Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by Collateral, Nov 14, 2017.
Hahahaha haga my, my. I certainly have triggered you in a BIG way in this thread.
Keep justifying my point though, it’s hikarious to watch you guys try to out dumb one another.
Trolling lefty ANTIFA supporters. You were close though!
And still no quote.......
Tell us again how taxes don’t pay for public education.
Quick, look over there.
Gee, you're still cut up about that one mate.
If you like, bump the the thread and answer the question I asked you about 100 times.
That is if you have the balls mate.
Unfortunately over there he also made a fool of himself.
There must be a thread somewhere he didn't.
Look I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to give you a legal definition, but how the USA has freedom of speech sanctified and the way their freedom of speech laws work works really well in my opinion.
It's pretty bloody easy, threatening someone or a group with violence or inciting others to commit violence on someone or a group= illegal. Anything else= legal.
So if Choudary said 'I hate infidels and they're evil' that'd be protected be freedom of speech, if he said as you said earlier that 'infidels are evil and should be slaughtered' that'd be inciting violence and not protected by freedom of speech.
True, however if you have freedom of speech sanctified it makes it a lot harder for a powerful political group to take complete control of the political discourse because to do it they either have to repeal freedom of speech laws (which in the case of the USA who I think have the best system when it comes to FOS, that'd mean constitutional reform) or attempt a hostile takeover of the government.
And if you have freedom of speech sanctified and they try to appeal it it allows the public and opposition political groups time to respond, if they go for hostile takeover well you've got civil war and it's pretty easy to tell who's the bad guy in that case as they'd be trying to suppress and subjugate the whole nation.
If you don't have freedom of speech sanctified that opens room for hate speech laws, which leads to all the questions of why we need these laws, who these laws are for, what is the actual purpose of these laws, how far do they extend, etc.
Well as long as that aggressive rap song doesn't actually incite people to violence then there'd be no problem, but even so you couldn't ban all rap music only that particular song, otherwise you'd be infringing on freedom of expression. And trust me people in America have tried and failed to do that multiple times in just the last 100 years, from Tipper Gore and her 'filthy 15' trying to ban certain forms of music in the 80s (mainly heavy metal), to all sorts of groups trying to ban all sorts of things from violent video games and rap in the 90s to Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry in the 50s.
How is it a threat to peoples freedom to make a Nazi joke? Nobodies freedoms are being infringed by any jokes, they're just words they don't stop anybody from being able to do anything they want.
And the fact that you don't take huge issue with Nazis' rights being infringed is fine I guess, but if it's ok to infringe Nazis' rights then who elses rights is it ok to infringe? And by what metric do we decide whos' rights it's ok to infringe? and where does it stop?
You don't like Nazis and Nazism so it's ok to infringe their rights, so what if someone who doesn't like you gets in power is it ok for them to infringe your rights?
Was it ok for the Nazis to infringe on the Jews rights because they didn't like them?
Rights have to be universal, if they're not it's ok to take them away, and if it's ok to take them away people will take them away to fulfill their agenda, and eventually it'll be within someones agenda to take away yours or somebody you knows rights.
That's why even Nazis must have rights.
The guy I was referring to wasn't distributing Nazi material, he isn't a Nazi, and he was no threat to anyone, he simply taught a dog how to salute like a Nazi because he was sick of his girlfriend doting over the dog and wanted to shock her, it was literally the definition of a harmless prank.
And even if he was distributing Nazi material that shouldn't be illegal in of it's self anyway either, as long as he isn't spreading material that threatens anybody (ie. threatening to actually hurt Jews), which is very different to a Muslim kid posting how to blow people up as that kid is threatening to blow people up and teaching people how to blow people up.
The problem is that the definition of online harassment has be become so loose that anything negative can be deemed to be harassment, for example criticism is being classed as harassment, support for ideas that aren't popular is being considered harassment, saying things in general that some people don't like is being considered harassment, etc.
So yeah I don't have problem with people sending death threats over twitter being punished (though honestly arresting them seems like a waste of time in 99% of cases), but that's not the issue we're talking about here.
You are conflating a few different things here, like an the argument of ideas and disagreement in personal situations, and actions and ideas, but whatever.
Threating to hit someone who makes an "offensive or hateful statement" is suppression of freedom of speech because what is "offensive or hateful" is completely subjective!
For example in many Muslim sects (since using Islam for examples have become a bit of a theme in our discussion) the mere ideas of polytheism or atheism is considered offensive and hateful, so if it's ok to retaliate with violence to what people say and think (not their actions that's different, don't conflate them) then you're saying that it's ok for Muslims to violently retaliate to the mere existence of Hindus and atheists, which over time under threat of violence suppresses polytheistic and atheistic speech and ideas within Muslim communities, thus suppression of freedom of speech.
You also get the problem of it's ok to hit Nazis, and everybody that I disagree with is a Nazi, therefore anybody that says something I don't like must be a Nazi and I can hit them, the Antifa line of thinking, which is then used to suppress ideas that the majority or the group in question doesn't like through threats of violence.
Similar things happened in communist societies and Nazi Germany, where certain ideas and speech was/is simply illegal and could/can be responded to with jail time or worse.
For example are you ok with a system like North Koreas' where saying anything negative about the regime or "dear leader" is punishable by things worse then death, cause that is an extreme example of what you are suggesting here whether you realise it or not!
You really need to read some George Orwell...
LOL, you're not serious are you!
