Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 118

Thread: Racism

  1. #81
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    I also note you evaded this point again:
    "If I'm interpreting you correctly, you would have no problem with Irish and British newspapers publishing "tricky is a paedophile" as their headlines tomorrow with completely fabricated stories about you abusing children underneath? Because that's what absolute free speech could mean; they'd have an absolute right to say whatever they liked about you whenever they liked. What if hostile and hysterical mobs burned you out of your home, or, worse, tried to kill you, on the basis of that malicious and outrageous fabrication? That would be a real life-threatening consequence. You'd be OK with all of that and would continue championing absolute free speech?"
    What you have their is a situation where my voice is censored, you have an imbalance of power which is essentially censorship.
    The reality is newspapers can do just that and indeed do that and do print false and misleading stories targetting various groups.
    Indeed they are often censored against printing stories which are actually true by court injunctions.

    In the situation you describe such stories would have no credibilty.

    But you talking about a situation in which there is already censorship ie me having no right of reply.

    The censorship I am talking about is where a platform censors someone who would otherwise be able to reply.

    As it happens in the situation you describe I would be able to reply to an online newspaper and defend myself, problem there is censorship of comments tends to take place, giving me no right of reply.

    No basically any comment I might make on the internet for example can be replied to, so there is no reason why I should be censor as there is free speech in operation.

    In the situation you describe free speech does not operate as I am not able to respond.

    And those tend to be the examples used to defend censorship ie places were censorship is already effectively in operation.

    So that is the issue, the current censorship laws do not protect me form the situation you describe, nor would any really what would protect me is more free speech for me.

    So more free speech is needed not more censorship ie a guaranteed right of reply.

  2. #82
    Youth Team Fizzer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
    I assume Danny that you’re asserting that Tricky would be protected in the hypothetical scenario you’ve set out above by our defamation laws.You’d be right to a large extent but one element required in a successful defamation suit is that the complainant is identified or capable of identification.In your e.g. above you’ve used Tricky’s username rather than a real name.If the papers did the same,Tricky would have to show that he’d been ‘identified’ i.e. that someone had connected the username to the real person,not an insurmountable task but more straightforward where a persons’ name is used.

  3. #83
    Reserves
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    706
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 334 Times in 201 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    Yes I am. Empathetically.

    A comment directed at an individual cannot be racist as and individual is not a race, pretty much by definition.

    The "hate" or whatever is directed at the individual not a race.

    It is not mad it is just logically and linguist correct..

    For example a person was described as

    a) An Irish hero.

    b) An Irish b*stard.

    Are these comments racist?


    Not in my opinion. The hate or love is not of a race but of a person. So it is not racist, it is merely descriptive.
    That's utterly and demonstrably incorrect - if somebody insults somebody of a different race/religion/ethnic background, making reference their race, etc., they are almost certainly not adding that in merely as a helpful description - they add that in to say explicitly or implicitly that the racial difference is a cause of the attribute that they are insulting in the other person - they are also using this racial description to say that the other person is inherently inferior to them as a result of their race and can't do anything about it.

    Plus, racial slurs - the N-Word or the use of "Paddy" to describe an Irishman (who's not called Patrick), for example - are often singular, which means by definition that they are designed to be hurled at individuals, so, yes, individuals can be, and all too often are, victims of racism. And that is one of the nastiest elements of racism - that it can be used by racist scum against perfectly decent individuals trying to live their lives.

  4. Thanks From:


  5. #84
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by samhaydenjr View Post
    That's utterly and demonstrably incorrect - if somebody insults somebody of a different race/religion/ethnic background, making reference their race, etc., they are almost certainly not adding that in merely as a helpful description - they add that in to say explicitly or implicitly that the racial difference is a cause of the attribute that they are insulting in the other person - they are also using this racial description to say that the other person is inherently inferior to them as a result of their race and can't do anything about it.

    Plus, racial slurs - the N-Word or the use of "Paddy" to describe an Irishman (who's not called Patrick), for example - are often singular, which means by definition that they are designed to be hurled at individuals, so, yes, individuals can be, and all too often are, victims of racism. And that is one of the nastiest elements of racism - that it can be used by racist scum against perfectly decent individuals trying to live their lives.
    I think it depend on the context.

    It is also some what subjective.

    Is Paddy Power racist for example?

    Then you have Spurs fans referring to themselves as the the Yids.
    Last edited by tricky_colour; 04/12/2017 at 12:05 AM.

  6. #85
    Reserves
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    706
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 334 Times in 201 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    I think it depend on the context.

