Current Affairs Free Speech

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

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.

I really, really doubt that mate. Unless it's just people pretending to agree with you so you'll stop talking

 

[ForeverBlue92]

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

The far Left are basically saying "if Begum gets harshly treated for joining a death cult murdering thousands of people then so should any similiar aged person who tells a sexist joke or says a racist term".

It's outrageous tactics through whataboutery. If everyone was collared in work for having ever told or laughed at a sexist/racist joke or gotten into a scrap outside a pub back when we were all stupid teenagers half the country would be out of a job.

 

[dead_soft]

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.

Cancel culture is a crap phrase - it has limited use because it has become so broad. this was a purposeful tactic of the right and the culturally conservative to ensure that they could try and take some of the capital of being anti-establishment.

Have people been called out on Twitter? Yep. Has some of that gone too far? Potentially? Have others just had their words and actions come back to bite them? Yes. Is this a purely left-wing thing? Nope.

Show me the huge dangers to society from what 'The Left' have done? Can you also show mainstream left wing parties using this a major tactic?

How come you're not up in arms about the Prime Minister tacitly supporting the booing of footballers taking a stand? Or the culturally conservatives numerous boycotts, threats, etc.

 

[dead_soft]

The far Left are basically saying "if Begum gets harshly treated for joining a death cult murdering thousands of people then so should any similiar aged person who tells a sexist joke or says a racist term".

It's outrageous tactics through whataboutery. If everyone was collared in work for having ever told or laughed at a sexist/racist joke or gotten into a scrap outside a pub back when we were all stupid teenagers half the country would be out of a job.

ah you didn't understand it. Bingo.

 

[Charro]

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

Will you admit you were wrong to scream cancel culture if he was to find himself back in the team?

Anything that comes with any sort of consequence is called cancel culture these days. Elite sport is full of problematic people who have avoided punishment for their abhorrent actions and words from the past.

Why would the ECB decide to make an example out of this lad? What’s happening is normal due process that happens across the country any time accusations of discriminatory language are made.

 

[dholliday]

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

They shouldn't be punished at all for mere stupid nasty jokes made a decade ago. They should be admonished and they should prove they understand such comments are unacceptable now. That's it.

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.

Eh? Definition:

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival.

I don't appeal to feels, and I don't attack the character of others. But as counter to my arguments I often get appeals to emotion and/or attacks on my character.

A lot of things we debate doesn't really have a factual right or wrong answer, much of it is philosophical/ideological. These days, ad hominem are even seen as debate-winners. But I still cling to them signifying logical fallacies. But then I still watch films on DVD, and listen to music on cd/vinyl. So maybe I'm a dinosaur refusing to adapt to the big meteorite.

Poking the bear will prove which way the wind really blows.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

So just to recap, Trump is responsible for a booming US economy, has saved the country from Covid by rolling out a vaccine, the number of thumbs up a video on YouTube gets is a better barometer of popularity than the number of votes cast in an election (an election that Trump might have won because of voter fraud/a record increase in the number of votes he got, despite receiving millions less than his opponent), Britain First are victims of cancel culture who should be listened to and understood, anybody in their teens should get a pass for racist/sexist comments they make (boys will be boys), cancel culture and wokeism is set to destroy the world and anyone who disagrees with any this is simply too stupid to comprehend nuance.

Let me know if I've missed anything.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

ah you didn't understand it. Bingo.

I love how he quickly liked dholliday's post, despite clearly not comprehending any of it.

 

[dead_soft]

They shouldn't be punished at all for mere stupid nasty jokes made a decade ago. They should be admonished and they should prove they understand such comments are unacceptable now. That's it.



Eh? Definition:

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival.

I don't appeal to feels, and I don't attack the character of others. But as counter to my arguments I often get appeals to emotion and/or attacks on my character.

A lot of things we debate doesn't really have a factual right or wrong answer, much of it is philosophical/ideological. These days, ad hominem are even seen as debate-winners. But I still cling to them signifying logical fallacies. But then I still watch films on DVD, and listen to music on cd/vinyl. So maybe I'm a dinosaur refusing to adapt to the big meteorite.

Poking the bear will prove which way the wind really blows.

I know full well what ad hominem means, but cheers for that.

You've repeatedly accused others of just using twitter to form opinions, or not being bright enough.

Love these little tropes from people 'But I still cling to them signifying logical fallacies. But then I still watch films on DVD, and listen to music on cd/vinyl. So maybe I'm a dinosaur refusing to adapt to the big meteorite.' - who never realise how ridiculous they sound.

