Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Welcome to boards.

:D *salutes*

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

We get it, you're great, a minor saint of colour blindness.

You clearly still aren't getting it.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

You didn't answer my question

You didn't ask me a question.

But if you have any more input into an experience you weren't there for, maybe keep it to yourself, eh? I won't implant myself into any of your memories. Deal?

Or get out and make some experiences yourself.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

You're some tulip. You think there's something there supports your guff?

What's that sport American schoolkids play? Dodgeball. You'd be a shoe in for MVP in that.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

What's that sport American schoolkids play? Dodgeball. You'd be a shoe in for MVP in that.

Still nothing there that supports your guff.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Still nothing there that supports your guff.

Tulip, guff, 🙄 , soz, daft, strawman, load of bollox, bias, racist, none so blind and so on. That's before the olympic standards of deflection and avoidance. Please excuse me if I've left out some better examples of your wit and debate derring do. You and your argument ran out of steam a couple of pages in and this is all you have left.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Tulip, guff, �� , soz, daft, strawman, load of bollox, bias, racist, none so blind and so on. That's before the olympic standards of deflection and avoidance. Please excuse me if I've left out some better examples of your wit and debate derring do. You and your argument ran out of steam a couple of pages in and this is all you have left.

Still nothing. More guff.

Wibbs wrote:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

Marcos

Wibbs wrote: »

Tulip, guff, 🙄 , soz, daft, strawman, load of bollox, bias, racist, none so blind and so on. That's before the olympic standards of deflection and avoidance. Please excuse me if I've left out some better examples of your wit and debate derring do. You and your argument ran out of steam a couple of pages in and this is all you have left.

You forgot the short drive by replies* and projection in saying everyone else is missing the point while going so far to avoid the point and engage meaningfully in posts that don't support the narrative.

*Sad

iebamm2580

Wibbs wrote: »

Tulip, guff, 🙄 , soz, daft, strawman, load of bollox, bias, racist, none so blind and so on. That's before the olympic standards of deflection and avoidance. Please excuse me if I've left out some better examples of your wit and debate derring do. You and your argument ran out of steam a couple of pages in and this is all you have left.

Wibbs you have clearly won the argument, i applaud you for continuing to engage as usually most people get fed up and leave them have the last word.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Wibbs you have clearly won the argument

With this calibre of evidence - he's certainly won something.

Wibbs wrote:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

As have the electorate. Ever considered your mother is the outlier?

All the time.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

You're some tulip. You think there's something there supports your guff?

alastair wrote: »

You clearly still aren't getting it.

alastair wrote: »

Still nothing there that supports your guff.

alastair wrote: »

Still nothing. More guff.

alastair wrote: »

With this calibre of evidence - he's certainly won something.

You forgot guff in this one and that's just the last page. You're slipping. And to save your ickle copypasta fingers further and to keep your "argument" consistent, here ya go;

Me. Earlier. Pointing out something which seems to get no answer but Guff(tm)(c) Alastair 2019 wrote:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

I even gave an example and I can give more.

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Wibbs you have clearly won the argument, i applaud you for continuing to engage as usually most people get fed up and leave them have the last word.

Sure feck it IeB, dropping down on final approach to Xmas, so a slow week and it's fun to watch twist in the wind those who want to speak for us, pimp their politic and seek to shut down any knotty questions they can't, or won't answer. It's also interesting to see how quite empty and remarkably delicate their politic and arguments are outside of the echo chambers of mutual onanism they mostly tend to air them in. See above. The only answer he has is a near tourettes stream of nothing. Swap out "guff" for "No, you smell" and you're in the same empty debate of the kindergarten.

In that at least the "Left" and the "Right" mouthpieces are two cheeks of the same smelly arse. About the only difference is that one gets far more airtime and less open pushback about their "accepted truths" than the other.

suicide_circus

i cant remember who said it but i think this is an exaple of the following:

Its immediately very very obvious when those on the right go too far and cross the line. Its not always immediately obvious when those on the left go too far and cross the line - i think this is one of those times.

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

i cant remember who said it but i think this is an exaple of the following:

Its immediately very very obvious when those on the right go too far and cross the line. Its not always immediately obvious when those on the left go too far and cross the line

To be fair Sc the "Left" are starting from a very different angle and a less nasty one overall.

Ok this is going to be necessarily vague...

Take the American origin and lazy interwebs insult of "Social Justice Warrior!!". If we examine that and let's be honest here, only a complete moron, or socio/psychopath would be against actual social justice, against an equitable society for all, against a helping hand for the less fortunate through birth or circumstance, against prejudice, against the society and community and that past mistakes can change in the future to make this happen. Social justice is a good thing, it's even fairly OK when it gets somewhat "extreme". On paper at least.

