So answer me this. How can you on one hand not trust humanity to decent human beings but can totally trust politicians of the future to be when there's actual money and power on the line?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Man who taught dog Nazi salute found guilty of hate crime
- Thread starter EightBitNate
- Start date
So answer me this. How can you on one hand not trust humanity to decent human beings but can totally trust politicians of the future to be when there's actual money and power on the line?
Yes, I'm serious. Hate speech should be legislated against. If anyone thinks words are "just words" they are incredibly ignorant of reality.
I called your appeal to a slippery slope fallacy batshit insane not because I somehow don't think governments would overstep their bounds. If speech outside of hate speech is taken to task, then I have every right to protest that because I only will for specific kinds of speech to be legislated against. If you think there's no framework allowed in there to fight back agianst governments "general attitudes" changing, then you simply just don't understand the point.
I will not defend hate speech simply because of the fact that it is speech. I will not assert that all speech must be treated equally because of "what if"'s, especially when we can all agree that in those "what if" scenarios, we'd all push back. You're creating an excuse to do nothing.
Conflating hate speech with general speech because you think other people would do it too is still a fallacy. And boiling everything down to "opinions" and "attitudes" and "people you agree with" makes you look pretty bad.
Last edited:
Joe Rogan is trash man. Some dudes he brings on his show are actual bigots and he does fuck all
I know but he does manage to get the odd good guest on at times due to the size of his show and I'll listen to them.
The law this man was prosecuted under is not a hate speech law, it's a law governing 'offensive speech' which the UK government has interpreted as everything from dicks on Snapchat to a guy making a joke about an airport blowing up to a woman using the hashtag #killallwhitemen to this guy teaching his dog to seig heil. I don't believe the government should be able to determine what speech is or is not 'offensive' if said speech doesn't directly infringe on the rights of others, which this (crude, tasteless) shock joke does not.
The UK has hate speech laws, which they didn't use in this case likely because they knew that this video does not fit their legal definition of hate speech. You don't see how letting the government define what is and isn't offensive is an issue?
"it's just a joke" isn't a defense for enabling naziism.
Sounds like a Bullwinkle cartoon where they make up names for their next episode.
I'm not arguing for enabling Nazism, there are plenty of social pressures society can exert upon people for making crude, tasteless jokes. What you say, even if it is a joke, has social consequences. I don't believe criminal prosecution is necessary nor just in this instance.
On top of that, this law is not being applied equally. Pewdiepie made worse jokes than this to a much wider audience and nothing happened to him. Prince Harry wore a Nazi armband and nothing happened to him, even though he has way more influence than this guy. Why is it ok for them to make Nazi jokes, but not this guy? Because they are rich and connected and powerful?
I agree.
I want people punished for harassing others, or expressing awful shit in public that makes people feel unsafe. I think a public space should be a Safe Space under the law.
But to click on a YouTube video is a choice, and I don't want the police knocking on people's doors for posting their thoughts on YouTube - no matter how hateful and malevolent (moving away from this particular example). I'd like the law to step in if people are inciting violence or harassment, not before.
I would prefer people to have fewer hate speech freedoms than they have in the US, but more than many people seem to have in certain European countries. I think it's crucially important to find a balance that protects people from hate while preserving an individual's freedom to say unpopular things that the majority may find profoundly offensive.
I don't think this guy should face any legal repercussions for this video.
Well, Prince Harry was before 2003 was he not? But yeah PDP not being arrested is inconsistent with the court ruling here.
There's a huge difference between clear and present danger vs hate speech.
But it's irrelevant because this case isn't being prosecuted under either.
Great post. Agree completely.
The slippery slope argument it's just a lazy way to dismiss stuff and preserve the shitty status quo.
This is so ridiculously funny like what the hell lol.
Are they gonna euthanize the dog? We surely can't let such a dangerous animal like a nazi dog to walk around society freely.
Are they gonna euthanize the dog? We surely can't let such a dangerous animal like a nazi dog to walk around society freely.
User Banned (Permanent): Troll account in junior phase.
TIL I'm advocating for Nazis because I think making a joke does not equate to literal murder. Good to know. It utterly disgusts me how you and the others can think this is such a big deal that you're willing to accept this verdict. People are actually happy, disgusting. I want them to GO AFTER REAL CRIMINALS. Not some idiot who makes jokes. Jesus christ. Especially in the UK where Muslim gangs are raping people left right and center and the police aren't doing anything about it because they're worried about backlash from the community. But no, by all means, I'm a nazi lover because I want them to actually fix problems that aren't a stupid youtube video. To the people who are comparing him to nazis and hitler, you are what's wrong with the world. If you think a joke constitutes Nazism then I don't know how to help you, you are too far gone. If someone is calling on others to do foul things, then CLEARLY that's wrong, but he's VERY OBVIOUSLY NOT DOING THIS. He's talking to a bloody dog and even prefaces the video by calling it a joke that his friends were meant to see, as a practical joke on his girlfriend. This is quite literally thought policing. And also, he's not a white supremacist, you guys just LOVE throwing that term around. "I don't agree with this guy therefore he is racist, a white supremacist and an alt right". Gets real old, real fast. Real Nazism isn't a joke, but I've yet to see an example of him doing it for real.