Yassmin Abdel-Magied is an Australian example, a "feminist" that supports Sharia Law and is incredibly loose with the facts when it comes to Islam but if you oppose her ideas, anything she says about anything, or question Islam then you're a dangerous "Islamophobic" person who hate Islam and her because she's a Muslim, Linda Sarsour is another " liberal feminist", from America this time, that's cool with Sharia and is incredibly anti anything liberal (unless it conforms to Islam or can be used by Islam) and quite fine with some terrible things, like chopping off babies clitorises, and treating Jews as second class citizens, probably ok with treating the kafir (you and me, I assume you're not a Muslim) badly if we're honest, I could go on but a quick google search will find you heaps and heaps of people like them and even worse people that aren't Islamic that support them and their ideas because they are scared of being called Islamophobic (see the people that are usually reasonable people that come out with shit like Daesh has nothing to do Islam, women aren't oppressed in Islamic societies, general Islam is completely innocent BS).
Lol.....and now wants to silence Muslims and feminists...Seem to recall someone being hunted out of her job and Australia by people like yourself...maybe you're a Communist/cultural Marxist.
But that's ok.....
How ironic that you brought her up.
And claims others are Communists by using a Nazi argument....
Maybe shed some tear over Nazis.....
Dunno... I was brought up in a time when people didn't cry over Nazis getting beaten up.....or defend them from people who protest against their hate speech...
You mean the Frankfurt school whos' Cultural Marxist philosophies were instrumental in inspiring some of the postmodernist ideas that literally lead to the institutions of relativism and subjectivism in postmodern philosophy, subjectivism and relativism being the two main problems that I have with postmodernism (especially when they try to say that things like biology and physics are subjective, yes they've done that, they do that all the time) and are the exact same two ideas that are leading to ideas like "de-colonising" science and education, among other very stupid things.
Look don't get me wrong, cause some of what your source says is true, but it's very, very slanted to one way of looking at things and is quick to conflate people who don't understand what they're talking about (hell I don't even really claim to understand it, but I mean people that really don't understand what they're talking about like extreme conspiracy theorists) with the real philosophical practices that actually exist.
Anyway I'm tired of this, there's way to much left-right fanboying and tribalism in here for my personal liking.
Lol....nothing you're saying is new.
It's all straight out Nazi arguments.......I'm surprised you haven't blamed the Jews......
It must be tiring believing this bs.
So to break it down....
Attacking liberals, feminists, Muslims = good......
Attacking Nazis, far right, white supremacists = bad.....
Yeah I think we get where you're coming from.
Did someone just write about subjectivism and relativism????
I can't let this one go.... But no.
Attacking anyone's ideas, whether they be Nazi, feminist, Islamic, Christian, whatever= fine.
Stopping anyone from being able to speak their ideas or attack others ideas, under any circumstances= a very dangerous precedent, which is bad.
Unless it's a Muslim woman.....
Because you know, that would be cultural Marxism or some Nazi argument.
Here let's lay bare your whole argument.....
Notice where this starts,......
With the Jooooooooooosssssss
And some more light info on Cultural Marxism......
The first usage of the phrase "cultural Marxism" in the conspiracist sense was by William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation in a July 1998 speech, "The Origins of Political Correctness", to right-wing group Accuracy in Academia, in which he described "political correctness" and "cultural Marxism" as "totalitarian ideologies" that were turning American campuses into "small ivy-covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted 'victims' groups that revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble." Lind gave this speech many times; a 2000 version sets out his thesis:
"Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish."
The conspiracy theory was also pushed around this time by Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation, who spent the 1990s railing against "political correctness", culminating in the 1999 video tape Political Correctness: The Dirty Little Secret, attacking the Frankfurt School.
Pat Buchanan, at an October 2000 campaign stop in Denver for the Reform Party, accused Native Americans attempting to block a Columbus Day parade of "cultural Marxism" in the Rocky Mountain News. In his 2001 book The Death of the West, he described "cultural Marxism" as a "regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance."
"Political correctness" had become the popular snarl word of choice after a 1991 speech by George H. W. Bush, with ensuing press coverage and a Washington Times op-ed by Laurence Jarvik of the Heritage Foundation decrying "storm troopers" attacking "Western culture."
In their inspiring article, Subversive Jew Parasites Explode Over Antisemitic Leaflets in Sydney, the Daily Stormer writes:
"[T]he rise of racial hatred is most certainly a threat to Australia’s future security and prosperity, with the Jewish nation-wreckers continuously attempting to weaken and overwhelm the White residents of what was previously a semi-inhabited wilderness. The never-ending tidal wave of feral migrant hordes, combined with idiotic Cultural Marxism, runs the risk of utterly crushing a prosperous and beautiful land, and must be halted at any cost. By observing the deranged reactions of the Jew to such a simple act of defiance, we come to the understanding that this kind of resistance must be increased exponentially. The World Parasite cannot stay quiet in the face of our propaganda exposure, and had the tendency to lose all composure when confronted with the truth."
Many members of the meme-Nazi alt-right similarly hold that Cultural Marxism is real, is done by Jews, and is a serious threat to their ethnostate dreams.
Yep....Nazism in all it's glory.
No wonder you like it.
How ironic everyone who disagrees with Spock is labelled a nazi and he himself got busted quoting verbatim from kkk sites for his Jew hate posts
That's f**king hilarious. Did that really happen?
I've been thinking for a little while that Spock must be a troll who tries to misrepresent left wing views. Surely no one could be so intellectually dishonest.
A bunch of dirty hippies who created a Facebook page are now the Australian right's biggest issue.
The predominantly right wing MSM in Australia just keeps shoveling it's willing disciples with this shit on a daily basis.
Another one who doesn't like having their antisemitic beliefs exposed.
That of course is the basis of the right wing attack on liberalism and progressives. It's the same arguments used by the nazis but dressed up of course.
Intellectual dishonesty abounds in this thread.
Eg anti-bigotry = Communism
Separate names with a comma.