Now the Right are coming from the position in general of a hierarchy of society, where the social order is largely set(outside of self made types, which can prove the rule), more individualistic with less community and this is the natural state of mankind and there's little society can do to change this for the future. For the ones who aren't naturally in step due to birth and circumstance well there's charity, leave the state out of it(and a few studies show conservatives, even relatively poor ones are indeed more likely to give to charity). When this goes to extreme, even somewhat extreme you tend to sail into the waters of "natural" prejudice. On paper at least.

They are quite different approaches from the ground up. Even on the subjective/objective front. Both when going to extremes can be gung ho against free speech, but in the generally politically centrist nations the Left is latterly more likely to call for it and get more airtime to do so. To ask the state to monitor and control and punish any transgressions as it sees them. Sometimes to an insidious degree that we'd all have a sh1tfit if it were actual fascists calling for such changes.

Look at this thread for two examples. Where a question was asked of the committee looking into this new legislation about the relaxation of the burden of proof and they replied that they were considering it, even though this was unusual in law. Those broadly in favour of this legislation were either "well nothing to see here really" or "well that's already in play in tax law". As if removing the burden of proof, which impacts innocent until proven guilty is of little import. The same people would have an absolute mentaller if a right wing group answered in the same way. And they'd be bloody right to.

Another and following on from the same burden of proof was legal proceedings on the basis of how the accuser feels a wrong was done to him or her. Again if this were coming from "t'other side" apoplexies would ensue and again they'd be bloody right.

The difference is they see this legislation as being in agreement with their politics. The historical list of bad to heinous legislation that have ended up in law books because they agreed with enough of a particular society's politics or those in power over it is a long one. And they couldn't be questioned either.

Now the vast majority of people are against "hate". What nutter is going to say they support hate? So a straw poll of Sean O'Citizen will naturally say "oh yeah hate speech, down with that sort of thing. I support that". The problem is one of the fundamental things with actual free speech is you have to allow those ideas and voices you don't like, even despise, in order for good ideas to come forward. And no, contrary to some here who seem to have no clue about history, "good" and "bad" ideas are not a constant in human history. They can change near overnight and certainly over a generation or two. Good ideas of today were once seen as daft or even bad ideas in the past and held as good only by a minority. Without free speech and thought we likely would have not heard them. The other problem is both good and bad ideas get driven underground where they can fester. Not good. Light is a great disinfectant. Reduce freedom of speech and you turn the dimmer switch down.

If someone says "Kill all the Gays!", throw the book at them. If someone says "I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong", then argue with them, or ignore them, or try to bring them around with facts and figures, fine, but they have the right to believe that.

suicide_circus

The other angle, going back to my first post in the thread, is the blasphemy one. When you turn your political beliefs into your religion (and a damned puritanical and dogmatic religion at that), its hard to countenance deviation from scripture (particularly when that scripture starts to crumple like wet toilet paper under scrutiny). So now, people with a different world view aren't just wrong, theyre actively wicked and as such need to be shut down.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

You forgot guff in this one and that's just the last page. You're slipping. And to save your ickle copypasta fingers further and to keep your "argument" consistent, here ya go;



I even gave an example and I can give more.

Sure feck it IeB, dropping down on final approach to Xmas, so a slow week and it's fun to watch twist in the wind those who want to speak for us, pimp their politic and seek to shut down any knotty questions they can't, or won't answer. It's also interesting to see how quite empty and remarkably delicate their politic and arguments are outside of the echo chambers of mutual onanism they mostly tend to air them in. See above. The only answer he has is a near tourettes stream of nothing. Swap out "guff" for "No, you smell" and you're in the same empty debate of the kindergarten.

In that at least the "Left" and the "Right" mouthpieces are two cheeks of the same smelly arse. About the only difference is that one gets far more airtime and less open pushback about their "accepted truths" than the other.

There’s certainly a whiff of onanist off this though:

Wibbs wrote:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

Sir Oxman

Wibbs wrote: »

Light is a great disinfectant. Reduce freedom of speech and you turn the dimmer switch down.

^This.


And no-one has the right not to be offended.
This is my biggest concern in regards to possible erosion of freedom of speech - a nirvana for professional offence takers, especially the lowest kind who take offence on behalf of someone else.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

There’s certainly a whiff of onanist off this though:

Oh oh, I think the mechanism's gone.

alastair

Sir Oxman wrote: »

^This.


And no-one has the right not to be offended.
This is my biggest concern in regards to possible erosion of freedom of speech - a nirvana for professional offence takers, especially the lowest kind who take offence on behalf of someone else.