 

[dead_soft]

h

I love how he quickly liked dholliday's post, despite clearly not comprehending any of it.

ha ha, the minute I saw it I knew it would happen

 

[dholliday]

Will you admit you were wrong to scream cancel culture if he was to find himself back in the team?

No. Because for one I didn't "scream". And for another the damage to his reputation has already been done. He should not have been suspended in the first place.

What’s happening is normal due process that happens across the country any time accusations of discriminatory language are made.

No, it's not. Normal due process is to investigate. It's not to suspend-first-ask-questions-later.

So just to recap, Trump is responsible for a booming US economy, has saved the country from Covid by rolling out a vaccine, the number of thumbs up a video on YouTube gets is a better barometer of popularity than the number of votes cast in an election (an election that Trump might have won because of voter fraud/a record increase in the number of votes he got, despite receiving millions less than his opponent), Britain First are victims of cancel culture who should be listened to and understood, anybody in their teens should get a pass for racist/sexist comments they make (boys will be boys), cancel culture and wokeism is set to destroy the world and anyone who disagrees with any this is simply too stupid to comprehend nuance.

Let me know if I've missed anything.

A caricaturist's reading of what I, and others, have said. It appeals to your emotion, and to those clicking like. But it's intellectually-dishonest, and merely puts a brick-wall between you and your debate-opponent.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

They shouldn't be punished at all for mere stupid nasty jokes made a decade ago. They should be admonished and they should prove they understand such comments are unacceptable now. That's it.



Eh? Definition:

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival.

I don't appeal to feels, and I don't attack the character of others. But as counter to my arguments I often get appeals to emotion and/or attacks on my character.

A lot of things we debate doesn't really have a factual right or wrong answer, much of it is philosophical/ideological. These days, ad hominem are even seen as debate-winners. But I still cling to them signifying logical fallacies. But then I still watch films on DVD, and listen to music on cd/vinyl. So maybe I'm a dinosaur refusing to adapt to the big meteorite.

Poking the bear will prove which way the wind really blows.

What if it's slightly less than a decade ago, say, eight years? Or two years or even three? Just wondering where your fantasy cut off point is. If somebody did something bad more than a decade ago, is it too late to investigate, or prosecute if you find enough evidence of wrongdoing?

Once again I'll remind you of Ben Stokes being stood down while under investigation. Or Ryan Giggs at the moment. If he's found not guilty he'll be back in the Wales job. Stokes was found not guilty and is back in the England squad (well, he will be when his finger's better).

 

[dholliday]

What if it's slightly less than a decade ago, say, eight years? Or two years or even three? Just wondering where your fantasy cut off point is. If somebody did something bad more than a decade ago, is it too late to investigate, or prosecute if you find enough evidence of wrongdoing?

Once again I'll remind you of Ben Stokes being stood down while under investigation. Or Ryan Giggs at the moment. If he's found not guilty he'll be back in the Wales job. Stokes was found not guilty and is back in the England squad (well, he will be when his finger's better).

We're talking about Ollie's case.

I vouch for a case-by-case reading of things. And regarding your other examples I support the innocent-until-proven-guilty concept. Stokes's 8-match ban was already served by the time he was found guilty of affray. I feel that's the wrong way round. Because had he been innocent, he would still have lost those matches.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

No. Because for one I didn't "scream". And for another the damage to his reputation has already been done. He should not have been suspended in the first place.


No, it's not. Normal due process is to investigate. It's not to suspend-first-ask-questions-later.



A caricaturist's reading of what I, and others, have said. It appeals to your emotion, and to those clicking like. But it's intellectually-dishonest, and merely puts a brick-wall between you and your debate-opponent.

Nonsense, it's exactly what you've been saying for the last few days. Once you deconstruct your 'message', and remove the bombast, this is exactly what's left of your argument, such as it is.

 

[Amw79]

It’s a tricky one the Ollie Robinson one. I think if we were all held accountable for everything we said when we were 18, it would spell trouble for everyone.

On the other hand I reckon most didn’t use that type of racist, sexist, homophobic language either, and certainly didn’t publish it for all to see on Twitter.

There’s a question for me around setting an example to 18 year olds about their online activity. Employers now will routinely scour candidates social media accounts for dodgy stuff, so there’s a good lesson here for just not posting sketchy stuff online.

Fact that he’s been suspended is not surprising. If I posted some of that stuff online right now, I’d be sacked - end of story. So it’s really a question of the statute of limitations on these things, and how accountable we should be for prior transgressions.