Je Suis Mila

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You don’t seem to be taking into account the response to contrary opinions can be extremely disproportionate. Thats the heart of the matter. If she said what she said about Liverpool fans they might giver her a bit of stick on Twitter. They won’t send extremely credible threats to her physical safety.

That may well be the heart of the matter for you, but the heart of the matter for me is that nobody has the freedom to say what they like in public free of any negative consequences. On social media that effect is magnified exponentially as the audience is potentially global. If she said what she said about anything, I can guarantee you that there will be fcukwits who share her mentality, but differ in their opinions who will make threats against her life and go all inspector clueless on her ass. We had similar happen on this very forum with Margaret Cash where her life was dissected and not a single fcuk was given for the effect it may have had on her.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You have to think in terms of severity of the reaction as well as the actual words spoken. You don’t seem inclined to take this into account at all and that is a major problem in supposedly secular, open democracies.

Rest assured I am taking that into account. It’s people who imagine they have the right to say what they like, who don’t take into account the potential negative consequences of their actions or the impact of their words on other people. It’s not really a problem in secular, open democracies as there aren’t too many of those types of people about. They mainly inhabit social media where they come to prominence as a consequence of their own actions and attitudes towards other people. They go viral and sometimes the consequences are positive, sometimes the consequences are negative. As I said earlier, you won’t hear them complain about the positive consequences.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

If the severity of the reaction to certain utterances is wildly disproportionate then we have a democratic crisis to face up to sooner or later.

“Certain utterances”? I have to give you credit for attempting to portray what she said as neutral at least. Like George Hook neutral :pac: We only have a democratic crisis to face up to when some people have the right of freedom to say what they like, and other people do not. As it stands now, nobody has the right to say what they like, and that’s the way a democracy should function - everyone has an equal voice, and if people are going to use their voice to abuse others or provoke or cause offence to other people, then they should be punished. That’s how a democracy works, when everyone is treated equally under the law, regardless of their sex, religion, etc.

One eyed Jack

Ironicname wrote: »

That's where I need to pull you up on that bull****.

Why?

Because nobody has that right. People can say what they like of course, but whether they have a right to say it will depend upon what they say. That’s the whole idea behind the limitations placed on freedom of expression - nobody can say what they like with impunity and expect to be protected from the consequences of their actions.

One eyed Jack

take everything wrote: »

Why do you not believe that the girl believes what she said about religion.

And people have been prosecuted for making threats to kill on the internet, haven't they. Why would you not believe such a threat. Especially since she was warned by the police she may be in danger.

What you're saying doesn't add up at all.

That’s not what you asked me. You asked me was i equating what she said with what those who disagree with her said, and I said I do - sky fairies aren’t any more credible than their threats against her.

I wouldn’t believe such a threat because I don’t lend threats from randomers on the Internet any more credibility than the millionaire prince in Nigeria begging me to be a mate and store his cash in my bank account.

ghost of ireland past

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know what society you live in, but in the society I live in, I’m glad we’re not so keen on thought crime. That’s why we don’t presume people are guilty of having committed any wrongdoing and punish them on the basis that they might one day do something wrong.
...

We can and do ban organisations that exist only for negative purposes, like the IRA or The Nazi Party.

We should ban criminal gangs, like MS-13 or The Hells Angels.

We should ban all organisations that espouse hate, including religions if necessary.

Well, we should consider it. Banning everything would be difficult.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because nobody has that right. People can say what they like of course, but whether they have a right to say it will depend upon what they say. That’s the whole idea behind the limitations placed on freedom of expression - nobody can say what they like with impunity and expect to be protected from the consequences of their actions.

That’s exactly the opposite of how it works in western democracy, certain types of speech are explicitly protected. Democracy just can’t function if people are afraid to speak out against threats to democracy. What you are advocating is really a popular strain of policing normal speech and expression, the tyranny of self censorship.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That’s exactly the opposite of how it works in western democracy, certain types of speech are explicitly protected. Democracy just can’t function if people are afraid to speak out against threats to democracy. What you are advocating is really a popular strain of policing normal speech and expression, the tyranny of self censorship.