The legislation doesn’t impede free speech beyond the following:

...its sole purpose is to protect individuals and communities belonging to ethnic, national or religious groups, holding specific beliefs or opinions, whether of a religious or other nature, from hostility, discrimination or violence, rather than to protect belief systems, religions or institutions as such from criticism. The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones, as long as this does not advocate hatred that incites violence, hostility or discrimination against an individual or group of individuals.

How is that an issue for you? Where does the legislation criminalise anyone being offended?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh oh, I think the mechanism's gone.

If you’ve no problem with your statement, it should be if no concern to you. Of course, you should have a problem with what you said.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

If you’ve no problem with your statement, it should be if no concern to you. Of course, you should have a problem with what you said.

Oh I should eh? Bless me father for I have sinned.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I should eh? Bless me father for I have sinned.

Yeah. You should.

Sir Oxman

alastair wrote: »

The legislation doesn’t impede free speech beyond the following:


How is that an issue for you? Where does the legislation criminalise anyone being offended?

The point is we do not yet know what new provisions are going to be adopted by the review, do we?


I have pointed out my fears that perception of offence may be included (directly or on behalf on someone else)


Your last sentence makes no sense.

alastair

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The point is we do not yet know what new provisions are going to be adopted by the review, do we?


I have pointed out my fears that perception of offence may be included (directly or on behalf on someone else)


Your last sentence makes no sense.

We are clear on the parameters of what is to be legislated, we are clear on what is not going to be criminalised. There’s precisely nothing to suggest that causing offence is proposed as a criminal act. Nothing.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

We are clear on the parameters of what is to be legislated, we are clear on what is not going to be criminalised.

"We" are clear eh? Given the legislation is in the consultancy stage and apparently still open to public debate and submission, how are "we" so clear already? Or are you hoping/know it's a done deal?

Oh and define "hatred". Again. It seems you'd have that opinion of mine you feel the need to compulsively copypasta like a nervous tic dragged across the coals and me with it. Is that "hatred" in your eyes? It seems so and I doubt I'd be alone in receiving the pointy finger. Even though I'm pointing out a trend and with an example from one of the many and byzantine NGO's you also seem so eager to support.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

"We" are clear eh? Given the legislation is in the consultancy stage and apparently still open to public debate and submission, how are "we" so clear already? Or are you hoping/know it's a done deal?

Oh and define "hatred". Again. It seems you'd have that opinion of mine you feel the need to compulsively copypasta like a nervous tic dragged across the coals and me with it. Is that "hatred" in your eyes? It seems so and I doubt I'd be alone in receiving the pointy finger. Even though I'm pointing out a trend and with an example from one of the many and byzantine NGO's you also seem so eager to support.

The consultation paper made very clear the bounds and terms of any changes being considered. We both know this.

Is your idiotic post racist? Sure. Is it criminal? No. Just remarkably stupid.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

T
Is your idiotic post racist? Sure. Is it criminal? No. Just remarkably stupid.

So facts are stupid and racist now eh? Again please feel free to disprove what I said. Hell, even come back with a question on it. I mean it seems to be lodged in your head like a tick, so you've read it enough times, surely you'd have something more than "racist" and "guff". Apparently not. Then again you've proved decidedly lacking in disproving or reasonably questioning the vast majority of points brought up in this thread, so no need to hold my breath. Though at this point dealing with you is like kicking your opponent when they're down and out for the count and their seconds have retired to the pub. So until you come up with something more cogent and less dogwhistling you're best ignored.

Annasopra

Wibbs wrote: »

If someone says "Kill all the Gays!", throw the book at them

I agree but then why not throw the book at someone who says "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait?

Wibbs

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I agree but then why not throw the book at someone who says "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait?

Because I can actually go out and try to "kill all Gays", if I'm going deepsea fishing I'm not actually going to be using Traveller kids as bait.

Oh sure it's a nasty thing to come out with indeed, but where do you draw the line? I'm quite sure your line would be significantly more censorious than mine for example. A jury of "Me's" would likely acquit, a jury of "You's" would likely throw said book at them. There are plenty of things that can offend me, the difference is I prefer to shine a light on them.

Annasopra

Wibbs wrote: »

Because I can actually go out and try to "kill all Gays", if I'm going deepsea fishing I'm not actually going to be using Traveller kids as bait.

Oh sure it's a nasty thing to come out with indeed, but where do you draw the line? I'm quite sure your line would be significantly more censorious than mine for example. A jury of "Me's" would likely acquit, a jury of "You's" would likely throw said book at them. There are plenty of things that can offend me, the difference is I prefer to shine a light on them.

But where is the difference? One is saying kill all gays the other is saying kill all traveller children