    It is also some what subjective.
    The context we're talking about is a racist insulting somebody of a different race and including a racial slur in the abuse so, no, there's nothing subjective about that - it's racism directed at an individual, which you said couldn't happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    Is Paddy Power racist for example?
    I think I covered that scenario


    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    Then you have Spurs fans referring to themselves as the the Yids.
    There is a tradition of persecuted groups starting to refer to themselves using the language of their persecutors as an act of defiance - African-Americans referring to each other using the N-word, Irish people in England calling themselves Paddies and the example of Spurs fans you gave. There is some debate as to whether this is appropriate or not, but either way it's still racism if somebody from another groups uses these terms to denigrate an individual from these groups.

  7. #86
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,382
    Thanks
    3,314
    Thanked 3,651 Times in 2,240 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    In terms of sex we are essentially binary barring a tiny minority and those who are of one sex have no business in the changing room/toilets of the opposite sex.

    Night clubs do not have children in them.
    First of all, there's no legislation, as far as I'm aware, that enshrines in law that persons traditionally recognised as biological men must use male-designated toilets and that persons traditionally recognised as biological women must use female-designated toilets. Meanwhile, on private premises, the owner has the legal right to determine entry to the premises and the right to decide who uses which toilet. It's his or her call ultimately; not yours. Why do you wish to censor or control the gender identification and expression of transgender people? I thought you believed in absolute free expression...

    Which changing room or toilet should intersex persons use, in your opinion?

    Shops like Topshop/Topman (who have gender-neutral changing rooms) will have minors in them. I haven't heard of any issues arising from their gender-neutral changing rooms. If you have, feel free to provide evidence. Their cubicles, like all toilet cubicles, have locks on them to safeguard privacy, so what's the issue exactly? Where has this idea you have of "fully grown intact men who 'identify' as women sharing the same changing room as 7 year old girls" been reported as a problem? Any examples? Why is that an issue for you but fully grown men sharing the same changing room as 7-year-old boys seemingly isn't? Your apparent selective concern makes me suspicious of the motive behind your criticism of people who simply wish to use the toilet they may feel more comfortable going to the toilet in.

    I don't really see the big deal in allowing people to use the facilities appropriate to the way they identify or present, just like they've always done without issue, so why the hoo-ha now all of a sudden? Your example attempts to trivialise and vulgarise (via an attempted association with paedophilia) a serious matter regarding sincere identification and your purported concern for 7-year-old girls just seems like a classic cover for transphobic scaremongering - typical of a moral panic - at a time when transgender people are beginning to enjoy a greater platform in society and as issues relating to their rights are enjoying a greater level of attention. I would suggest that if a person enters a toilet or changing room and is harassing people in there, that person is the problem rather than their gender identification or sex. Do you have even one example of a situation where a transgender person has harassed or attacked a minor, or anyone in fact, in a bathroom? Usually it's the other way around; the transgender person is more likely to be the victim of harassment in a bathroom than a perpetrator of it. If it's straight cisgender men who cannot be trusted to behave themselves in bathrooms, maybe it's they who we should be policing rather than everyone else?

    You complained about people who've criticised transgender people being "demonised as transphobic" and implied that this "demonisation" is a means or tool used by certain parties to protect transgender persons from criticism, as if it were a form of suppression of expression. To accuse someone of engaging in demonisation carries with it negative connotations, as if to accuse them of unreasonable malice towards the "demonised". Are you saying then that criticism directed back at those who've criticised or targeted transgender people isn't valid or reasonable or what? Don't people have a right to call other people out on their perceived, suspected or evident transphobia and return criticism as they see fit? It's not necessarily "demonisation" if the accusation is reasoned and reasonable, surely. Is your complaint - the allegation that those who criticise are "demonisers" - really just an attempt to discredit opinion in response that you don't like and an attempt to counter-silence it by shutting down the debate? That's the very thing you purportedly rally against, no?

    In terms of sex, the science says we're on a spectrum or continuum and there is a huge degree of fluidity or variation within the two traditionally-recognised sexes; so much variation in fact that it renders the simplistic notion of a binary obsolete. There are no opposites in reality; just constructs that we have erected or assumed to exist out of ignorance or in order to help us understand (through crude over-simplification) our exceptionally complicated nature. It's possible for our brains, bodies and reproductive systems all to have different recognised biological sexes simultaneously. It's also possible for our anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes to "clash" in terms of how we presently understand sex. That one or two per cent of the world's population who fit into neither of the two traditional arbitrary classifications equate to millions of people; not so much a "tiny" number of people when you think of it that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    It was censorship of the truth. It was not harmful expression but harmful censorship. The news was censored.
    Propaganda can entail both censorship of the truth and the spread of misinformation or misrepresentation. Your example shows that both censorship and expression can be used maliciously in the pursuit of interests that can cause harm to others, so it undermines your general point that expression is always good or harmless.

