|
Post by gulfofaden on Feb 18, 2024 15:21:56 GMT
Freedom of speech is a myth. People are still free to say whatever they like. What isn't is the consequences of exercising that freedom. There are consequences to words and actions. Often when people complain about having their freedom of speech denied, what they really mean is that they don't like what happens once they have said or done something society no longer tolerates. Freedom of speech is a concept, not a myth. There is a huge difference between criminalising people for threatening to kill people and criminalising people for “hate speech”, which is an opinion, not a threat. This is a fairly new invention and had a whole host of potential adaptations. It’s an insult, and that’s a whole other bag of worms. Currently the police are knocking on peoples doors for misgendering people on twitter. If folks don’t see an issue with that, however cruel doing so might be, they want their heads looked at. The police pulled an autistic girl out by her legs because she said a police officer looked like a lesbian. This is where this kind of opinion gets you. It’s totalitarianism and it’s claiming it’s a myth just seeks to normalise what are totalitarian behaviours from authorities. It’s a concept and it’s up for debate and it’s quite possible not to be a racist/sexist whatever and still find this kind of thing utterly disgusting and Orwellian Your last paragraph is just “you’re either with us or against us” rephrased . It gives me the creeps.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 18, 2024 15:55:25 GMT
Freedom of speech is a myth. People are still free to say whatever they like. What isn't is the consequences of exercising that freedom. There are consequences to words and actions. Often when people complain about having their freedom of speech denied, what they really mean is that they don't like what happens once they have said or done something society no longer tolerates. Freedom of speech is a concept, not a myth. There is a huge difference between criminalising people for threatening to kill people and criminalising people for “hate speech”, which is an opinion, not a threat. This is a fairly new invention and had a whole host of potential adaptations. It’s an insult, and that’s a whole other bag of worms. Currently the police are knocking on peoples doors for misgendering people on twitter. If folks don’t see an issue with that, however cruel doing so might be, they want their heads looked at. The police pulled an autistic girl out by her legs because she said a police officer looked like a lesbian. This is where this kind of opinion gets you. It’s totalitarianism and it’s claiming it’s a myth just seeks to normalise what are totalitarian behaviours from authorities. It’s a concept and it’s up for debate and it’s quite possible not to be a racist/sexist whatever and still find this kind of thing utterly disgusting and Orwellian Your last paragraph is just “you’re either with us or against us” rephrased . It gives me the creeps. The police don't even knock on doors when you've been burgled. You agree that people are still allowed to say what they want though right? And we alsk agree there are consequences to "free speech". I would probably agree with you that in some cases those consequences may be unjust. Glad I gave you the creeps though.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Feb 18, 2024 16:26:20 GMT
Freedom of speech is a concept, not a myth. There is a huge difference between criminalising people for threatening to kill people and criminalising people for “hate speech”, which is an opinion, not a threat. This is a fairly new invention and had a whole host of potential adaptations. It’s an insult, and that’s a whole other bag of worms. Currently the police are knocking on peoples doors for misgendering people on twitter. If folks don’t see an issue with that, however cruel doing so might be, they want their heads looked at. The police pulled an autistic girl out by her legs because she said a police officer looked like a lesbian. This is where this kind of opinion gets you. It’s totalitarianism and it’s claiming it’s a myth just seeks to normalise what are totalitarian behaviours from authorities. It’s a concept and it’s up for debate and it’s quite possible not to be a racist/sexist whatever and still find this kind of thing utterly disgusting and Orwellian Your last paragraph is just “you’re either with us or against us” rephrased . It gives me the creeps. The police don't even knock on doors when you've been burgled. You agree that people are still allowed to say what they want though right? And we alsk agree there are consequences to "free speech". I would probably agree with you that in some cases those consequences may be unjust. Glad I gave you the creeps though. What kind of consequences and for what type of speech? Awfully vague. Yes, if you tell your boss to FO then you’re probably getting fired. On the other hand, you could say you’re opposed to the government