Current Affairs Free Speech

[dholliday]

Unsafe for those unable to get the vaccine. That's not cancel culture. And you've just highlighted one of the biggest issues with cancel culture - it has been broadened to be a meaningless term. It's too diffuse and this is a purposeful tactic from people trying to dismiss 'woke' people as part of some widespread cancel culture

Wow. So you're saying limiting freedoms, even firing from jobs, for healthy not-at-risk adults who are unwilling to receive an experimental vaccine is acceptable because it may protect a minuscule portion of the population?

That's fascism. On its way to dystopic totalitarian fascism (ala Brave New World) if the next logical steps to losing one's job are considered. And very much cancel culture (which is being cancelled from jobs for having different beliefs about hot topics).

It's dark. And that many of you don't see that is concerning.

Worldometer tells us the following:

Coronavirus Cases:
174,384,140

Deaths:
3,752,305

Recovered:
157,652,551

That's a roughly 90% recovery rate for those with confirmed cases. The actual number of cases will be far higher, as many have had it and never got tested. So we can safely assume an actual recovery rate of high in the 90's percent. The deaths and not-yet-recovered will be mostly very old people, or those with serious health issues like obesity, weak immune systems etc.

We should not attempt to control the will of over 95% of the global population because a fraction of a percent of individuals (immuno-compromised) are being advised not to take the vaccine. That should be clear as day. Instead, we should simply protect the immuno-compromised in myriad other ways and let the rest get on with it.

Those who want the vaccine can get it. Those who won't should have the total freedom not to.

He wasn't a boy though was he? He was 18. Plenty of people have done stupid stuff at 18 or 19 but it's not a free pass for everything. His actions were at odds with the campaign currently being supported by the ECB and the players. He's not lost his chance to ever play for England again and it's unfortunate for him. Hopefully the investigation shows he is remorseful and the ECB feel that he'll be an adequate representative for them but I'm not sure it's some huge issue that they've suspended him during this investigation as it would make it quite tricky to not.

How much stupid nasty crap did you blurt out when you was 18? When anyone was 18? In the social media age, many do it online because they're too young & inexperienced to realise potential future consequences. There should be admonishment, yes. But only punishment if he now shows no remorse.

For if this is our culture now, people's speech is gonna feel so controlled they will constantly have to think about what they're saying.

Maybe that's the idea. Maybe that's why critics call it cultural marxism.

He was 18 and 19 when he wrote those tweets, so, demonstrably not a boy but a grown man.

Incidentally just because something on social media has 10k likes does not make it automatically worthy of consideration. A cursory glance at Facebook tells me that the Flat Earth Society has 67k members. Before their ban Britain First's Facebook page had over 2 million likes*. Do you think either of these organisations have anything to say that's worth considering?

*https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43398417

If Britain First had 2 million likes (assuming that's 2 million individual people sympathetic to their policies) then that is definitely something to consider. What policies are most supported and why? Can mainstream parties provide some of those policies to help reduce the popularity of extremist parties?

Britain First's main policy appears to be a stance against multi-culturalism, which if it has failed as some on here have said, is a natural stance for a fringe party to have.

Extremism comes about because folk have the impression their concerns aren't being listened to. That 2 million figure is a big warning sign for that, and then instead of thinking about their concerns, they get banned. That's hardly gonna appease those concerns, rather it will amplify them.

Maybe that's the idea. A constant state of us vs them may be desirable for some.

Disclaimer: I don't support extremism in any form, because extremism doesn't intend to look after everyone in society, and may even result in extreme violence (Jo Cox's horrible murder, for example). But I do understand why it can form, and I see mainstream society not willing to counter it in sensible ways.

Honestly mate, I wouldn't waste your time:

Right then, I take back my previous faith in your claim that you're "an expert". Now I think you simply struggled to define Chaos Theory and merely copied a single line from Wikipedia. An actual expert would be interested to take the time to explain, and wouldn't be so small-minded as to dismiss those same posters in entirely different threads.