  8. #87
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,382
    Thanks
    3,314
    Thanked 3,651 Times in 2,240 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    What you have their is a situation where my voice is censored, you have an imbalance of power which is essentially censorship.
    The reality is newspapers can do just that and indeed do that and do print false and misleading stories targetting various groups.
    Indeed they are often censored against printing stories which are actually true by court injunctions.

    In the situation you describe such stories would have no credibilty.

    But you talking about a situation in which there is already censorship ie me having no right of reply.

    The censorship I am talking about is where a platform censors someone who would otherwise be able to reply.

    As it happens in the situation you describe I would be able to reply to an online newspaper and defend myself, problem there is censorship of comments tends to take place, giving me no right of reply.

    No basically any comment I might make on the internet for example can be replied to, so there is no reason why I should be censor as there is free speech in operation.

    In the situation you describe free speech does not operate as I am not able to respond.

    And those tend to be the examples used to defend censorship ie places were censorship is already effectively in operation.

    So that is the issue, the current censorship laws do not protect me form the situation you describe, nor would any really what would protect me is more free speech for me.

    So more free speech is needed not more censorship ie a guaranteed right of reply.
    The hypothetical situation is your purported ideal world in which there is no regulation of expression, so there are no defamation laws. You are free to try and defend yourself in this hypothetical world, but, as you appear to be saying, you mightn't get very far with it seeing as you won't have the same platform or as extensive an audience as the mainstream media outlets who've spread defamatory falsehoods about you have.

    I note that you make reference to the obvious and undesirable imbalance of power in the hypothetical scenario. You're now making the exact point I made earlier about the paradox inherent to the free speech debate (and thus undermining your own defence of absolute free speech); in an absolutist environment like this - the sort of environment that you've been advocating - power is indeed monopolised in the marketplace of ideas, which leads to a constraining effect on diversity of expression and means fewer voices, such as yours, being heard. You have no legal right of reply in the hypothetical situation for the very reason that there won't have been any defamation legislation to protect you or to balance conflicting rights in this absolutist world. Any right you might have had to reputation is completely extinguished by the media's absolute right to express whatever the hell they like about you. This is the logical conclusion of what you've been advocating and you must now see the problem with your position seeing as you're taking issue with the inevitable undesirable consequences.

    Where laws against defamation of character exist, the state will provide you with a legal and remedial platform to defend your name and reputation. In the real world, publications are presently restricted by law from publishing defamatory and damaging falsehoods. Publications can be held accountable and punished (sued for damages) if they defame someone; this obviously de-incentivises such defamatory conduct and thus protects citizens from having their reputations damaged through malice.

    In what sense do you say the stories about you have "no credibility"? Obviously they would have been completely fabricated - that's the point - but the newspapers' audiences would have no idea that they were fabricated, so they may well regard them as credible and believe them. As a result, your reputation will suffer and your safety or life may even be put in danger if some irate people happen to decide to act on the stories upon the understanding that they are true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizzer View Post
    I assume Danny that you’re asserting that Tricky would be protected in the hypothetical scenario you’ve set out above by our defamation laws.You’d be right to a large extent but one element required in a successful defamation suit is that the complainant is identified or capable of identification.In your e.g. above you’ve used Tricky’s username rather than a real name.If the papers did the same,Tricky would have to show that he’d been ‘identified’ i.e. that someone had connected the username to the real person,not an insurmountable task but more straightforward where a persons’ name is used.
    What you say is true, but let's assume for the sake of argument that "tricky" is his real name or that the headlines either use his full real name or unambiguously reveal his true identity. In the hypothetical scenario - a potential logical consequence of tricky's purported ideal - tricky has no protection because absolute free speech exists, which means there are no defamation laws. In real life, he would have protections as the spreading of malicious falsehood is de-incentivised by laws against defamation.

    I suspect deep down that he can see this (considering he was taking issue with some inevitable consequences of what he's been advocating) and appreciates their value and importance. The hypothetical scenario, where anyone can get away with ruining your reputation or life by spreading misinformation about you without the law or state even attempting to protect you or holding them to account, is clearly a dystopian nightmare.

  9. #88
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,382
    Thanks
    3,314
    Thanked 3,651 Times in 2,240 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    I think it depend on the context.

    It is also some what subjective.
    I'm not necessarily agreeing with everything stated in this video, but it (or the first six minutes at least) might be worth a watch as it discusses how identity or race-based words (such as the N-word) can insult and harm due to their loaded nature:



    If someone is being targeted or insulted specifically because of their race, that's racist. Obviously.