I think now it's time for me to ask for the receipts for this extremely bold claim. That sounds like something straight out of Farage's mouth.
Unlike everyone else in this thread, I can actually provide evidence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-sanctuary-shelter-muslim-asian-a8225106.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-muslim-men-failed-integrate-british-society/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/communities-not-enough-tackle-asian-grooming-gangs-warns-chief/
People are even calling for them to stop calling them "Asian" groups. It's a huge issue. I'm really worried for the future if people like this aren't caught, there will be more poor victims who don't deserve this.
The secret here, Lord of Ostia, is that nobody in this thread ever said it was okay.
It's not a 'slippery slope' when this law has already been misused against a wide variety of people. Audioboxer has provided multiple examples of people being charged with this offense for making jokes that do not fall under the definition of hate speech. This law isn't even a hate speech law, it's an 'offensive speech' law in which the government gets to decide what is and is not offensive.
My point with that comparison is to show how laws like this are applied unjustly due to their nature. They didn't go after Pewdiepie or The Daily Mail or The Sun despite their offensive speech and wide reach because those individuals and institutions are powerful. But they will go after the white trash dude from Scotland, or the radical leftist woman of color. Letting the government define what is and is not offensive is dangerous for this very reason: these laws get misapplied and abused.
Okay, but "left, right and center" seems heavily exaggerated. And clearly, the police are doing something. Maybe not enough, but something is being done. So your second claim falls through.
I know that the muslim rape gangs are something that right wingers and anti-immigrant/anti-muslim people are trying to spread around a lot, but this seems to be more the exception to the case and, in particular, seems to be more part of one particular national background than across all Muslims, like you were claiming.
20 pages, because if there's anything that'll get people going, it's having the chance to defend a nazi.
That's not an argument for no laws. That's an argument for better laws.
Better laws are exactly what I'm arguing for, giving the government carte blanche to decide what is and is not offensive is a bad law. There are some powers the government shouldn't have, this is one of them
It's absolutely not lazy. What's lazy is ignoring that throughout history there have been, and still are, countries that prosecute speech and ideas to supress their populations. Just because you agree this time doesn't mean you will the next.
History is literally filled with people who have been killed or imprisoned because of things they say. Willingingly giving away that right so you can feel good that some dipshit got punished over a nazi dog video is a sad joke.
There are plenty of things wrong with my country, but at least I don't have to worry about this bullshit ever coming here. As much as the "freeze peach" posters love to mock the fact that some of us care about the first amendment, they're thankfully politically irrelevant when it comes to this issue. I don't need a government to protect me from words, and it's more than a little bit nauseating that so many of you do.
You aren't making an argument for why those two thoughts can't coexist.
Giving the government the ability to determine what is and is not legally punishable, offensive speech is not necessary to combat racism. In fact, most of the empirical applications of this law are not even regarding racist or bigoted speech, but are questions of decency. The UK already has hate speech laws which can be applied to direct hateful speech from one person to another, or incitements to hateful or bigoted action through rhetoric. I don't agree with the implementation of such laws in the UK compared to the US, but they exist and have their purpose.
This law is NOT a hate speech law. It is a law that gives the government the ability to restrict speech based on what it finds offensive. There is a huge difference between the two, and there are dangers present in allowing the government to determine what is and is not offensive, as seen by this application and previous applications of this law.
..............................
UK folks, is this true? Muslim gangs are "raping people left right and center"? and the police just let that happen?
If you were simply arguing for better laws this whole time then we are in nothing but violent agreement. Yet you have been acting as if we are disagreeing over something, so I have treated it as such. And a lot of your langauge seems to be advocating for abolishing the laws rather than making them tighter.
I googled "Muslim Rape UK" and the only thing that perhaps corroborating that "Muslim raping people left right and center" statement came from British National Party's website..............
For added bonus, apparently according to them Asians were clearly involved too......
For added bonus, apparently according to them Asians were clearly involved too......
Why are you ignoring the rest of my post? In regards to this specific law, yes I believe it shouldn't exist, I don't believe the government should have the ability to decide what is or is not offensive.
The sheer rawness of the hate towards Muslims that I sense in that post is so staggering I am actually kind of dumb-founded somewhat when I'm reading it, it's a bit of a shock....
Because the argument is still the same. You haven't added anything new to the discussion. My response is the same too. Make the laws tighter, clearer, better. Apply it universially. Etc etc.
Last edited:
I know nothing about the man, but possible jail time over a joke...? The fuck is wrong with these people?
Well, Pakistan is in Asia, so calling them Asians isn't wrong.
And there have been some horrific cases, the Rotherham one in particular is well known.
But Muslim (not even specifically Pakistani, just Muslim as a blanket term) gangs raping "left, right and center" with the police just twiddling their thumbs in fear of "backlash" is, far as I can tell, nothing but right winger bullshit.
My entire point is that you're expecting a government that is not applying rights fairly and consistently is going to somehow apply exceptions to those rights fairly and consistently. AKA, this law would get used to fuck with minorities and poor people, because Donald Fucking Trump and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions are the people enforcing it.
A) Generally speaking, my understanding is that we don't pull receipts from other threads. I mean, I'm an indian guy who grew up in rural IL and now lives in Seattle, and this is quite easily searchable. In a forum with years of history (both pre Era and now), people are generally open about where they are from? If you want the specifics, the war on drugs was designed to fuck anyone that wasn't white middle or upper class americans. And I feel reasonably safe in saying that many of the progressives on these boards do not fall into that category. (myself included)
But hey, points for calling me racist because I dared point out that oppressed communities (poor, black, latino, refugees, asians, LGBT, etc) that were fucked by the war on drugs (because it was a power play by scared white people against everyone they wanted to try to fuck, thanks Nixon) might think twice about advocating for poorly defined, open ended "my feelings were hurt" laws that might, just might, get abused the same way drug laws were, because the same people and the same system is in charge?
B) HE'S NOT BEING PROSECUTED FOR HATE SPEECH, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THOSE OF US FREAKING OUT.
C) No. Some of us didn't have the privilege of growing up in a city or suburb or state that actually aligned with our political views. So, no, those of us who are "worried" aren't worried because of some theoretical threat. We're worried because everyone here is operating in such a bubble that they find it unfathomable that these laws might get misused in areas that aren't aligned with your political views (or believing you have a right to exist) to oppress people. You don't think Governor Mike Pence isn't going to claim that advocating for gay rights is "offensive"? We're worried because we have grown up getting this shit used against us. People are arguing about "we can't take any chances" when that was the exact justification used to ship brown people to Gitmo, and that was in our recent lifetimes.
EDIT: Honestly, after 900 posts, you can't figure out that he's not being prosecuted for hate speech, I have to believe you are not arguing in good faith. Like, if the dude you said was defending racism happened to be someone with any kind of influence, they could convict you with the same crime. That's why it's friggin terrifying.
I'm done repeating myself over and over. This terrifies me because people are advocating that the government defines what "offensive" is and have the power to completely ruin someone life over it. How many musicians would have been arrested by now for "offensive" content? How many authors? How many video games?
If you want to continue discussing - my inbox is open.
Last edited:
I think youtube maybe removing his video for being offensive and maybe banning him would be appropriate, but actual criminal charges is waaaaay overboard.
It's not an excuse to do nothing, and it's not about slippery slopes, it's just silly to not see how the video was simply, whether in poor taste or not, a video meant to be funny. Whether it's actually funny is obviously something we can all (waste our time) debate about but I do not think being convicted of a crime is justified.
It's not an excuse to do nothing, and it's not about slippery slopes, it's just silly to not see how the video was simply, whether in poor taste or not, a video meant to be funny. Whether it's actually funny is obviously something we can all (waste our time) debate about but I do not think being convicted of a crime is justified.
He survived a couple of tours in Afghanistan and gets a sweet pension every month apparently.
These are literally the worst kind of posts. Can't argue anything so they try act like anyone not in complete agreement is the worst part about whatever is being argued.
Whats annoying about them is how childish and transparent it is. Not unlike the shitposting Nazi being discussed. Trying to stir shit.
Difference is one of these shit posters got arrested, tried, and convicted for being an asshat trying stir shit, and the other didn't.
This was clearly a joke, regardless whether or not people laughed. Want to ban Nazi rallies? I'm okay with that so long as it extremely clear that advocating hate is the target. Jokes simply don't have that level of clarity.
Our orange bag of shit president tried to sue someone for a joke. He's said repeatedly that he want the ability to sue anyone saying anything bad about him because he's a whiny little bitch who can't handle people who don't share his views.
So when some shitposter that makes a bad joke gets convicted of a crime, it concerns me. The way this went down should concern everyone. After all, what would Fox News and the orange bag of shit consider a hate group? Pretty sure it isn't Nazis.