in some places and get thrown in jail. Every action has a consequence. I’m not sure the point you’re making. “Free speech” as most people understand it is the ability to hold and vocalise an opinion which isn’t conspiracy to commit a crime without criminal consequences. That old “free speech comes with responsibility” is indeed creepy. It’s a dog whistle for what is basically political censorship. Nobody ever seriously suggested that freedom of speech meant you could call your wife a ton of names and not get divorced. No need to talk in riddles. It’s pretty obvious what freedom of speech means. More or less. Do you believe in criminalising speech which doesn’t directly call for criminal acts? That’s the question Hugo. No need to smoke up the room. It isn’t a myth, it’s what existed in most of the western world until a short time ago. Everyone knew what it meant, which is why the phrase exists. In fact it used to be possibly the fist principle for what western democracies stood for. That, and democracy and press freedom. Long before it became about tolerance and diversity. They actually meant something too, rather than merely a slogan.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 18, 2024 17:51:28 GMT
The police don't even knock on doors when you've been burgled. You agree that people are still allowed to say what they want though right? And we alsk agree there are consequences to "free speech". I would probably agree with you that in some cases those consequences may be unjust. Glad I gave you the creeps though. What kind of consequences and for what type of speech? Awfully vague. Yes, if you tell your boss to FO then you’re probably getting fired. On the other hand, you could say you’re opposed to the government in some places and get thrown in jail. Every action has a consequence. I’m not sure the point you’re making. “Free speech” as most people understand it is the ability to hold and vocalise an opinion which isn’t conspiracy to commit a crime without criminal consequences. That old “free speech comes with responsibility” is indeed creepy. It’s a dog whistle for what is basically political censorship. Nobody ever seriously suggested that freedom of speech meant you could call your wife a ton of names and not get divorced. No need to talk in riddles. It’s pretty obvious what freedom of speech means. More or less. Do you believe in criminalising speech which doesn’t directly call for criminal acts? That’s the question Hugo. No need to smoke up the room. It isn’t a myth, it’s what existed in most of the western world until a short time ago. Everyone knew what it meant, which is why the phrase exists. In fact it used to be possibly the fist principle for what western democracies stood for. That, and democracy and press freedom. Long before it became about tolerance and diversity. They actually meant something too, rather than merely a slogan. No, I don't believe in curtailment or the criminalising of any speech.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 18, 2024 18:13:14 GMT
The police don't even knock on doors when you've been burgled. You agree that people are still allowed to say what they want though right? And we alsk agree there are consequences to "free speech". I would probably agree with you that in some cases those consequences may be unjust. Glad I gave you the creeps though. What kind of consequences and for what type of speech? Awfully vague. Yes, if you tell your boss to FO then you’re probably getting fired. On the other hand, you could say you’re opposed to the government in some places and get thrown in jail. Every action has a consequence. I’m not sure the point you’re making. “Free speech” as most people understand it is the ability to hold and vocalise an opinion which isn’t conspiracy to commit a crime without criminal consequences. That old “free speech comes with responsibility” is indeed creepy. It’s a dog whistle for what is basically political censorship. Nobody ever seriously suggested that freedom of speech meant you could call your wife a ton of names and not get divorced. No need to talk in riddles. It’s pretty obvious what freedom of speech means. More or less. Do you believe in criminalising speech which doesn’t directly call for criminal acts? That’s the question Hugo. No need to smoke up the room. It isn’t a myth, it’s what existed in most of the western world until a short time ago. Everyone knew what it meant, which is why the phrase exists. In fact it used to be possibly the fist principle for what western democracies stood for. That, and democracy and press freedom. Long before it became about tolerance and diversity. They actually meant something too, rather than merely a slogan. Also, free speech has never existed in the Western world. There have always been one group who have been set upon since forever for wanting or having a voice. Right now it's the gammons wanting to say racist stuff or deliberately misgender someone that are being so terribly oppressed. Tomorrow it will be someone else.