    Is Paddy Power racist for example?

    Then you have Spurs fans referring to themselves as the the Yids.
    That's arguably an example of reappropriation - Spurs fans have reclaimed an anti-Semitic slur that has historically been used to insult them because they've historically had a relatively significant Jewish following - although David Baddiel (who is a Jewish Spurs fan) expressed discomfort and disapproval over other Spurs fans using the term self-referentially, even if it has been used as a sort of badge of honour, because most Spurs fans aren't actually Jewish and he felt its use perpetuates anti-Semitism. This example isn't as clearcut as aforementioned cases of racism and samhaydenjr has already mentioned that there is debate as to whether this sort of thing is appropriate. I think Baddiel himself would regard use of the term as more unhelpful than intentionally racist when used with positive (albeit misguided, according to Baddiel) intent by fellow Spurs fans who happen to be non-Jewish.

    Paddy Power are Irish and presumably happily identify as such, so they presumably didn't choose to use "Paddy" in order to disparage themselves and their fellow countrymen. I don't find it offensive anyway. However, if I had someone from the EDL shouting "Paddy" at me in a mocking or threatening fashion from across the street somewhere in England because they saw me in an Ireland top or something, that would, of course, be racist.

    I sometimes use the term "taig" self-referentially and in a jocular or ironic fashion if in like company, but if a unionist stranger called me that, I wouldn't have much time for it. James McClean tweeted "#weefenian" upon the christening of his daughter; he was reclaiming what has been used as a slur by unionists against nationalists, Catholics and/or republicans in the north and was instead using it to refer to his own, sort of as a form of defiance or assertion of identity. I wouldn't see any problem with James' self-referential use of the term, but if a unionist uses it as a means of abuse (and I've personally experienced this on occasion), that's a different story entirely as it takes on a whole different meaning; a sectarian and maybe even racist one.

    Just to pluck an example out of the air; if someone like the contrarian Kevin Myers (who seems to harbour a peculiar hibernophobic streak despite his Irish heritage) started slagging off a section of Irish society with use of the word "Paddies", I might take an issue with that as he often frames himself as being distinct from or superior to the Irish masses, so you might find he wasn't using the term in an endearing or defiant self-referential fashion at all, but rather as a put-down to denigrate his perceived social, moral and intellectual inferiors.

    The nature and import of what is being communicated is dependent on the context.

  10. #89
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Propaganda can entail both censorship of the truth and the spread of misinformation or misrepresentation. Your example shows that both censorship and expression can be used maliciously in the pursuit of interests that can cause harm to others, so it undermines your general point that expression is always good or harmless.
    Free expression can't be used maliciously unless censorship is operation as there will be counter expression to any malice expressed.

    I would give an example of trump tweeting a "muslim attack" on a disabled person, people said it was wrong but free expression is never
    wrong in an uncensored world.

    Turn's out he was not muslim so it backfired and even if he was muslim muslims are not the only people who attack disabled people so it
    proves nothing.

    Indeed thanks to Trump many who though it was a Muslim attack now know it was not.

    Free expression is always the best way.

    Any example of bad free expression are in situation where censorship is already in operation as is the case of your example
    of a newspaper reporting me a paedophile or whatever, because censorship already operates such reports are treated as gospel.

    With out censorship such false reports would be so numerous that nobody would believe them without real evidence.

    The whole idea of censorship is nuts because you have the question of who gets to a censor.

    How come they are not incited to violence for example, why are not all the police racist (maybe they are lol).

    It assumes two sets of people an uncorrectable pure elite and a mindless corrupt plebiscite, which is not only untrue.

    And of course censorship allow the elite to get away with all sort of crimes.

    There is some case in the UK about prosecuting someone for revealing an MP had porn on his computer ie revealing the truth.

    Censorship has also aided celebrity paedophiles.

  11. #90
    Banned. Children Banned. Grandchildren Banned. 3 Months. Charlie Darwin's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17,188
    Thanks
    3,524
    Thanked 4,825 Times in 3,043 Posts
    "No doctor ever wrote "free speech" on a death certificate."

    That's amazing.

  12. #91
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,382
    Thanks
    3,314
    Thanked 3,651 Times in 2,240 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    Free expression can't be used maliciously unless censorship is operation as there will be counter expression to any malice expressed.
    Of course it can be used maliciously. If you have an absolute right to do something, of course that can be abused, for who's going to keep it in check. Doesn't the old saying warn us that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Just because counter-expression may occur, it won't necessarily protect your privacy, repair the damage to your reputation or ensure that those who've heard the falsehood will hear the actual truth. On what basis do you assume that? What if the abuser has greater influence, a bigger platform and a much wider audience to spread misinformation and misrepresentation than you do? You're a solitary citizen; they're a well-funded group of media corporations with a direct audience of millions. How can you seriously stand up to their power? And, even if you do reach a wide audience with your version of events, people will have no way of knowing which version of reality is true or false as there'll be no court of law to determine the facts for the public with recourse to evidence.

