Twitter Reinstates 'Patriotic Alternative' Then Suspends Them Again

[XPertByExperien]

17 minutes ago, L00b said:

In the context posited by Chekhov, under his habitual stance of extreme liberalism, it is no sillier than platforming inexpert populist politicians such as Farage, Oakeshott and similar, as ‘balance’ to trade/finance/legal experts in TV debates.
 

Especially when some of these Neanderthals appear to have fallen foul of the same anti-terrorist legislation, as other Neanderthals pushing ISIS’ extremism. They are extremists both, and equally dangerous to British society.

Nigel Farage is a numpty anyway, but fortunately even the sort of people who vote UKIP aren't daft enough to get him enough seats to ever form a credible government.

 

 

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, leviathan13 said:

Well, then... nothing to worry about! 🤷🤷🤷

I'm not saying that in each of the areas you've highlighted there isn't anything to worry about, I was just saying with regards to the extreme right wing group Checkov highlighted, if they are spreading hate and recruiting minors, then their means to do so should be considered.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Mister M

[leviathan13]

32 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I'm not saying that in each of the areas you've highlighted there isn't anything to worry about, I was just saying with regards to the extreme right wing group Checkov highlighted, if they are spreading hate and recruiting minors, then their means to do so should be considered.

My problem with the idea of 'hate speech' is that, like offence, it is mostly down to how the individual understands it and their comprehension of, or willingness to completely ignore, the context.

 

Is criticism of some of the trans politics hate speech? Some would argue it is and, by doing so, they shut down the debate. I would argue that this isn't hate speech - but it would be if i preached that  we should assault and physically harm trans people, which i would never do.

 

Unfortunately, certain parts of society are quick to throw words and phrases like 'Nazi', 'Hitler', 'Hate Speech', '-phobe' and '-ist' at anyone with whom they disagree. Thing is... those parts of society are the ones acting like Nazis and promoting hate speech as much, if not more than, those they are attacking (IMHO).

[Al Bundy]

23 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

My problem with the idea of 'hate speech' is that, like offence, it is mostly down to how the individual understands it and their comprehension of, or willingness to completely ignore, the context.

 

Is criticism of some of the trans politics hate speech? Some would argue it is and, by doing so, they shut down the debate. I would argue that this isn't hate speech - but it would be if i preached that  we should assault and physically harm trans people, which i would never do.

 

Unfortunately, certain parts of society are quick to throw words and phrases like 'Nazi', 'Hitler', 'Hate Speech', '-phobe' and '-ist' at anyone with whom they disagree. Thing is... those parts of society are the ones acting like Nazis and promoting hate speech as much, if not more than, those they are attacking (IMHO).

Indeed.

 

You mean the oh so tolerant left?

[Mister M]

37 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

My problem with the idea of 'hate speech' is that, like offence, it is mostly down to how the individual understands it and their comprehension of, or willingness to completely ignore, the context.

 

Is criticism of some of the trans politics hate speech? Some would argue it is and, by doing so, they shut down the debate. I would argue that this isn't hate speech - but it would be if i preached that  we should assault and physically harm trans people, which i would never do.

 

Unfortunately, certain parts of society are quick to throw words and phrases like 'Nazi', 'Hitler', 'Hate Speech', '-phobe' and '-ist' at anyone with whom they disagree. Thing is... those parts of society are the ones acting like Nazis and promoting hate speech as much, if not more than, those they are attacking (IMHO).

These are legal terms, so if a group are deemed by a judge to be peddling hate, severe enough to warrant punishment, then that is within the power of the criminal justice system to prosecute.

 

There will be plenty of cases where people have been prosecuted for hate crimes. So it's not just a theoretical debate.

 

While it is all very well to say, that you wouldn't want to inflict harm on others, and I'm sure you don't, groups like Combat 18 have malign intent and use social media in a way that has potential to harm others. 

 

I'm not interested in inhibiting free speech, I frequently disagree with people of course. I think some groups think they go outside the law, under the pretence of 'freedom of expression' . I wonder if a group such as Combat 18 who complain that their freedom of expression is being curtailed, would behave if in power? Would they restrict the legal rights of groups such as Jewish people, and LGBT people? Of course they would.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Mister M

[L00b]

30 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

My problem with the idea of 'hate speech' is that, like offence, it is mostly down to how the individual understands it and their comprehension of, or willingness to completely ignore, the context.

 

Is criticism of some of the trans politics hate speech? Some would argue it is and, by doing so, they shut down the debate. I would argue that this isn't hate speech - but it would be if i preached that  we should assault and physically harm trans people, which i would never do.

That is fair, noting however that respectful criticism of any trans (or other) politics should not ever be deemed ‘hate speech’. The clue is in the name.

36 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

Unfortunately, certain parts of society are quick to throw words and phrases like 'Nazi', 'Hitler', 'Hate Speech', '-phobe' and '-ist' at anyone with whom they disagree. Thing is... those parts of society are the ones acting like Nazis and promoting hate speech as much, if not more than, those they are attacking (IMHO).

Likewise other parts of society are equally quick to take offense and play the victim card when they are called out for what they are.
 

Like the oh-so-broad minded hard right and hard left.

 

😏 😉

[melthebell]

3 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

Define 'risk to society', because i would argue that the idiots sitting on roads, blocking emergency vehicles from protecting people and saving lives are a risk to society.

 

Drag-queens being promoted to primary-school age children...

 

Teenagers being encouraged to mutilate and drug themselves at the altar of trans-ideology where to criticise it is 'phobic' and a threat to 'inclusivity'...

Define risk to society, one word

 

Killing

 

 

Should we allow people who advoocate killing people just because they exist a platform to advocate killing people?

Edited March 2, 2023 by melthebell

[Chekhov]

4 hours ago, Mister M said:

There is a law going through Parliament which addresses this. 

Why does that fill me with foreboding.......

Yet more regulation, yet more bans. Anyone would have thought living in the 1980s was really dangerous the way they keep  banning stuff which was not banned then

2 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

My problem with the idea of 'hate speech' is that, like offence, it is mostly down to how the individual understands it and their comprehension of, or willingness to completely ignore, the context.

Thus is absolutely true, as I stated on another thread that girl claiming upset and sexual assault during her drunken snog is doing so because she has been conditioned by Me Too etc into thinking she should be upset.

[Delayed]

9 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Why does that fill me with foreboding.......

Yet more regulation, yet more bans. Anyone would have thought living in the 1980s was really dangerous the way they keep  banning stuff which was not banned then

Thus is absolutely true, as I stated on another thread that girl claiming upset and sexual assault during her drunken snog is doing so because she has been conditioned by Me Too etc into thinking she should be upset.

Yep females can't think for themselves and have to be told how to feel. 

[leviathan13]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

Define risk to society, one word

 

Killing

 

 

Should we allow people who advoocate killing people just because they exist a platform to advocate killing people?

Bit simplistic...

 

What about rape? Paedophilia? Allowing biological men in to women only spaces?