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Feb 18, 2024 18:17:16 GMT
General chat innit? Get those muppets in there involved.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 18, 2024 23:23:24 GMT
As a liberal lefty wishy washy type I have serious collywobbles about the gap between people who claim to have seen various 'No blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' signs and the actual number of those signs that ever existed.
Let's not invent racism just to suit the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Feb 18, 2024 23:52:51 GMT
What kind of consequences and for what type of speech? Awfully vague. Yes, if you tell your boss to FO then you’re probably getting fired. On the other hand, you could say you’re opposed to the government in some places and get thrown in jail. Every action has a consequence. I’m not sure the point you’re making. “Free speech” as most people understand it is the ability to hold and vocalise an opinion which isn’t conspiracy to commit a crime without criminal consequences. That old “free speech comes with responsibility” is indeed creepy. It’s a dog whistle for what is basically political censorship. Nobody ever seriously suggested that freedom of speech meant you could call your wife a ton of names and not get divorced. No need to talk in riddles. It’s pretty obvious what freedom of speech means. More or less. Do you believe in criminalising speech which doesn’t directly call for criminal acts? That’s the question Hugo. No need to smoke up the room. It isn’t a myth, it’s what existed in most of the western world until a short time ago. Everyone knew what it meant, which is why the phrase exists. In fact it used to be possibly the fist principle for what western democracies stood for. That, and democracy and press freedom. Long before it became about tolerance and diversity. They actually meant something too, rather than merely a slogan. Also, free speech has never existed in the Western world. There have always been one group who have been set upon since forever for wanting or having a voice. Right now it's the gammons wanting to say racist stuff or deliberately misgender someone that are being so terribly oppressed. Tomorrow it will be someone else. Well, you’ve shown your true colours sir. Political. Nothing more. You might want to look into the concept of solipsism. There are principles which are far, far more important than your partisan squabbles. You’re either unable to divorce the two or willfully endorse it because the boots on your foot in current context. Your statement above about not criminalising speech is incongruent with your opening one. You just knew gammon was coming out. Point missed entirely
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 19, 2024 6:04:32 GMT
Also, free speech has never existed in the Western world. There have always been one group who have been set upon since forever for wanting or having a voice. Right now it's the gammons wanting to say racist stuff or deliberately misgender someone that are being so terribly oppressed. Tomorrow it will be someone else. Well, you’ve shown your true colours sir. Political. Nothing more. You might want to look into the concept of solipsism. There are principles which are far, far more important than your partisan squabbles. You’re either unable to divorce the two or willfully endorse it because the boots on your foot in current context. Your statement above about not criminalising speech is incongruent with your opening one. You just knew gammon was coming out. Point missed entirely Am I not allowed to use the term Gammon? Heaven forfend.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 6:24:12 GMT
What kind of consequences and for what type of speech? Awfully vague. Yes, if you tell your boss to FO then you’re probably getting fired. On the other hand, you could say you’re opposed to the government in some places and get thrown in jail. Every action has a consequence. I’m not sure the point you’re making. “Free speech” as most people understand it is the ability to hold and vocalise an opinion which isn’t conspiracy to commit a crime without criminal consequences. That old “free speech comes with responsibility” is indeed creepy. It’s a dog whistle for what is basically political censorship. Nobody ever seriously suggested that freedom of speech meant you could call your wife a ton of names and not get divorced. No need to talk in riddles. It’s pretty obvious what freedom of speech means. More or less. Do you believe in criminalising speech which doesn’t directly call for criminal acts? That’s the question Hugo. No need to smoke up the room. It isn’t a myth, it’s what existed in most of the western world until a short time ago. Everyone knew what it meant, which is why the phrase exists. In fact it used to be possibly the fist principle for what western democracies stood for. That, and democracy and press freedom. Long before it became about tolerance and diversity. They actually meant something too, rather than merely a slogan. Also, free speech has never existed in the Western world. There have always been one group who have been set upon since forever for wanting or having a voice. Right now it's the gammons wanting to say racist stuff or deliberately misgender someone that are being so terribly oppressed. Tomorrow it will be someone else. It won’t be long for this to end up in General Chat. The idea that people being misgendered is a problem confuses me. The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia so frankly anyone challenging this being pushed into mainstream existence in particular being pushed onto our children has my support. Left or right, gammon or commie or whatever slur people want to use, I think this is a dangerous ideology that needs to be stopped so if someone is upset at being misgendered…so what?!
|
|
|
Post by clockendgas on Feb 19, 2024 6:52:14 GMT
Well, you’ve shown your true colours sir. Political. Nothing more. You might want to look into the concept of solipsism. There are principles which are far, far more important than your partisan squabbles. You’re either unable to divorce the two or willfully endorse it because the boots on your foot in current context. Your statement above about not criminalising speech is incongruent with your opening one. You just knew gammon was coming out. Point missed entirely Am I not allowed to use the term Gammon? Heaven forfend. Only used with, eggs chips and beans,plus plenty of strong tea 😉
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Feb 19, 2024 6:56:36 GMT
Also, free speech has never existed in the Western world. There have always been one group who have been set upon since forever for wanting or having a voice. Right now it's the gammons wanting to say racist stuff or deliberately misgender someone that are being so terribly oppressed. Tomorrow it will be someone else. It won’t be long for this to end up in General Chat. The idea that people being misgendered is a problem confuses me. The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia so frankly anyone challenging this being pushed into mainstream existence in particular being pushed onto our children has my support. Left or right, gammon or commie or whatever slur people want to use, I think this is a dangerous ideology that needs to be stopped so if someone is upset at being misgendered…so what?! Really? How does that work?
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Feb 19, 2024 7:01:50 GMT
Also, free speech has never existed in the Western world. There have always been one group who have been set upon since forever for wanting or having a voice. Right now it's the gammons wanting to say racist stuff or deliberately misgender someone that are being so terribly oppressed. Tomorrow it will be someone else. Well, you’ve shown your true colours sir. Political. Nothing more. You might want to look into the concept of solipsism. There are principles which are far, far more important than your partisan squabbles. You’re either unable to divorce the two or willfully endorse it because the boots on your foot in current context. Your statement above about not criminalising speech is incongruent with your opening one. You just knew gammon was coming out. Point missed entirely I like the fact you have brought this back to football. However, I have looked through their website and I can't see where they have any article about freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Feb 19, 2024 9:58:35 GMT
It won’t be long for this to end up in General Chat. The idea that people being misgendered is a problem confuses me. The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia so frankly anyone challenging this being pushed into mainstream existence in particular being pushed onto our children has my support. Left or right, gammon or commie or whatever slur people want to use, I think this is a dangerous ideology that needs to be stopped so if someone is upset at being misgendered…so what?! Really? How does that work? Two short planks comes to mind. If the telly says it’s ok, eh Gasify
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Feb 19, 2024 10:07:18 GMT
Well, you’ve shown your true colours sir. Political. Nothing more. You might want to look into the concept of solipsism. There are principles which are far, far more important than your partisan squabbles. You’re either unable to divorce the two or willfully endorse it because the boots on your foot in current context. Your statement above about not criminalising speech is incongruent with your opening one. You just knew gammon was coming out. Point missed entirely Am I not allowed to use the term Gammon? Heaven forfend. Stop playing games you narcisstic child
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Feb 19, 2024 10:23:12 GMT
Really? How does that work? Two short planks comes to mind. If the telly says it’s ok, eh Gasify I know, making a comment like "The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia" is very much what do they call it, a word salad? There is some wise sounding words, however the way that they have been used in the sentence just doesn't make sense does it. I wouldn't go as far as calling Orgasmic "Thick as two short planks" mind, that would just be rude and they don't deserve that.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 10:31:05 GMT
It won’t be long for this to end up in General Chat. The idea that people being misgendered is a problem confuses me. The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia so frankly anyone challenging this being pushed into mainstream existence in particular being pushed onto our children has my support. Left or right, gammon or commie or whatever slur people want to use, I think this is a dangerous ideology that needs to be stopped so if someone is upset at being misgendered…so what?! Really? How does that work? The ‘scientist’ Alfred Kinsey is regarded as one of the pioneers of gender studies and is regarded as the person who created the term ‘gender is a social construct’. He was a rampant paedophile who sexually abused hundreds of children. Look up the Kinsey charts if you want to be truly disgusted and appalled that this sicko existed. The charts document his sexual abuse of children, some younger than 2 years old. For some reason his findings were given credence despite the fact that most of his research on sexual behaviour was either paedophilic or carried out on inmates who were in prison for sexual offences. Members of the same research board used his flawed data and subsequently founded an institution that embedded itself in education and created the sex education syllabus. John Money then took this flawed data and continued to push it forwards. He abused his power to convince parents of otherwise healthy male twins that 1 who had a circumcision go wrong that they should carry out a irreversible surgery to remove his testicles and raise him as a girl to prove his theory that environment was what determined gender, not biology. Said boy was miserable and confused throughout his childhood and eventually found out that his was biologically male so underwent more surgery to transition back. Long story short both children killed themselves but the published works of John Money before this are still used to prove it was a success. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but suffice to say I am not a fan of gender ideology and it is demonstrably provable that its roots are deeply embedded in paedophilia and child abuse. That’s why I don’t care if someone is misgendered deliberately or not!
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 10:32:38 GMT
Two short planks comes to mind. If the telly says it’s ok, eh Gasify I know, making a comment like "The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia" is very much what do they call it, a word salad? There is some wise sounding words, however the way that they have been used in the sentence just doesn't make sense does it. I wouldn't go as far as calling Orgasmic "Thick as two short planks" mind, that would just be rude and they don't deserve that. I’ve clarified in my reply to you and it’s he doesn’t deserve that. I’m not a they!
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Feb 19, 2024 12:21:34 GMT
I know, making a comment like "The entire ‘gender is a social construct’ ideology is rooted in child abuse and paedophilia" is very much what do they call it, a word salad? There is some wise sounding words, however the way that they have been used in the sentence just doesn't make sense does it. I wouldn't go as far as calling Orgasmic "Thick as two short planks" mind, that would just be rude and they don't deserve that. I’ve clarified in my reply to you and it’s he doesn’t deserve that. I’m not a they!"That’s why I don’t care if someone is misgendered deliberately or not!" Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ive just read the wikipedia page about Alfred Kinsey. At no point does it mention that he was a pedophile, just that he interviewed them for his research that turned out to be one pedophile. It mentions that he conducted his studies in an unusual way and it mentions that he chose a large amount of homosexual subjects and it mentions that he was bi sexual and had an open relationship with his wife. A quick google of dodgy doctors brings up James Marion Sims. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves"Few medical doctors have been as lauded—and loathed" I thought we are supposed to learn from history, not try to rewrite it?
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 17:18:23 GMT
I’ve clarified in my reply to you and it’s he doesn’t deserve that. I’m not a they!"That’s why I don’t care if someone is misgendered deliberately or not!" Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ive just read the wikipedia page about Alfred Kinsey. At no point does it mention that he was a pedophile, just that he interviewed them for his research that turned out to be one pedophile. It mentions that he conducted his studies in an unusual way and it mentions that he chose a large amount of homosexual subjects and it mentions that he was bi sexual and had an open relationship with his wife. A quick google of dodgy doctors brings up James Marion Sims. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves"Few medical doctors have been as lauded—and loathed" I thought we are supposed to learn from history, not try to rewrite it? Ah Wikipedia that anyone can edit, how very reliable. Here’s a direct quote from his own book for you: “If a child were not culturally conditioned, it is doubtful if it would be disturbed by sexual approaches…It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other person, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts” ~ Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 120-122 The bloke was a child abusing nonce and oddly people seem so intent on defending gender ideology that they defend this sort of horrible predator.
|
|