    I would give an example of trump tweeting a "muslim attack" on a disabled person, people said it was wrong but free expression is never
    wrong in an uncensored world.

    Turn's out he was not muslim so it backfired and even if he was muslim muslims are not the only people who attack disabled people so it
    proves nothing.
    Of course it proves nothing. But yourself and myself know that because we know to be sceptical of Trump - a compulsive bull****ter - and we also know that all types of people engage in such conduct; not just supposed Muslims. There are many people who might have seen the tweet and thought that this was some indication that Muslims are "uniquely bad", as was the obvious intent of the tweet. We've been privileged enough to enjoy the luxury of a sufficient enough education so as to enable us to see through the bull****, but many people who've been miseducated, not educated or who have no training in critical thinking and who take things literally or at face-value might not. Many (deluded) people genuinely believe that Trump is a refreshing source of truth who is standing up to mainstream "fake news" and "political correctness". In fact, there are (or were until last week) at least two contributors to this forum who appear(ed) to believe this bogus narrative. That's why such tweeting is dangerous.

    That's not to say that I would endorse the banning of a re-tweet like that (as I suppose it was ultimately reporting a factual occurrence, even if it attempted to give a distorted impression of reality), but it is an example of a form of expression that is dangerously misleading and provocative, no matter what you say. It could inflame tensions and division which could cause wider social problems, unrest or interpersonal violence. So, of course free speech can be dangerous.

    And I wasn't aware that it had been a case of mistaken identity either, as I followed that particular story rather passively, just as many other people would have done too, I'm sure. So you can't just assume it backfired. Not everyone is paying 100 per cent attention to everything; most people rely on the media as a sort of information filter, so there is huge potential for abuse of power there.

    Any example of bad free expression are in situation where censorship is already in operation as is the case of your example
    of a newspaper reporting me a paedophile or whatever, because censorship already operates such reports are treated as gospel.
    No, my example was a hypothetical dystopia of absolute free speech. Legal regulation of expression doesn't exist there, meaning there are no defamation laws to protect people's reputations. Why are you saying that censorship is in operation there? How so? Are you acknowledging that a world of absolute free speech would lead to a situation where the powerful can say what they like and the vulnerable are de facto silenced because they'd have no legal protection from any monopolisation of expression by the powerful. If so, you're undermining your own argument.

    With out censorship such false reports would be so numerous that nobody would believe them without real evidence.
    You can't just assume that for everyone. Some people would fall for anything. And what if a media source just concocted evidence or doctored some images to give a supporting impression? There'd be no court of law to properly scrutinise the veracity or falsehood of the supposed evidence.

    On the other hand, critical people wouldn't know what to believe, be it sincere or false. That would obviously be a nightmare world of constant uncertainty, suspicion and doubt. Communication and the spread of information would be inherently compromised. In acknowledging that many people will be automatically riddled with doubt, you are half-way there to admitting an inevitable problem with the crazy system you're advocating.

    The whole idea of censorship is nuts because you have the question of who gets to a censor.
    I acknowledged that dilemma - any censorship isn't ideal and will be an imperfect process employed in order to balance conflicting rights - so I said that any form of regulation of expression should be subject to a high-threshold burden of proof or justification and must be as reasonable, democratic and transparent a process as is possible.

    How come they are not incited to violence for example, why are not all the police racist (maybe they are lol).
    Who or what are you referring to?

    It assumes two sets of people an uncorrectable pure elite and a mindless corrupt plebiscite, which is not only untrue.
    I'm not sure what you mean. What assumes two sets of people? And what do "an uncorrectable pure elite" and "a mindless corrupt plebiscite" mean in this context?

    And of course censorship allow the elite to get away with all sort of crimes.

    There is some case in the UK about prosecuting someone for revealing an MP had porn on his computer ie revealing the truth.

    Censorship has also aided celebrity paedophiles.
    I'm well aware that regulation of expression can be abused by the powerful, just as free expression can be abused by the powerful. I'm advocating a happy balance where as many people as possible are as free as possible to express whatever they like without causing material or measurable harm to others and wider society or without unreasonably encroaching upon other people's right to things like privacy and reputation.