The internet is full of people pretending to be something they're not. For some, it's like one big role-playing game.

 

[ste d' indica]

Wow. So you're saying limiting freedoms, even firing from jobs, for healthy not-at-risk adults who are unwilling to receive an experimental vaccine is acceptable because it may protect a minuscule portion of the population?

That's fascism. On its way to dystopic totalitarian fascism (ala Brave New World) if the next logical steps to losing one's job are considered. And very much cancel culture (which is being cancelled from jobs for having different beliefs about hot topics).

It's dark. And that many of you don't see that is concerning.

Worldometer tells us the following:

Coronavirus Cases:
174,384,140

Deaths:
3,752,305

Recovered:
157,652,551

That's a roughly 90% recovery rate for those with confirmed cases. The actual number of cases will be far higher, as many have had it and never got tested. So we can safely assume an actual recovery rate of high in the 90's percent. The deaths and not-yet-recovered will be mostly very old people, or those with serious health issues like obesity, weak immune systems etc.

We should not attempt to control the will of over 95% of the global population because a fraction of a percent of individuals (immuno-compromised) are being advised not to take the vaccine. That should be clear as day. Instead, we should simply protect the immuno-compromised in myriad other ways and let the rest get on with it.

Those who want the vaccine can get it. Those who won't should have the total freedom not to.




How much stupid nasty crap did you blurt out when you was 18? When anyone was 18? In the social media age, many do it online because they're too young & inexperienced to realise potential future consequences. There should be admonishment, yes. But only punishment if he now shows no remorse.

For if this is our culture now, people's speech is gonna feel so controlled they will constantly have to think about what they're saying.

Maybe that's the idea. Maybe that's why critics call it cultural marxism.



If Britain First had 2 million likes (assuming that's 2 million individual people sympathetic to their policies) then that is definitely something to consider. What policies are most supported and why? Can mainstream parties provide some of those policies to help reduce the popularity of extremist parties?

Britain First's main policy appears to be a stance against multi-culturalism, which if it has failed as some on here have said, is a natural stance for a fringe party to have.

Extremism comes about because folk have the impression their concerns aren't being listened to. That 2 million figure is a big warning sign for that, and then instead of thinking about their concerns, they get banned. That's hardly gonna appease those concerns, rather it will amplify them.

Maybe that's the idea. A constant state of us vs them may be desirable for some.

Disclaimer: I don't support extremism in any form, because extremism doesn't intend to look after everyone in society, and may even result in extreme violence (Jo Cox's horrible murder, for example). But I do understand why it can form, and I see mainstream society not willing to counter it in sensible ways.



Right then, I take back my previous faith in your claim that you're "an expert". Now I think you simply struggled to define Chaos Theory and merely copied a single line from Wikipedia. An actual expert would be interested to take the time to explain, and wouldn't be so small-minded as to dismiss those same posters in entirely different threads.

The internet is full of people pretending to be something they're not. For some, it's like one big role-playing game.

I'm crestfallen. Don't know how I'll recover.

 

[Charro]

Wow. For the record I supported a Corbyn Labour government. But I cringed hard at the woke-aspects of his campaign. It cost him. Keir is doing the same thing, and it will cost him too.

Go woke, go broke. innit.



Not normal, but some 18-year olds do say stupid & nasty things, which most thankfully grow out of once they properly grow up. If they show remorse, and show examples that they don't believe the things they said back then, then all is well.

Forgiveness is a virtue. Cancel Culture wants nothing to do with it. Cancel Culture even hates apologies, doubling down on anyone attempting to do so. The actual best tactic for most affected by Cancel Culture is to simply ignore them. But in Ollie's case, beholden as he is to a higher power (ECB) he must not just apologise, but show genuine remorse & understanding. If he does that, and the ECB reinstate him, I bet Cancel Culture won't be happy, and it will pressure ECB to not allow Ollie back into the fold.

Because that's what Cancel Culture does. They're vipers who are drunk on the power of Twitter-outrage parties.

This isn’t cancel culture though. It’s normal, due process.

If nothing is found during the investigation then he will be reinstated into the fold.

That’s not a guarantee anyway as he’s a pretty bog standard cricketer so he might find himself out the team for other reasons.

What’s happening is completely normal. It seems like a certain type of constantly offended type of person has latched onto it, to twist it into something it isn’t.

 

[tsubaki]

Both posts bang on the money, for what its going to be worth with inflation and all.

And what on earth is Government as in Dowden and Johnson getting involved in a sport, they will just politicalize anything the little tin pot populist racists'. As explained on the radio did not here a peep out them the other week when Chelsea fans defaced Churchill statue.

Chelsea graffiti scrawled on Winston Churchill statue at Parliament Square after Champions League win

Graffiti, which reads 'Chelsea', 'CFC' and '1905' – the year the London club was founded – daubed on base of monument in Westminster

www.telegraph.co.uk

Which is the thing here - we are being presented with these things in order that we get offended, even though (as you say) exactly the same behaviour does not get presented as a unique disgrace when its done by someone else. There is loads of recent history of hacks trawling through social media posts in order to highlight segments (often unrepresentative segments) whatever they want to slate about a person, as we’ve all seen.

What this cricketer did was what many teenagers do, as in say or do something stupid that they later regret. Yet it’s the people who are most responsible for not forgetting (indeed actively monetising) the sins of others who are now monetising this outrage?

I hope he doesn’t lose his place over this, but the pricks who are springing to his defence for something they are serially guilty of should be put in the bin.

 

[dead_soft]

Wow. So you're saying limiting freedoms, even firing from jobs, for healthy not-at-risk adults who are unwilling to receive an experimental vaccine is acceptable because it may protect a minuscule portion of the population?

That's fascism. On its way to dystopic totalitarian fascism (ala Brave New World) if the next logical steps to losing one's job are considered. And very much cancel culture (which is being cancelled from jobs for having different beliefs about hot topics).

It's dark. And that many of you don't see that is concerning.

Worldometer tells us the following:

Coronavirus Cases:
174,384,140

Deaths:
3,752,305

Recovered:
157,652,551

That's a roughly 90% recovery rate for those with confirmed cases. The actual number of cases will be far higher, as many have had it and never got tested. So we can safely assume an actual recovery rate of high in the 90's percent. The deaths and not-yet-recovered will be mostly very old people, or those with serious health issues like obesity, weak immune systems etc.

We should not attempt to control the will of over 95% of the global population because a fraction of a percent of individuals (immuno-compromised) are being advised not to take the vaccine. That should be clear as day. Instead, we should simply protect the immuno-compromised in myriad other ways and let the rest get on with it.

Those who want the vaccine can get it. Those who won't should have the total freedom not to.

Is it fascism? Do you count laws to use car seatbelts to be fascism? Not smoking in bars? I think you actually may do but then that's all we need to know. We do not live in a libertarian society, thankfully, we have both explicit and implicit social contracts.
From what I can see, this isn't state mandated. Or is it?

What do you mean by experimental? All vaccines were experimental? And then they were felt to be safe and beneficial to society and then they became approved. It's not the fault of society that you can't understand that.

We've had a high recovery rate because we have been shielding many people who are at risk. If we were not doing this then we would have seen more deaths and potentially a higher percentage. Then when you add on how close many hospitals have been close to their capacity we would have seen even more. The vaccine allows society to become safer for more people. People who don't want it have total freedom not to get it, and those who don't want to be endangered by them have total freedom to not work with them

It's quite something that you've written all this and then complained about other people using Twitter for their ideas when this all seems to be taken from numerous anti-vax places.

How much stupid nasty crap did you blurt out when you was 18? When anyone was 18? In the social media age, many do it online because they're too young & inexperienced to realise potential future consequences. There should be admonishment, yes. But only punishment if he now shows no remorse.

For if this is our culture now, people's speech is gonna feel so controlled they will constantly have to think about what they're saying.

Maybe that's the idea. Maybe that's why critics call it cultural marxism.

Nah, critics call it that because they are idiots.
'Oh, but dead_soft, maybe we don't live in a communist utopia that you dream of because you keep calling right wing blow-hards idiots on an Everton forum?'

If Britain First had 2 million likes (assuming that's 2 million individual people sympathetic to their policies) then that is definitely something to consider. What policies are most supported and why? Can mainstream parties provide some of those policies to help reduce the popularity of extremist parties?

Britain First's main policy appears to be a stance against multi-culturalism, which if it has failed as some on here have said, is a natural stance for a fringe party to have.

Extremism comes about because folk have the impression their concerns aren't being listened to. That 2 million figure is a big warning sign for that, and then instead of thinking about their concerns, they get banned. That's hardly gonna appease those concerns, rather it will amplify them.

Maybe that's the idea. A constant state of us vs them may be desirable for some.

Disclaimer: I don't support extremism in any form, because extremism doesn't intend to look after everyone in society, and may even result in extreme violence (Jo Cox's horrible murder, for example). But I do understand why it can form, and I see mainstream society not willing to counter it in sensible ways.

Providing some policies of extremist parties is not a way to counter it. But if you think Britain First's main political view can be summed up as 'a stance against multiculturalism' then this is very, very, silly.

Right then, I take back my previous faith in your claim that you're "an expert". Now I think you simply struggled to define Chaos Theory and merely copied a single line from Wikipedia. An actual expert would be interested to take the time to explain, and wouldn't be so small-minded as to dismiss those same posters in entirely different threads.

The internet is full of people pretending to be something they're not. For some, it's like one big role-playing game.

The most ironic post of them all.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Wow. So you're saying limiting freedoms, even firing from jobs, for healthy not-at-risk adults who are unwilling to receive an experimental vaccine is acceptable because it may protect a minuscule portion of the population?

That's fascism. On its way to dystopic totalitarian fascism (ala Brave New World) if the next logical steps to losing one's job are considered. And very much cancel culture (which is being cancelled from jobs for having different beliefs about hot topics).

It's dark. And that many of you don't see that is concerning.

Worldometer tells us the following:

Coronavirus Cases:
174,384,140

Deaths:
3,752,305

Recovered:
157,652,551

That's a roughly 90% recovery rate for those with confirmed cases. The actual number of cases will be far higher, as many have had it and never got tested. So we can safely assume an actual recovery rate of high in the 90's percent. The deaths and not-yet-recovered will be mostly very old people, or those with serious health issues like obesity, weak immune systems etc.

We should not attempt to control the will of over 95% of the global population because a fraction of a percent of individuals (immuno-compromised) are being advised not to take the vaccine. That should be clear as day. Instead, we should simply protect the immuno-compromised in myriad other ways and let the rest get on with it.

Those who want the vaccine can get it. Those who won't should have the total freedom not to.




How much stupid nasty crap did you blurt out when you was 18? When anyone was 18? In the social media age, many do it online because they're too young & inexperienced to realise potential future consequences. There should be admonishment, yes. But only punishment if he now shows no remorse.

For if this is our culture now, people's speech is gonna feel so controlled they will constantly have to think about what they're saying.

Maybe that's the idea. Maybe that's why critics call it cultural marxism.



If Britain First had 2 million likes (assuming that's 2 million individual people sympathetic to their policies) then that is definitely something to consider. What policies are most supported and why? Can mainstream parties provide some of those policies to help reduce the popularity of extremist parties?

Britain First's main policy appears to be a stance against multi-culturalism, which if it has failed as some on here have said, is a natural stance for a fringe party to have.

Extremism comes about because folk have the impression their concerns aren't being listened to. That 2 million figure is a big warning sign for that, and then instead of thinking about their concerns, they get banned. That's hardly gonna appease those concerns, rather it will amplify them.

Maybe that's the idea. A constant state of us vs them may be desirable for some.

Disclaimer: I don't support extremism in any form, because extremism doesn't intend to look after everyone in society, and may even result in extreme violence (Jo Cox's horrible murder, for example). But I do understand why it can form, and I see mainstream society not willing to counter it in sensible ways.



Right then, I take back my previous faith in your claim that you're "an expert". Now I think you simply struggled to define Chaos Theory and merely copied a single line from Wikipedia. An actual expert would be interested to take the time to explain, and wouldn't be so small-minded as to dismiss those same posters in entirely different threads.

The internet is full of people pretending to be something they're not. For some, it's like one big role-playing game.

Poor old Britain First, just victims of all those woke cancel culture idiots. If only people had listened to them.

You are proper, proper weird mate. Hope you get well soon.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Wow. For the record I supported a Corbyn Labour government. But I cringed hard at the woke-aspects of his campaign. It cost him. Keir is doing the same thing, and it will cost him too.

Go woke, go broke. innit.



Not normal, but some 18-year olds do say stupid & nasty things, which most thankfully grow out of once they properly grow up. If they show remorse, and show examples that they don't believe the things they said back then, then all is well.

Forgiveness is a virtue. Cancel Culture wants nothing to do with it. Cancel Culture even hates apologies, doubling down on anyone attempting to do so. The actual best tactic for most affected by Cancel Culture is to simply ignore them. But in Ollie's case, beholden as he is to a higher power (ECB) he must not just apologise, but show genuine remorse & understanding. If he does that, and the ECB reinstate him, I bet Cancel Culture won't be happy, and it will pressure ECB to not allow Ollie back into the fold.

Because that's what Cancel Culture does. They're vipers who are drunk on the power of Twitter-outrage parties.

Anyone who compares an 18 yr old tweeting racist/sexist tweets to someone joining a terrorist group beheading people needs to have a lobotomy.

Far Left mischief makers up to their usual tricks of divide and conquer. They keep poking a bear and they'll soon enough get swiped.

 

[dead_soft]

Anyone who compares an 18 yr old tweeting racist/sexist tweets to someone joining a terrorist group beheading people needs to have a lobotomy.

Far Left mischief makers up to their usual tricks of divide and conquer. They keep poking a bear and they'll soon enough get swiped.

What does this even mean? What do you mean by divide and conquer? What bear are they poking?

Though I clearly need the lobotomy for engaging

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

What does this even mean? What do you mean by divide and conquer? What bear are they poking?

Though I clearly need the lobotomy for engaging

As if he knows what he means lol

 

[dholliday]

This isn’t cancel culture though.

What’s happening is completely normal.

It is textbook cancel culture and normalising the harsh punishing of someone's speech from a decade ago is a road to fascism.

Famous dystopic fiction from the earlier part of the 20th century warned us of this.

The most ironic post of them all.

No mate. I'm an open book: the same bloke in real life as on here, for better or worse. If the fascists ever get their way they'll have enough to put me away for wrongthink.

In real-life i get a much better reception. I think the personable-limitations of the written word make many people see only extremes, gather in tribes while nuance becomes a blind spot. Whereas in real-life, nuance in discussion is better recognised as we're also reading human faces.

As to the rest of your epic post, i read it all but can't see any progress by replying. We've hit a brick wall.

Poor old Britain First, just victims of all those woke cancel culture idiots. If only people had listened to them.

Not a very thoughtful response, but hey.

You are proper, proper weird mate. Hope you get well soon.

another one that doesn't advance the conversation.

As i've said a few times, those resorting to sarcastic ad hominems have lost the debate. It's a recognised logical fallacy.

