some díckhead whittling nonsense in his living room.

The 3 above all have standards to adhere to.

Some cretin working out of his mothers spare room doesn't.

That is untrue.
Mainstream regularly abuses so called standards and independent broadcasters are not universally cretins.
There are many morons on social platforms, on both sides of what has unfortunately become very polarised politics, but if one looks around there are many very reasonable and well educated people also. I have friends who are podcasters, and they are bright, scholarly, interested and interesting people with whom I agree or disagree amiably. I wont be naming my friends who are not looking for big audiences but some podcasts that are quite well known and interesting to various degrees are ones like Triggernometry or Benjamin Boyce's podcast . There are many others that dont go down the neanderthal red bill blue pill line - and frankly there is hardly a single mainstream station I can tolerate without feeling the need to hurl the radio out the window.

Will I Am Not

Boggles wrote: »

I'm pretty sure his point was they would be infinitely more reliable then some díckhead whittling nonsense in his living room.

The 3 above all have standards to adhere to.

Some cretin working out of his mothers spare room doesn't.

Not everyone on YouTube is a cretin working out of their mother’s spare room...

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

you wont get away with that kind of misogyny soon enough

Fishwife is fishwife shocker!

alastair

MadYaker wrote: »

Can we just ignore the racists instead of turning them into victims?

No-one with any cop-on is buying their victimhood.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that poster was saying that if some idiots are claiming that others saying things that they might disagree with or find offence with can be deemed as hate speech, the definition should be extremely explicit and not open to multiple interpretations.

I tend to agree.

For example; is stating that islam is an evil ideology hate speech or a misinformed opinion?

Is saying you believing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman hate speech?

Is saying that you believe feminism in its current form is toxic hate speech?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Perhaps if you actually cast your eyes over the helpful links I’ve already posted, which make crystal clear that none of the above would qualify. You can vent all you like about Islam, you just can’t incite hatred against Muslims as a consequence.

alastair

wellwhynot wrote: »

In 2012 a study found that two thirds of failed asylum seekers who arrived here had used fake names and were known to the British Border agency. A third had lied about their nationality. It also found that the majority had U.K. visas. An Irish official said it was ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The study was only conducted on failed asylum seekers in conjunction with the U.K. How can you do a back ground check on some one with no identification and who gives you a false name?

How do you think that those fake names were discovered? 🤔

Boggles

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Not everyone on YouTube is a cretin working out of their mother’s spare room...

I never said they were.

The ones that get posted around here universally are though.

Just read the comments, it's usually a pretty good gauge of the type of mentally ill dullard that is the target audience.