    If the MP (Damien Green, I'm assuming?) was wasting parliamentary time and resources when he should have been representing constituents, fair enough, pull him up on wasting time and resources on non-parliamentary activity, but the whole porn "outrage" (as if it were illegal or as if nobody else consumes porn) is arguably an invasion of privacy in a seeming effort just to tarnish his reputation. Just because something is the truth, it doesn't mean everybody has a right to know it. Do other people have a right to know your bank details or online accounts passwords? Of course not. Not that we know if the allegations from the cops were definitely the truth anyway; Green denied he downloaded the "incriminating" material and it hasn't been proven in a court of law that he did, so we're just relying on the words of one or two fallible cops who might even have an agenda.

    The cops who disclosed the salacious information about Green had also signed up to a duty of confidentiality as part of their jobs because their roles would have seen them dealing with personal, private and sensitive information on a daily basis. What they did was in breach of that previously agreed professional standard. Bawdy allegations of that nature can ruin relationships and lives and I don't really think it was any of their business to be acting beyond their professional duties and getting involved in the private life of a stranger like that, particularly when what they've accused Green of isn't even illegal.

    In what way has censorship "aided celebrity paedophiles"?

    In your world of absolute free speech, someone could enter your house to stage a loud and annoying protest and you'd have no right to have them removed as that would be to suppress their protest which would be a trample on their "absolute right to free speech". That "absolute right" would trump your right to privacy, after all. Or crooked bank employees could just sell bank customers' details and passwords to criminals for cash and there'd be no data protection laws or regulations against that to disincentivise such conduct and protect customer assets and privacy because the unscrupulous employees would simply be exercising their "right to free speech". Food companies could lie about the ingredients in their foods as there'd be no regulatory food standards - due to the prioritisation of their "absolute right to free speech" - and nobody would know any better. I'm sure I could think up plenty of other nightmarish scenarios... It would be an utterly awful and ludicrous existence. You obviously haven't thought it through much.

  13. #92
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    28,377
    Thanks
    1,115
    Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,308 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin View Post
    "No doctor ever wrote "free speech" on a death certificate."

    That's amazing.
    And not necessarily true either.

    Here's a passage from Dervla Murphy's book, A Place Apart - Northern Ireland in the 1970s, quoting Liam de Paor on sectarian riots in Belfast in the 1930s -

    Twelve people were killed, and the city coroner, TE Alexander, in reporting his finding that the cause of death was gunshot wounds in each case, gave his view that inflammatory and provocative speeches from "so-called leaders of public opinion" were responsible"
    So the doctor, while not writing "Free speech" on the death certs, is openly saying it was the ultimate reason for death

  14. Thanks From:


  15. #93
    International Prospect bennocelt's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Basel (Allschwil)
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    4,068
    Thanked 408 Times in 311 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post



    Of course it proves nothing. But yourself and myself know that because we know to be sceptical of Trump - a compulsive bull****ter - and we also know that all types of people engage in such conduct; not just supposed Muslims. There are many people who might have seen the tweet and thought that this was some indication that Muslims are "uniquely bad", as was the obvious intent of the tweet. We've been privileged enough to enjoy the luxury of a sufficient enough education so as to enable us to see through the bull****, but many people who've been miseducated, not educated or who have no training in critical thinking and who take things literally or at face-value might not. Many (deluded) people genuinely believe that Trump is a refreshing source of truth who is standing up to mainstream "fake news" and "political correctness". In fact, there are (or were until last week) at least two contributors to this forum who appear(ed) to believe this bogus narrative. That's why such tweeting is dangerous.
    .
    Is there a fas course for that?

  16. #94
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,382
    Thanks
    3,314
    Thanked 3,651 Times in 2,240 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bennocelt View Post
    Is there a fas course for that?
    Ha, I wish!

    Our history teacher taught us how to analyse a matter - with help of the five Ws - and drilled it into us to keep asking "why?" until you understand and get to the bottom of whatever it is you're investigating or being told, but I think it would be helpful if specific modules in critical thinking were taught in schools for all pupils. In sixth form, we used to have a class for an hour or two on a Thursday afternoon called curriculum enrichment where you could explore other interests and activities - like psychology, law or cooking - that weren't actually on the ordinary syllabus, so they weren't examined. Critical thinking could be taught within that sort of framework, but maybe a bit earlier in a student's life as sixth form is voluntary and not legally mandatory.

    Of course, you can always train yourself in logic and reasoning, but an education system that teaches the widest number of people how to think, question, inquire and learn for themselves in the first place, as opposed to indoctrination or pigeonholing students within a narrow functional and test-driven framework, is ideal.

    I think a healthy democracy and society relies upon a citizenry of politically literate and engaged critical thinkers who can make informed decisions for themselves, even under heavy propaganda bombardment. I hope that's not too idealistic!