I’m not sure an expectation of self-censorship actually qualifies as tyranny :pac:

I’m not against the idea of people speaking out against threats to democracy, I’m all for it, and that’s why I believe just as it’s important what a person says, it’s equally important how they say it. That will be the determining factor in whether their opinions are entitled to be protected by law in any democracy. “Shove your religion up your hole” (for example) is not an opinion worthy of respect in a democracy. Neither is the idea of suggesting that someone should be raped for telling anyone shove their religion up their hole.

I think you get the picture.

take everything

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what you asked me. You asked me was i equating what she said with what those who disagree with her said, and I said I do - sky fairies aren’t any more credible than their threats against her.

I wouldn’t believe such a threat because I don’t lend threats from randomers on the Internet any more credibility than the millionaire prince in Nigeria begging me to be a mate and store his cash in my bank account.

It is what I asked you. Read my post.
I asked you were you equating what she said with what they said.

She said she didn't believe in whatever sky-fairies they did. Which is completely reasonable and believable. What she said is completely believable.

The sky fairies aren't believable of course but you seem to be (deliberately?) confusing and therefore trivialising her belief about the non-existence of sky fairies and the actual (absolutely non-credible) sky fairies themselves.

Regarding the second paragraph, do you value your opinion over the opinion of the police who warned her about her safety.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not sure an expectation of self-censorship actually qualifies as tyranny :pac:

That depends on whether violence is excused as just another consequence of expressing your opinion. That is indeed tyranny through the back door.

I’m not against the idea of people speaking out against threats to democracy, I’m all for it, and that’s why I believe just as it’s important what a person says, it’s equally important how they say it. That will be the determining factor in whether their opinions are entitled to be protected by law in any democracy. “Shove your religion up your hole” (for example) is not an opinion worthy of respect in a democracy. Neither is the idea of suggesting that someone should be raped for telling anyone shove their religion up their hole.

I think you get the picture.

I bet if someone was hiding in fear for their life for saying ‘shove Trump up your hole’ your reasoning would be more consistent with democratic principles.

One eyed Jack

take everything wrote: »

It is what I asked you. Read my post.
I asked you were you equating what she said with what they said.

She said she didn't believe in whatever sky-fairies they did. Which is completely reasonable and believable. What she said is completely believable.

The sky fairies aren't believable of course but you seem to be (deliberately?) confusing and therefore trivialising her belief about the non-existence of sky fairies and the actual (absolutely non-credible) sky fairies themselves.

I understood what you were asking, and I do equate what she said with what they said, so should she if she truly believes that she can say what she likes. Does she believe she has the right to say what she likes and other people shouldn’t have that same right? That’s the only way what she’s saying could make any sense.

take everything wrote: »

Regarding the second paragraph, do you value your opinion over the opinion of the police who warned her about her safety.

I do, obviously. I think the authorities are making a mountain out of a molehill because a silly little girl shot her mouth off on social media in the belief that she could say what she liked. The authorities don’t have the luxury of my individual opinion where I can suggest she should cop herself on, and I can only hope she learns from the experience that nobody has the right to say what they like. I doubt it though, the French aren’t known for their humility.

biko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She also does not have the right to say what she likes..

That is pretty much the definition of free speech

the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

and from Ricky Gervais

If you don’t believe in free speech for people who you disagree with, and even hate for what they stand for, then you don’t believe in free speech.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That depends on whether violence is excused as just another consequence of expressing your opinion. That is indeed tyranny through the back door.

It’s not. It’s pointing out that actions have consequences. Think about that before shooting your mouth off.

(not you personally, but anyone)

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I bet if someone was hiding in fear for their life for saying ‘shove Trump up your hole’ your reasoning would be more consistent with democratic principles.

I’ll enjoy taking your money should you ever care to put your money where your mouth is, it’s an easy risk to take when you don’t foresee any negative consequences of your actions, but when you’re aware it could cost you, would you still be as willing to make that bet?