 

[Charro]

It is textbook cancel culture and normalising the harsh punishing of someone's speech from a decade ago is a road to fascism.

Famous dystopic fiction from the earlier part of the 20th century warned us of this.


No mate. I'm an open book: the same bloke in real life as on here, for better or worse. If the fascists ever get their way they'll have enough to put me away for wrongthink.

In real-life i get a much better reception. I think the personable-limitations of the written word make many people see only extremes, gather in tribes while nuance becomes a blind spot. Whereas in real-life, nuance in discussion is better recognised as we're also reading human faces.

As to the rest of your epic post, i read it all but can't see any progress by replying. We've hit a brick wall.



Not a very thoughtful response, but hey.


another one that doesn't advance the conversation.

As i've said a few times, those resorting to sarcastic ad hominems have lost the debate. It's a recognised logical fallacy.

It’s basic procedure. He hasn’t been punished as of yet. He’s suspended pending an investigation, which is fair, due process.

Do you not think it’s best to see how this plays out before shouting cancel culture? Won’t you look rather stupid if he’s back in the team within a few months?

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

It’s basic procedure. He hasn’t been punished as of yet. He’s suspended pending an investigation, which is fair, due process.

Do you not think it’s best to see how this plays out before shouting cancel culture? Won’t you look rather stupid if he’s back in the team within a few months?

Far too late for that.

 

[dholliday]

Anyone who compares an 18 yr old tweeting racist/sexist tweets to someone joining a terrorist group beheading people needs to have a lobotomy.

Far Left mischief makers up to their usual tricks of divide and conquer. They keep poking a bear and they'll soon enough get swiped.

What does this even mean? What do you mean by divide and conquer? What bear are they poking?

Though I clearly need the lobotomy for engaging

As if he knows what he means lol

Cancel Culture is classic divide & conquer. The Left have been using it on the back of identity-politics (now effectively known as wokeism) for over a decade now.

Twitter-Outrage-Culture does it by targeting folk who wrongthink. This dilutes the effectiveness of the counter-movement to wokeism. Classic divide & conquer.

The "bear" being poked in this case are the elections. Boris winning, Brexit winning, Le Pen looking strong. AFD quickly growing to become the main opposition party.

Trump gaining over 13m more votes than last time. Only an astonishing 81m haul managed to beat him. Oddly no one seems to boast about the 81m, considering how much fuss was made about Hillary's 65m. Makes one think, ay?

Keep poking the bear, let's see what happens.

 

[dead_soft]

It is textbook cancel culture and normalising the harsh punishing of someone's speech from a decade ago is a road to fascism.

Famous dystopic fiction from the earlier part of the 20th century warned us of this.

What's the exactly correct amount of time to punish someone's speech or actions?

No mate. I'm an open book: the same bloke in real life as on here, for better or worse. If the fascists ever get their way they'll have enough to put me away for wrongthink.

In real-life i get a much better reception. I think the personable-limitations of the written word make many people see only extremes, gather in tribes while nuance becomes a blind spot. Whereas in real-life, nuance in discussion is better recognised as we're also reading human faces.

As to the rest of your epic post, i read it all but can't see any progress by replying. We've hit a brick wall.

It's a bit of a cop out to blame the limitations of the form for your inability to actually explain why any of the things you believe are true.

Not a very thoughtful response, but hey.


another one that doesn't advance the conversation.

As i've said a few times, those resorting to sarcastic ad hominems have lost the debate. It's a recognised logical fallacy.

Lol at the man who keeps accusing others of not thinking or not researching their own points or not being intelligent enough to grasp them complaining about ad hominem.

 

[dholliday]

It’s basic procedure. He hasn’t been punished as of yet. He’s suspended pending an investigation, which is fair, due process.

Do you not think it’s best to see how this plays out before shouting cancel culture? Won’t you look rather stupid if he’s back in the team within a few months?

No, it would make me look pleased for him, I expect. What will it make some of yous look like?