  17. #95
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Of course it can be used maliciously. If you have an absolute right to do something, of course that can be abused, for who's going to keep it in check. Doesn't the old saying warn us that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Just because counter-expression may occur, it won't necessarily protect your privacy, repair the damage to your reputation or ensure that those who've heard the falsehood will hear the actual truth. On what basis do you assume that? What if the abuser has greater influence, a bigger platform and a much wider audience to spread misinformation and misrepresentation than you do? You're a solitary citizen; they're a well-funded group of media corporations with a direct audience of millions. How can you seriously stand up to their power? And, even if you do reach a wide audience with your version of events, people will have no way of knowing which version of reality is true or false as there'll be no court of law to determine the facts for the public with recourse to evidence.
    Does not matter in an uncensored word I would have a right of reply, I can use another platform another news outlet, plus you are also implying his outlet is acting as a censor.


    I mean I could just post the truth on my twitter account, although not the one twitter had banned obviously. Lot of censorship in operation on twitter and increasingly on the internet free speech is being slowly strangled.
    Everyday the west becomes more and more like North Korea or some other totalitarian regime.

    And of course you are talking of an already censored world where an elite control 99% of the media, the internet changed that for a while at least but the dark veil of censorship is creeping.

  18. #96
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post

    Of course it proves nothing. But yourself and myself know that because we know to be sceptical of Trump - a compulsive bull****ter - and we also know that all types of people engage in such conduct; not just supposed Muslims. There are many people who might have seen the tweet and thought that this was some indication that Muslims are "uniquely bad", as was the obvious intent of the tweet. We've been privileged enough to enjoy the luxury of a sufficient enough education so as to enable us to see through the bull****, but many people who've been miseducated, not educated or who have no training in critical thinking and who take things literally or at face-value might not. Many (deluded) people genuinely believe that Trump is a refreshing source of truth who is standing up to mainstream "fake news" and "political correctness". In fact, there are (or were until last week) at least two contributors to this forum who appear(ed) to believe this bogus narrative. That's why such tweeting is dangerous.

    That's not to say that I would endorse the banning of a re-tweet like that (as I suppose it was ultimately reporting a factual occurrence, even if it attempted to give a distorted impression of reality), but it is an example of a form of expression that is dangerously misleading and provocative, no matter what you say. It could inflame tensions and division which could cause wider social problems, unrest or interpersonal violence. So, of course free speech can be dangerous.
    Ah so now you are God, the fountain of all knowledge who knows, right from wrong? Scary stuff!

    You are the arbitrer of truth?

    How do you know the guy was not a Muslim? Do you know him personally?

    The tweet was not dangerous, nobody died.

  19. #97
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post

    And I wasn't aware that it had been a case of mistaken identity either, as I followed that particular story rather passively, just as many other people would have done too, I'm sure. So you can't just assume it backfired. Not everyone is paying 100 per cent attention to everything; most people rely on the media as a sort of information filter, so there is huge potential for abuse of power there.

    The tweet as on a Britain First website, had Trump not retweeted it many who followed BF would still believe the guy was a muslim.

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    No, my example was a hypothetical dystopia of absolute free speech. Legal regulation of expression doesn't exist there, meaning there are no defamation laws to protect people's reputations. Why are you saying that censorship is in operation there? How so? Are you acknowledging that a world of absolute free speech would lead to a situation where the powerful can say what they like and the vulnerable are de facto silenced because they'd have no legal protection from any monopolisation of expression by the powerful. If so, you're undermining your own argument.
    The powerful already do say what they like.

    You do not have aright of reply to the BBC.

    I can't take them to task over loony feminist propaganda for example.

    And indeed commenting on that got me banned from twitter.

    It is active state controlled brainwashing.

    I am not undermining my argument at all.

    You seem to believe we live in an and an uncensored world which is of course nonsense.

    There is of course an uncensored world, which is basically what existed before mass media appeared on the scene to a certain extent anyway, on the local level, not so much on the national level, I mean you can say what you like down the pub so to speak, you don't have someone sitting on your shoulder deleting your words.

    You would still have to beware of the local bully of course.

  20. #98
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    You can't just assume that for everyone. Some people would fall for anything. And what if a media source just concocted evidence or doctored some images to give a supporting impression? There'd be no court of law to properly scrutinise the veracity or falsehood of the supposed evidence.

    On the other hand, critical people wouldn't know what to believe, be it sincere or false. That would obviously be a nightmare world of constant uncertainty, suspicion and doubt. Communication and the spread of information would be inherently compromised. In acknowledging that many people will be automatically riddled with doubt, you are half-way there to admitting an inevitable problem with the crazy system you're advocating.
    Again you are back to an already censored world with a censor powerful media.