I doubt it.

One eyed Jack

biko wrote: »

That is pretty much the definition of free speech

and from Ricky Gervais

I’m not sure what your point is tbh. I don’t think I gave anyone the impression that I was all that concerned about free speech? Quite the opposite, I think the concept of free speech is only valued by assholes who want the right to be assholes and not have to deal with the consequences of their actions or the negative effects of their opinions on other people.

Ricky Gervais fits that bill.

take everything

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understood what you were asking, and I do equate what she said with what they said, so should she if she truly believes that she can say what she likes. Does she believe she has the right to say what she likes and other people shouldn’t have that same right? That’s the only way what she’s saying could make any sense.





I do, obviously. I think the authorities are making a mountain out of a molehill because a silly little girl shot her mouth off on social media in the belief that she could say what she liked. The authorities don’t have the luxury of my individual opinion where I can suggest she should cop herself on, and I can only hope she learns from the experience that nobody has the right to say what they like. I doubt it though, the French aren’t known for their humility.

We fundamentally disagree so about someone having a right to say something expressing a view that isn't a threat
or isn't inciting hatred etc vs someone saying something that is (and was construed by police) as a threat. I'm shocked that someone equates these things tbh and there's not much more to be said about it.

I'm also at a loss that you think you know better than the police.

Ironicname

One eyed Jack wrote:

I think the concept of free speech is only valued by assholes who want the right to be assholes and not have to deal with the consequences of their actions or the negative effects of their opinions on other people.

Based on your own words, I think you don't fully appreciate free speech. You seem to label everyone as an asshole if they disagree with you.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not. It’s pointing out that actions have consequences. Think about that before shooting your mouth off.

(not you personally, but anyone)





I’ll enjoy taking your money should you ever care to put your money where your mouth is, it’s an easy risk to take when you don’t foresee any negative consequences of your actions, but when you’re aware it could cost you, would you still be as willing to make that bet?

I doubt it.

That used to be called ‘might makes right’. Scary stuff.

One eyed Jack

Ironicname wrote: »

Based on your own words, I think you don't fully appreciate free speech. You seem to label everyone as an asshole if they disagree with you.

Advocates of free speech in my experience do tend to be assholes who think free speech is a concept only they should be able to avail of to piss all over other people’s beliefs. That’s why there are limitations on everyone’s right to freedom of expression - essentially to protect assholes from themselves.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Advocates of free speech in my experience do tend to be assholes who think free speech is a concept only they should be able to avail of to piss all over other people’s beliefs. That’s why there are limitations on everyone’s right to freedom of expression - essentially to protect assholes from themselves.

But when did you first start to appreciate the benefits of totalitarianism?

Calhoun

Gynoid wrote: »

*A 16 year old girl from Cork was having the craic online and posted a video of herself singing. She is a lesbian and wants to be a pop star. She got some pretty nasty sexual comments back from a young lad and when she rebuffed him he publicly called her a dirty Irish whore, a dirty dyke, and so on. He then said he was a Catholic. The girl responded by saying I hate all religions, Catholicism is full of hate, I have no time for any of it, your priests rape children, your nuns kill babies.

The internet went mad. Some lads went online and published the girls name, address and where she goes to school. Hundreds if not thousands of homophobic and misogynistic threats were posted online against her, calling for her to be hunted down, raped, attacked and killed. Really vile stuff.

The local cops visited the girl in school and told her to leave and to go immediately into hiding. They told her family to be careful of their security. There are efforts being made now to find those who have threatened her with death. She says she has nothing against any type of people, she just really hates religion, and that she speaks her mind and should be allowed to do so.

Terrible thing to happen. Sure, she could have been less crude, but she is a stroppy fiery girl and she does not like creeps perving on her, she does not like homophobic attacks on her and she also does not like religion, like many before her.









*This did not really happen in Cork.

But it did really happen elsewhere, the girl is French, the boy said he is a Muslim. I think it is just as bad as if the fictional scenario happened. Do you?


