Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[P.J. Denyer]

Well it can't be his long time pal. That guy now lives here, not far from me, and is currently making a right prick of himself

Colour me surprised. One of my earliest memories is him driving up in a racing car in the opening of the first 'Multi Coloured Swap Shop' episode (I'd have been five at the time). Sad really.

 

[smartcooky]

Calling someone a racial slur is kinda definitionally not objectively factual. Calling someone a bigot may well be so.

Almost every time someone is called a racial slur, it is not objectively factual, its an ideologically-driven opinion.

You must keep in mind anyone who is not strictly aligned with their ideological worldview, is seen by progressives as a bigot, a fascist, a far-right thug and a Nazi.

 

[Thermal]

Almost every time someone is called a racial slur, it is not objectively factual, its an ideologically-driven opinion.

You must keep in mind anyone who is not strictly aligned with their ideological worldview, is seen by progressives as a bigot, a fascist, a far-right thug and a Nazi.

Was that intentional? I mean the sweeping, intolerant, prejudiced generalization of progressives? If so, two snaps up for the improvised performance piece. If not.. your slip is showing.

 

[angrysoba]

Was that intentional? I mean the sweeping, intolerant, prejudiced generalization of progressives? If so, two snaps up for the improvised performance piece. If not.. your slip is showing.

The problem about all you Looony Lefie Commie Pinko Hamas-loving Jew-hating Transgender-for-everyone so-called Progressive Bolshevik Islamist freaks is that you do not understand my nuanced and carefully articulated position.

 

[angrysoba]

David Who? I thought you said he was well known.

He was in a TV show called Little Britain and is a bestselling children's book writer. I would say I am surprised his fame hasn't reached New Zealand, but it must have given that he's done tours there at 2,000-seater venues.

 

[smartcooky]

Was that intentional? I mean the sweeping, intolerant, prejudiced generalization of progressives? If so, two snaps up for the improvised performance piece. If not.. your slip is showing.

 

[Nessie]

If I’m following, you think calling someone a racial epithets it gross obscenity… but accusing someone of being a racist or other type of bigot is NOT gross obscenity. That would mean it’s acceptable to you to falsely accuse someone of something that could damage their livelihood and reputation… but hurting someone’s feelings with a nasty term is unacceptable.

What context is needed for you to think that chanting for the eradication of a whole people is gross obscenity? Heck, what context would make it NOT gross obscenity in your view?

Oh, I see. Public figures are protected from accusations that could damage their reputation, but normal people are fair game?

Context is important. A friend calling a friend the n word, in a way that the friends know is a laugh and causes no harm, is not a crime. Same with calling someone a racist or a bigot. If it is done in a way that the intent is to cause harm, then both can be criminal.

Chanting for genocide would, in pretty much every context, be criminal.

A public figure is more at risk of being the subject of abuse and suffering from reputational damage, but that does not mean they are protected and others are fair game.

 

[theprestige]

Calling someone a racial slur is kinda definitionally not objectively factual.

How so? Is this an argument from the subjectivity of race? There is no such thing as an objectively black person, so it follows there's no such thing as a ◊◊◊◊◊◊?

Calling someone a bigot may well be so.

Which to me is an argument for sanctioning potentially libelous or defamatory epithets in social media, while allowing mere insults to pass.

 

[Thermal]

How so? Is this an argument from the subjectivity of race? There is no such thing as an objectively black person, so it follows there's no such thing as a ◊◊◊◊◊◊?

What? No. A 'black person' is a neutral descriptor. Whether it can be quantified as mathematically precise is a seperate matter. A slur is definitionally a pejorative, intended to insult.

Which to me is an argument for sanctioning potentially libelous or defamatory epithets in social media, while allowing mere insults to pass

Bigot is primarily a descriptor for one who employs prejudiced and intolerant views, disparaging and insulting the recipient. If that is taken as libelous, well... is it demonstrably true or not? If it is not true, you may have a point on the libel front.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Context is important. A friend calling a friend the n word, in a way that the friends know is a laugh and causes no harm, is not a crime. Same with calling someone a racist or a bigot. If it is done in a way that the intent is to cause harm, then both can be criminal.

But in policy application, this isn’t how it works. Consider Kathleen Stock or Graham Linehan. The context was absolutely not “friendly” and the accusations of bigotry massively affected their livelihoods. But that certainly wasn’t viewed as “gross obscenity” despite causing objective harm to them.

Chanting for genocide would, in pretty much every context, be criminal.

Yet those chanting for intifada aren’t being viewed as engaging in hate speech, are they?

A public figure is more at risk of being the subject of abuse and suffering from reputational damage, but that does not mean they are protected and others are fair game.

That’s not really true, it’s just more publicly observable. A private citizen who loses their job due to unfounded accusations of bigotry likely faces more significant harm to their lives, with larger consequences for their family and financial stability… it’s just that you don’t see it.

 

[theprestige]

What? No. A 'black person' is a neutral descriptor. Whether it can be quantified as mathematically precise is a seperate matter. A slur is definitionally a pejorative, intended to insult.

You said a racial slur. But race is factual, and the intent to insult is factual. So ◊◊◊◊◊◊, applied to a black person, contains two facts.

Bigot is primarily a descriptor for one who employs prejudiced and intolerant views, disparaging and insulting the recipient. If that is taken as libelous, well... is it demonstrably true or not? If it is not true, you may have a point on the libel front.

Bigot is an allegation. Allegations without clear evidentiary support should be regulated much more strictly than racial slurs.

Call someone a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ on social media, let the court of public opinion take care of it. Call someone a bigot, get a visit from the police. That's the way I see it.

 

[Thermal]

You said a racial slur. But race is factual, and the intent to insult is factual. So ◊◊◊◊◊◊, applied to a black person, contains two facts.

So does porch monkey. That doesn't make it an objective factual statement.

And no, the n-word doesn't contain anything but itself.

Bigot is an allegation. Allegations without clear evidentiary support should be regulated much more strictly than racial slurs.

It can be. It need not be. If someone employs prejudiced and intolerant views, its an observation or opinion more than an allegation to call them bigoted. When speaking about a personality trait, it's a pretty far stretch to reach the bar of allegation, which normally contains the element of an unproven accusation.

{Eta: if I say you are a tall man, is that an allegation? How about rude? Ugly?}

Call someone a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ on social media, let the court of public opinion take care of it. Call someone a bigot, get a visit from the police. That's the way I see it.

I can't see why 'bigot' should rise to criminality. It's not illegal to be prejudiced or intolerant in your personal views. It's only acting on them in certain ways that would push the needle.

Either way, the n-word and b-word aren't really the dichotomy, here. If tyou want to pair terms, the n-word and maybe nazi are closer in polarity, and bigot/bleeding heart. Sort of.

 

[Nessie]

But in policy application, this isn’t how it works. Consider Kathleen Stock or Graham Linehan. The context was absolutely not “friendly” and the accusations of bigotry massively affected their livelihoods. But that certainly wasn’t viewed as “gross obscenity” despite causing objective harm to them.

Yet those chanting for intifada aren’t being viewed as engaging in hate speech, are they?

That’s not really true, it’s just more publicly observable. A private citizen who loses their job due to unfounded accusations of bigotry likely faces more significant harm to their lives, with larger consequences for their family and financial stability… it’s just that you don’t see it.

Regarding Linehan and Stock, the police just get it wrong and they are more inconsistent than the courts. People who chant grossly obscenities at protests sometimes get away with it when the police know they cannot cope with arrests. Public figures attract more attention and so it appears they get priority over the public.

 

[theprestige]

So does porch monkey. That doesn't make it an objective factual statement.

As a (rude) synonym for black person, it does. If I want to talk to an alien space robot who cannot into natural languages, and gets its crude circuits fried whenever it has to distinguish between a literal utterance and a figure of speech in context, I'll... well, what do you suggest? Should I ask you, or inquire elsewhere?

And no, the n-word doesn't contain anything but itself.

It contains a factual observation of blackness, and a factual expression of intent to insult.

It can be. It need not be. If someone employs prejudiced and intolerant views, its an observation or opinion more than an allegation to call them bigoted. When speaking about a personality trait, it's a pretty far stretch to reach the bar of allegation, which normally contains the element of an unproven accusation.

"I observed him to be bigoted" isn't evidence. It's just more allegation.

{Eta: if I say you are a tall man, is that an allegation? How about rude? Ugly?}

(Yes, these are all allegations. Where's the objective evidence? Have you measured me? Have you even defined "tall"? Remember, this isn't about what you personally believe you have observed. It's about claims you're making to other people, in public, and whether you should be free to make derogatory claims about others, in public, without providing sufficient supporting evidence. Your position seems to be that if you saw it, then you know it to be true, and you vouching for it without evidence is sufficient to protect you from charges of unsupported accusations.)

I can't see why 'bigot' should rise to criminality. It's not illegal to be prejudiced or intolerant in your personal views. It's only acting on them in certain ways that would push the needle.

If I get fired because someone called me a bigot on Twitter, I'd want them and my employer both sanctioned for harming me.

Either way, the n-word and b-word aren't really the dichotomy, here. If tyou want to pair terms, the n-word and maybe nazi are closer in polarity, and bigot/bleeding heart. Sort of.

You're putting a lot of effort into trying to establish and protect your privilege to make unsupported allegations about people in public.

 

[Thermal]

As a (rude) synonym for black person, it does.

It does not, assuming he is not on a porch, or in fact a monkey.

Many nouns, compound, part of a phrase, or otherwise, contain some element based in fact. That doesnt make them objectve factual statements.

If I want to talk to an alien space robot who cannot into natural languages, and gets its crude circuits fried whenever it has to distinguish between a literal utterance and a figure of speech in context, I'll... well, what do you suggest? Should I ask you, or inquire elsewhere?

I don't care about hypothetical alien space robots.

It contains a factual observation of blackness, and a factual expression of intent to insult.

It need not. My white ass is referred to as the n-word on the regular, despite not being A) black (arguably), or B) intended to insult.

"I observed him to be bigoted" isn't evidence. It's just more allegation.


(Yes, these are all allegations. Where's the objective evidence? Have you measured me? Have you even defined "tall"? Remember, this isn't about what you personally believe you have observed. It's about claims you're making to other people, in public, and whether you should be free to make derogatory claims about others, in public, without providing sufficient supporting evidence. Your position seems to be that if you saw it, then you know it to be true, and you vouching for it without evidence is sufficient to protect you from charges of unsupported accusations.)

No, i just use allegation in its normal sense of an accusation, normally indicating unproven wrongdoing. Whether someone is called tall does not meet that bar, and conflating this ◊◊◊◊ is not productive.

If I get fired because someone called me a bigot on Twitter, I'd want them and my employer both sanctioned for harming me.

The employer almost certainly should, if she were firing you for no other reason than someone else voicing their opinion of you. The one who called you a bigot should face no repercussions at all. They had no power over you or your destiny. That was your employer's choice, and a poor one.

You're putting a lot of effort into trying to establish and protect your privilege to make unsupported allegations about people in public.

And you are putting a lot of effort into grossly exaggerating what an allegation is. If you broaden it to any statement of fact or opinion that hasnt met some random evidentiary standard, ok, but it has no import anymore. Certainly not enough to raise it to the level of criminality, which you subtlety restrict the meaning to in the latter part of your argument. Calling you 'tall' ain't going to land me in the pokey, no matter your height.

 

[theprestige]

It does not, assuming he is not on a porch, or in fact a monkey.

Many nouns, compound, part of a phrase, or otherwise, contain some element based in fact. That doesnt make them objectve factual statements.

I don't care about hypothetical alien space robots.

It need not. My white ass is referred to as the n-word on the regular, despite not being A) black (arguably), or B) intended to insult.

No, i just use allegation in its normal sense of an accusation, normally indicating unproven wrongdoing. Whether someone is called tall does not meet that bar, and conflating this ◊◊◊◊ is not productive.

The employer almost certainly should, if she were firing you for no other reason than someone else voicing their opinion of you. The one who called you a bigot should face no repercussions at all. They had no power over you or your destiny. That was your employer's choice, and a poor one.

And you are putting a lot of effort into grossly exaggerating what an allegation is. If you broaden it to any statement of fact or opinion that hasnt met some random evidentiary standard, ok, but it has no import anymore. Certainly not enough to raise it to the level of criminality, which you subtlety restrict the meaning to in the latter part of your argument. Calling you 'tall' ain't going to land me in the pokey, no matter your height.

I'm increasingly convinced that the alien space robot that cannot into natural language is very much not a hypothetical creature.

 

[Thermal]

I'm increasingly convinced that the alien space robot that cannot into natural language is very much not a hypothetical creature.

r/SelfAwareWolves

 

[smartcooky]

Regarding Linehan and Stock, the police just get it wrong and they are more inconsistent than the courts.

That isn't what @Emily's Cat is talking about. Police involvement came much later in regards to Graham Linehan, and was of a different nature in the case of Kathleen Stock.

Both were hounded out of their professions by a baying mob of woke, ideological cultists; Linehan from the entertainment industry and Stock from academia. Their crimes? Daring to hold a protected belief. The Police had to come to the defence of Kathleen Stock. They protected her from the violent far-left student mobs who wanted her silenced and threatened to kill her.

People who chant grossly obscenities at protests sometimes get away with it when the police know they cannot cope with arrests.

Oh poppycock! The reason the Police don't arrest them is because they ideologically agree with them. They have been trained (brainwashed) into that thinking by the modern university-educated wokesters at the College of Policing.

 

[Nessie]

That isn't what @Emily's Cat is talking about. Police involvement came much later in regards to Graham Linehan, and was of a different nature in the case of Kathleen Stock.

Both were hounded out of their professions by a baying mob of woke, ideological cultists; Linehan from the entertainment industry and Stock from academia. Their crimes? Daring to hold a protected belief. The Police had to come to the defence of Kathleen Stock. They protected her from the violent far-left student mobs who wanted her silenced and threatened to kill her.


Oh poppycock! The reason the Police don't arrest them is because they ideologically agree with them. They have been trained (brainwashed) into that thinking by the modern university-educated wokesters at the College of Policing.

The public can make other lives a misery, without use of the police and courts, with online piles ons and mass complaints and protests. None of that is illegal.

The police do not make decisions not to arrest based on political support and ideology. It is all down to safety and resourcing.

 

[smartcooky]

The public can make other lives a misery, without use of the police and courts, with online piles ons and mass complaints and protests. None of that is illegal.

Death threats are not illegal?

The police do not make decisions not to arrest based on political support and ideology. It is all down to safety and resourcing.

My observations have been that they do.