Latest Way They Influence Us (Tell Us. ) All How To Think

[Chekhov]

On 24/08/2023 at 10:06, Mister M said:

>>Chekhov said:

Could someone please give me an example of so called "hate speech" ?

Even more relevantly, an example from The Sun, The Express, or The Mail<<

 

Can't you find it yourself?

No, I cannot find any examples of what I would consider "hate speech", in fact I do not think it even exists. 

 

So, for the third time I am asking the all the Leftie Wokeists on here, can we please have :

 

1 - Any example of what you would consider "hate speech" ?

 

2 - Any example of "hate speech" in the Mail, the Express, the Sun or on GBTV (all the outlets the  Conscious Advertising Network are trying to dissuade advertisers from using because of their supposed "hateful" attitudes).

 

12 minutes ago, Delayed said:

>>Chekhov said:
Interesting...

A Leftie authoritarian (who is almost certainly also in favour of restricting our lives due to "Nett Zero") telling me not to use public transport but use my car instead.<<

 

Again, stop making things up about me. 

And there's a difference between telling and suggesting. 

Happy to correct the record :

 

Delayed is not an authoritarian, and as such he does not believe in people being restricted in their lives unless absolutely essential. To be clear a non authoritarian believes  the default position should be not to restrict or ban anything.

Neither does he believe in Nett Zero, or if he does he does not believe people should have their lives restricted because of it.

But he does think people should be encouraged to use public transport, including if they want to look out of the window, so they should not be forced to look at a huge political / woke sticker (which they might not agree with) right in their line of vision. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

23 hours ago, Jack Grey said:

Yes definitely

£500bn spent on the fakedemic 

They all need to go to jail

But remember that it was supported by all politicians in the UK and across Europe 

And most of the members of this forum

There was only a few of us who resisted 

Mostly by people who love to trawl other people's posts

And were banned from it for telling the truth [that kids were at no significant risk from Covid] .......

Edited August 25, 2023 by Chekhov

[Annie Bynnol]

45 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

And were banned from it for telling the truth [that kids were at no significant risk from Covid] .......

   Another seeking martyrdom, but you will need a bit more than the closure of a thread and a pool by their owners to get your sainthood. 

  

 

[leviathan13]

18 hours ago, Mister M said:

Listen I'm in no way trying to portray the left as angels who wouldn't dream of throwing mud.

That horrible campaign earlier this year by the Labour Party where they had Sunak's face next to a question about the low conviction rate of child abusers was utterly deplorable, and I totally condemn it. If people claim they don't like being the subject of those kinds of smears (as Starmer did when Boris linked him to Jimmy Saville), well then they shouldn't retaliate in the same terms.

 

On a wider point, I can't be the only one to have noticed this massive increase in the word 'woke', and what people think woke is. Initially, IIRC, it was coined by African Americans in the 1940s to mean to become aware of injustices. Now the gutter press have co opted it as an insult to anyone  on the left. Like with the term 'politically correct' it's used as a term of abuse.

 

I certainly think the press, and to a lesser extent social media are responsible for toxifying political debates where debate quickly descends into the gutter. 

That's funny because you are bandying around the term 'Hate Speech' without offering a definition of what it means. And as there's been an increase of the inappropriate use of 'woke', the same could be said for people being called Nazi/Hitler/phobic/ist.

 

And you're complaining at the meaning of words changing - it's the left that want to alter the English language to suit their politics. Just look at the whole gender identity movement for how terms are being altered for the sake of 'inclusivity'!

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

   Another seeking martyrdom, but you will need a bit more than the closure of a thread and a pool by their owners to get your sainthood. 

No, you don't understand.

I was banned in Apr 2020 for stating that kids were at no significant risk of death from Covid. My posts were repeatedly deleted and then, when I argued about it, I was banned. I had that changed to "account closed" by contacting the then owner of the site.

So, fighting for the truth, and, just as importantly, trying to lessen the stress on parents. 

I must be a bit closer to sainthood than you thought eh ?

 

1 hour ago, leviathan13 said:

That's funny because you are bandying around the term 'Hate Speech' without offering a definition of what it means.

Absolutely true, despite me asking for examples numerous times. The silence is positively deafening......

 

I'll be controversial and wait for someone to prove me wrong : hate speech does not exist (and certainly not in the media).

Edited August 25, 2023 by Chekhov

[leviathan13]

17 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Absolutely true, despite me asking for examples numerous times. The silence is positively deafening......

 

I'll be controversial and wait for someone to prove me wrong : hate speech does not exist (and certainly not in the media).

It's because it's around feelings and 'micro aggressions' nothing concrete and everything subjective and down to the person.

[Chekhov]

11 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

It's because it's around feelings and 'micro aggressions' nothing concrete and everything subjective and down to the person.

Yes absolutely,  in fact I think one of them actually said the definition of assault should be for the victim to decide !

Here in fact, and more than one of them agreed with it :

 

 

 

[Tyke02]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I'll be controversial and wait for someone to prove me wrong : hate speech does not exist (and certainly not in the media).

Ofcom have a definition of hate speech in their broadcasting code, and have fined some broadcasting organisations and removed others licences on the basis of it, for example:

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-ahlebait-tv-networks

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-up-and-coming-tv

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/updated-decision-and-surrender-ktv

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-link-fm

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-rinse-fm

 

Some groups have used the same rules to lobby for Ofcom to take action on the basis that they think they have been broken, for example:

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/mps-and-board-of-deputies-slam-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-on-gbnews-7034XOJGx29iU82NfNSPfq

 

If you don't like their definition, I suggest that you take it up with them.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Tyke02

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Tyke02 said:

Ofcom have a definition of hate speech in their broadcasting code, and have fined some broadcasting organisations and removed others licences on the basis of it, for example:

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-ahlebait-tv-networks

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-up-and-coming-tv

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/updated-decision-and-surrender-ktv

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-link-fm

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-rinse-fm

 

Some groups have used the same rules to lobby for Ofcom to take action on the basis that they think they have been broken, for example:

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/mps-and-board-of-deputies-slam-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-on-gbnews-7034XOJGx29iU82NfNSPfq

 

If you don't like their definition, I suggest that you take it up with them.

With all due respect I am not that bothered what some Woke QUANGO says, the original question was more specific : 

 

No, I cannot find any examples of what I would consider "hate speech", in fact I do not think it even exists. 

So, for the third time I am asking the all the Leftie Wokeists on here, can we please have :

1 - Any example of what you would consider "hate speech" ?

2 - Any example of "hate speech" in the Mail, the Express, the Sun or on GBTV (all the outlets the  Conscious Advertising Network are trying to dissuade advertisers from using because of their supposed "hateful" attitudes).

 

One thing is for sure, any "definition" of hate speech must be subjective

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

No, you don't understand.

I was banned in Apr 2020 for stating that kids were at no significant risk of death from Covid. My posts were repeatedly deleted and then, when I argued about it, I was banned. I had that changed to "account closed" by contacting the then owner of the site.

So, fighting for the truth, and, just as importantly, trying to lessen the stressy aware 

   I understand very well that scientists and medics all over the world as well as the media and health authorities globally were reporting and publishing data on the severity of symptoms within various age groups long before your martyrdom ban. Every single person who has knowledge of Pandemics would know that populations are affected differently

   For example: "The proportion of children who went on to develop severe or critical Covid-19 illness with breathlessness, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and shock was much lower (6%) than among Chinese adults (19%) – especially older adults with chronic cardiovascular or respiratory conditions. A small proportion of children (1%) did not show any signs of infection at all, despite harbouring the virus. In comparison, only 1% of infected adults remained asymptomatic". BBC March 2020".

   As shown  above, your recollection of events seems flawed and you will not be noted in history for your selfless acts of fighting for your freedoms- it was already well known. Neither will your one month ban go down as a 'sacrifice'. The danger now is that these attempts to re-write science and history to serve your political beliefs will go on and on and...