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-teenager-in-hiding-after-insulting-islam-online-0vl5hrs0m

Scarey stuff, especially as she is also under investigation for possible hate crime. Sure she was stupid for what she said but the response, the doxxing and the threats really trump what she did.

The bigger worry from a societal perspective is the amount of near apologists for what is effectively a lynch mob. A Lynch mob that may not have any consequences for what they are doing and using violence to coerce certain behaviors in society.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That used to be called ‘might makes right’. Scary stuff.

It’s still called “might is right” when the State has a duty to protect all of it’s citizens equally in a democratic society. The State is held accountable for its actions by an even greater authority. Just think of it as the playground equivalent of “my da is bigger than your da”, and you get the idea - some people are under the impression that they can say what they like in complete safety because they think their da is going to step in and save their ass when they shoot their mouth off. The equivalent in this particular case is the authorities having to step in to protect this girl after she decided to shoot her mouth off on a public platform because she didn’t care that her actions have consequences for other people. All she cared about, and all she still cares about, is herself. She’s exactly the sort of person who thinks free speech is actually a thing. It’s not, and for good reason in a democratic society.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s still called “might is right” when the State has a duty to protect all of it’s citizens equally in a democratic society. The State is held accountable for its actions by an even greater authority. Just think of it as the playground equivalent of “my da is bigger than your da”, and you get the idea - some people are under the impression that they can say what they like in complete safety because they think their da is going to step in and save their ass when they shoot their mouth off. The equivalent in this particular case is the authorities having to step in to protect this girl after she decided to shoot her mouth off on a public platform because she didn’t care that her actions have consequences for other people. All she cared about, and all she still cares about, is herself. She’s exactly the sort of person who thinks free speech is actually a thing. It’s not, and for good reason in a democratic society.

It’s scary how little you actually know about how democracy works. The democratic state is sovereign. It alone has power to use legitimate force. The moment any person or faction threatens violence it is illegitimate. The state’s first duty in this case is to stamp out the threat of coercive or retributive violence on citizens exercising their right to express their thoughts.

I really think you won’t know how lucky you are to live in a society with freedom of expression until we’ve lost it.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

But when did you first start to appreciate the benefits of totalitarianism?

I’m beginning to realise you actually don’t understand the meaning of concepts like democracy, tyranny and now totalitarianism. What this girl was suggesting is totalitarianism - the idea that society should revolve around her and her ideals. Fortunately for her, and for everyone else in French society really, they happen to live in a democracy where they take their separation of religious and State affairs seriously, so she will never truly understand what it would mean to live in a totalitarian society, and more than it appears you don’t either.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m beginning to realise you actually don’t understand the meaning of concepts like democracy, tyranny and now totalitarianism. What this girl was suggesting is totalitarianism - the idea that society should revolve around her and her ideals. Fortunately for her, and for everyone else in French society really, they happen to live in a democracy where they take their separation of religious and State affairs seriously, so she will never truly understand what it would mean to live in a totalitarian society, and more than it appears you don’t either.

I don’t even know where to begin with this. I know the subject that used to be called ‘civics’ was renamed and remoulded in the late 80s but this level of ignorance is a real failure of education.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It’s scary how little you actually know about how democracy works. The democratic state is sovereign. It alone has power to use legitimate force. The moment any person or faction threatens violence it is illegitimate. The state’s first duty in this case is to stamp out the threat of coercive or retributive violence on citizens exercising their right to express their thoughts.