    Yes some would fall for anything, Tim would say Bob is a murderer and Bob would say Tim is a murderer, who does uncritical Fred believe?

    Neither of course as there is not evidence to support wither claim.

    There are courts if law both official and unofficial, no censorship is required to make them work, indeed censorship is the one thing that would stop them working.


    So not crazy 100% sane.

    It is only when censorship applies you get problems for example when the judge who is also the biscuit factory owner rule that evidence against his products is inadmissible be cause the witness is unreliable.

  21. #99
    International Prospect tricky_colour's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Nottingham.
    Posts
    8,597
    Thanks
    1,449
    Thanked 834 Times in 575 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post

    I'm not sure what you mean. What assumes two sets of people? And what do "an uncorrectable pure elite" and "a mindless corrupt plebiscite" mean in this context?



    I'm well aware that regulation of expression can be abused by the powerful, just as free expression can be abused by the powerful. I'm advocating a happy balance where as many people as possible are as free as possible to express whatever they like without causing material or measurable harm to others and wider society or without unreasonably encroaching upon other people's right to things like privacy and reputation.

    If the MP (Damien Green, I'm assuming?) was wasting parliamentary time and resources when he should have been representing constituents, fair enough, pull him up on wasting time and resources on non-parliamentary activity, but the whole porn "outrage" (as if it were illegal or as if nobody else consumes porn) is arguably an invasion of privacy in a seeming effort just to tarnish his reputation. Just because something is the truth, it doesn't mean everybody has a right to know it. Do other people have a right to know your bank details or online accounts passwords? Of course not. Not that we know if the allegations from the cops were definitely the truth anyway; Green denied he downloaded the "incriminating" material and it hasn't been proven in a court of law that he did, so we're just relying on the words of one or two fallible cops who might even have an agenda.

    The cops who disclosed the salacious information about Green had also signed up to a duty of confidentiality as part of their jobs because their roles would have seen them dealing with personal, private and sensitive information on a daily basis. What they did was in breach of that previously agreed professional standard. Bawdy allegations of that nature can ruin relationships and lives and I don't really think it was any of their business to be acting beyond their professional duties and getting involved in the private life of a stranger like that, particularly when what they've accused Green of isn't even illegal.

    In what way has censorship "aided celebrity paedophiles"?

    In your world of absolute free speech, someone could enter your house to stage a loud and annoying protest and you'd have no right to have them removed as that would be to suppress their protest which would be a trample on their "absolute right to free speech". That "absolute right" would trump your right to privacy, after all. Or crooked bank employees could just sell bank customers' details and passwords to criminals for cash and there'd be no data protection laws or regulations against that to disincentivise such conduct and protect customer assets and privacy because the unscrupulous employees would simply be exercising their "right to free speech". Food companies could lie about the ingredients in their foods as there'd be no regulatory food standards - due to the prioritisation of their "absolute right to free speech" - and nobody would know any better. I'm sure I could think up plenty of other nightmarish scenarios... It would be an utterly awful and ludicrous existence. You obviously haven't thought it through much.
    On the elite and the plebs.
    Just 7% of the UK public attended private school, which compares to 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces
    There you have a huge inbuilt imbalance of justice.
    It is the "old school tie", the "old boys network".


    They are the trusted souls who determine truth and justice.

    I am not sure what the example of "my house" is supposed to represent, my house is not a public place.
    But if I were running a public house people should of course be allowed to say what they like in public.

    It is up to the banks to ensure their systems are secure, not the law, if the banks system is not secure it will not be in business long, the free market protects you, not the law.

    There have been data breaches at companies and of course one the cat is out of the bag no law or censorship can put it back.

  22. #100
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    6,683
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked 1,364 Times in 725 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tricky_colour View Post
    The tweet as on a Britain First website, had Trump not retweeted it many who followed BF would still believe the guy was a muslim.
    If Trump hadn't tweeted it and thereby attracted the depth of analysis that enabled his and BF's claim to be proven false, many would still believe it, so it's a win for free speech really.

    Probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

  23. Thanks From:


Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Polkraine;Racism?
    By ArdeeBhoy in forum Fans Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09/06/2012, 3:10 PM
  2. Racism/SBB row
    By paul_oshea in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 25/01/2007, 4:22 PM
  3. More Spanish racism
    By sligoman in forum World League Football
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 28/12/2005, 2:22 PM
  4. Racism
    By bigmac in forum Premier & First Divisions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 23/08/2005, 8:52 PM
  5. Racism.....
    By Jeff Jefty Jeff in forum Premier & First Divisions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 23/09/2003, 12:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •