Discussion in 'EtcetEra' started by EightBitNate, Mar 20, 2018.
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.
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?
"call fire in theater"
Hate crime isn't free speech.
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 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.
But it's irrelevant because this case isn't being prosecuted under either.
Comments; et al.
The slippery slope argument it's just a lazy way to dismiss stuff and preserve the shitty status quo.
Seems harsh. Think a fine of some sort or community service would be more appropriate, if you must absolutely penalize a dickhead with shitty jokes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Man is a giant wasteman but he shouldn't go to prison for this, seriously?
UK folks, is this true? Muslim gangs are "raping people left right and center"? and the police just let that happen?
There was this dude in my class who used to always tell this lame ass joke. "What do jews and pizza have in common?" I think you can figure out the punchline. If he made a youtube video telling it to the world, should he go to jail for it?
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......
Prisma, ya dun goofed
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.
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.
Hopefully I'll live a good life and be six feet under before 1984 becomes a reality.
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.
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.