I really think you won’t know how lucky you are to live in a society with freedom of expression until we’ve lost it,

You’re not even close to being wrong with that nonsense. The States first duty is to protect the equal rights of all of it’s citizens. Because I don’t take my right to freedom of expression for granted, and because I do not choose to abuse that right on a public platform, I am unlikely to ever find myself in circumstances where I would be investigated for violations of that right which constitute hate speech. That’s why I say this girl is lucky she doesn’t live in a totalitarian State, but rather she lives in a democracy where all citizens are regarded equally under the law. The same rules that apply to everyone else in society, also apply to her. She is not an exemption just because she thinks the rules don’t apply to her. They do, for her own protection as well as the protection of all citizens.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re not even close to being wrong with that nonsense. The States first duty is to protect the equal rights of all of it’s citizens. Because I don’t take my right to freedom of expression for granted, and because I do not choose to abuse that right on a public platform, I am unlikely to ever find myself in circumstances where I would be investigated for violations of that right which constitute hate speech. That’s why I say this girl is lucky she doesn’t live in a totalitarian State, but rather she lives in a democracy where all citizens are regarded equally under the law. The same rules that apply to everyone else in society, also apply to her. She is not an exemption just because she thinks the rules don’t apply to her. They do, for her own protection as well as the protection of all citizens.

OK, I’ll actually explain it to you. If there’s a threat of violence from some group in society in response to you exercising your rights and the state tolerates this situation, then you do not actually have rights at all. Your rights would be provisional, decided not by the legitimate state but by a self-appointed speech and behaviour police. A democratic state should never tolerate this situation.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don’t even know where to begin with this. I know the subject that used to be called ‘civics’ was renamed and remoulded in the late 80s but this level of ignorance is a real failure of education.

Instead of lamenting the failures in our education system (you’d like the French system of education, turns out teenage philosophers with a poor grasp of reality because they’re gone so far up their own arse :rolleyes:), perhaps you could begin at the beginning, and work your way through? Put that free speech idea of yours to some good use in an attempt to educate an ignoramus such as myself seeing as you think you know better :pac:

LineOfBeauty

Religion is love, tolerance and forgiveness. I know people who are devout in their religious beliefs who accept me for who I am. To me, that's what religion should be. People who preach hate in the name of a religion are people who look for an excuse to justify their hatred and bigotry. I don't think they should be represented as the views of people of faith.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

OK, I’ll actually explain it to you. If there’s a threat of violence from some group in society in response to you exercising your rights and the state tolerates this situation, then you do not actually have rights at all.

Well that’s nonsense anyway for a start, as the right to freedom of expression has limitations, which, when they are violated, then the person is expressing an opinion which is not entitled to be protected by the State. That’s a situation which the State is not obligated to tolerate. It doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have any rights in that situation, as the State too is limited in how it treats people who violate the laws of that society. That’s one of the reasons why the right to life as an example prohibits the State from carrying out the death penalty.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Your rights would be provisional, decided not by the legitimate state but by a self-appointed speech and behaviour police. A democratic state should never tolerate this situation.

You clearly weren’t paying attention in civics class. I’ve got news for you - all rights are provisional, there is no such right as an absolute right, and that’s why free speech is nothing more than a concept, and a poorly thought out concept at that. The self-appointed speech and behaviour police in this particular case was the girl who thinks people who don’t share her beliefs should be persecuted.

As it turns out, the State doesn’t tolerate the situation where one person appoints themselves as the arbiter of society and thinks they have any legitimate right to behave like an asshole. That’s precisely why the authorities opened two separate investigations - they don’t tolerate the behaviour of people who disagree with her either who appoint themselves as arbiters of society. The State wouldn’t be obligated to act at all if the right to free speech was a thing, because both parties involved are simply exercising their right to free speech.

MoonUnit75

So really, you are arguing.for strict blasphemy laws which are enforced by the mob with state support.

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

So really, you are arguing.for strict blasphemy laws which are enforced by the mob with state support.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing for at all. I’m arguing against the idea that anyone has the right to say what they like in a democratic society.

biko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not sure what your point is tbh. I don’t think I gave anyone the impression that I was all that concerned about free speech? Quite the opposite, I think the concept of free speech is only valued by assholes who want the right to be assholes and not have to deal with the consequences of their actions or the negative effects of their opinions on other people.

Ricky Gervais fits that bill.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what I’m arguing for at all. I’m arguing against the idea that anyone has the right to say what they like in a democratic society.

Now you just sound fascist.