ED209 wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:I'd rather just ignore her. I don't have this relentless need to seek out things to be offended by that some people seem to have.

Bollocks. How many posts have you reported in the last week (not including this one)?

It is possibly one of the most hilariously ironic posts I've ever seen on this forum

Must keep the mods busy.







I doubt it

SafeAsMilk wrote:It's a clear-cut example of using free speech to do harm

No its not. You are being ridiculous.

Just as freedom of movement is a right, not having the right to drive over someone standing in front of your car is not a restriction on the right to free movement.

The movement is not criminal, the results of the movement are criminal. The speech is not criminal, the results of the speech are criminal.

Speech as part of a criminal act has nothing to do with the right to free speech, just like the right to own a baseball bat has nothing to do with beating someone in the head with the bat.

Like most of the gibbering that issues from the woman's lips and hand, it's vile, but as she's expressing an opinion, not inciting a crime, I reluctantly accept that it should count as protected speech. The bigger issue is why media feel justified in hiring the malignant ranter.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Speech as part of a criminal act has nothing to do with the right to free speech, just like the right to own a baseball bat has nothing to do with beating someone in the head with the bat.

Yeah, like with the bat, it depends how you use it.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:I'd rather just ignore her. I don't have this relentless need to seek out things to be offended by that some people seem to have.

It is possibly one of the most hilariously ironic posts I've ever seen on this forum

Only if you don't understand what irony is and/or pay no attention to reality.

There is a world of difference between a person seeking out things to be offended by, and offenders seeking to offend a person by directing offence squarely at them.

Katie Hopkins writing comments in a newspaper I don't read and never will falls into the first category. On the other hand, if Katie Hopkins were to expressly call me a cockroach, or stupid, or express a desire to see me burn to death, then that falls squarely into the latter category. Capisce? Or do I need to use words of one syllable?

Stop lying. You've been warned for that before.

tuco wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:That is why it was ignored, its nonsense backwards thinking, in fact, the censoring of speech will lead to a fascist state.

That's a nice theory. Where's the evidence? When has that happened?

Evidence, for relation between freedoms - free speech included - and totalitarian regimes, is in history.

I know of no example where curbing free speech contributed to a shift toward totalitarianism.

We do not have much to go by but sometimes around WW2 and after there are examples of dictatorships which restricted speech as one of the first measures to secure power. Other measures included state sponsored propaganda, changes in constitutions or election mechanism which could not be opposed nor challenged also because of censorship.

I think it's time to say who this Julius Streicher guy was.
Beginning in 1923 he published a tabloid newspaper dedicated in large parts to inciting hatred against Jews. He became quite rich doing so. His hate speech is considered instrumental in spreading antisemitism and preparing the way for the Nazi tyranny and the holocaust. For this he was found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed in 1946. Any defender of Ms Hopkins should be prepared to argue that this was unjust.

The point here is that we have recent historical examples of propaganda contributing to the rise of totalitarianism and mass murder.

Well, that is how I understand the US interpretation and it seems to work for them. Its a safe guard and I believe there are reasons to be cautious when restricting free speech or punishing it.

The US constitution protects free speech but does not know the right to live. I disagree with these priorities.

The point here is that we have recent historical examples of propaganda contributing to the rise of totalitarianism and mass murder.

That's a nice theory. Where's the evidence? When has that happened?

;)

I am pretty sure you will not try to claim that was it not for the paper holocaust would not happen. At the same time I am quite confident to claim that every totalitarian regime curbed freedom of speech.

Just/unjust .. I dunno I have not studied his case. How it compares to Katie is beyond me though. What she said anyway?

tuco wrote:

The point here is that we have recent historical examples of propaganda contributing to the rise of totalitarianism and mass murder.

That's a nice theory. Where's the evidence? When has that happened?

I gave an example in the post you quoted. I do not see where your problem is understanding it.

Another famous example, as mentioned up-thread, is the infamous Rwandan radio station that indeed referred to Tutsi as "cockroaches". There are further examples (or at least one regarding Serbia) but I am not too familiar with those.

Just/unjust .. I dunno I have not studied his case. How it compares to Katie is beyond me though. What she said anyway?

I understand that a day has only 24 hours and you can't read up about everything. But why not save some more time by not BSing about things on which you are ignorant? All that you achieve is make a fool of yourself in public.

Strontium Dog wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:I'd rather just ignore her. I don't have this relentless need to seek out things to be offended by that some people seem to have.

It is possibly one of the most hilariously ironic posts I've ever seen on this forum

Only if you don't understand what irony is and/or pay no attention to reality.

As reality indicates you have a long and celebrated history of complaining in the most absurdly exaggerated way about being offended at things people say on this forum, which you could easily just ignore, I think I understand the irony quite well.

There is a world of difference between a person seeking out things to be offended by, and offenders seeking to offend a person by directing offence squarely at them.

Trivially, perhaps. But the offense one experiences on a forum that other people aim at them is just as avoidable, if the goal is avoiding offense. Don't fret, I'm sure someone somewhere on this forum really appreciates being told by you, of all people, what should or shouldn't offend them

Katie Hopkins writing comments in a newspaper I don't read and never will falls into the first category. On the other hand, if Katie Hopkins were to expressly call me a cockroach, or stupid, or express a desire to see me burn to death, then that falls squarely into the latter category.

Yes, we know, whenever you perceive anyone as aiming so much as a sniff your way it's a horrible crime against humanity that demands justice for your besmirched good name. Getting advice about ignoring offensive comments from someone who sees what other people say in such a way can never be anything other than side-splittingly funny. But, I suspect you already know this.

Capisce? Or do I need to use words of one syllable?

You could try appraising reality before responding next time, or perhaps not writing such a snotty, twattish post while being so completely wrong

SafeAsMilk wrote:As reality indicates you have a long and celebrated history of complaining in the most absurdly exaggerated way about being offended at things people say on this forum, which you could easily just ignore, I think I understand the irony quite well.

Why should anyone ignore attacks aimed at them?

It's up there with "rape victims should just quit their whining" as good advice.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Trivially, perhaps. But the offense one experiences on a forum that other people aim at them is just as avoidable, if the goal is avoiding offense. Don't fret, I'm sure someone somewhere on this forum really appreciates being told by you, of all people, what should or shouldn't offend them

I'm not telling people what should or shouldn't offend them. Stop lying, thanks.

What I'm telling people is how to avoid things that might offend them.

Obviously when someone DELIBERATELY SEEKS YOU OUT TO ATTACK YOU, as happens routinely on this forum, then avoiding those things that offend you is impossible.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes, we know, whenever you perceive anyone as aiming so much as a sniff your way it's a horrible crime against humanity that demands justice for your besmirched good name. Getting advice about ignoring offensive comments from someone who sees what other people say in such a way can never be anything other than side-splittingly funny. But, I suspect you already know this.

What I know is that the only way to deal with bullies who seek you out to attack you is to ram their words and/or their teeth back down their throat.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You could try appraising reality before responding next time, or perhaps not writing such a snotty, twattish post while being so completely wrong

As the evidence shows, I'm totally right. Somebody deliberately trying to run you down in a car is not the same as you deliberately jumping in front of a moving vehicle, however much you might try to argue otherwise. And you've just written the most twattish post of the year, so kudos there.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:It's a clear-cut example of using free speech to do harm

No its not. You are being ridiculous.

Yes it is, clear as day. Let's see what sort of semantic games you're going to play to try and weasel out of this one.

Just as freedom of movement is a right, not having the right to drive over someone standing in front of your car is not a restriction on the right to free movement.

Yes it is, clear as day. See, in the English language, restricted and free are opposites. If you are restricted from movement, then you do not have freedom of movement. Most people are okay with degrees of restrictions to their freedom of movement, and don't start frantically waving around flags and crying "Without freedom we have nothing!!" or some other meaningless nonsense when anyone suggests that allowing people to do something isn't a good idea, or invent disingenuous semantic games so one can say freedom is not being restricted when it is, in fact, being restricted.

The movement is not criminal, the results of the movement are criminal. The speech is not criminal, the results of the speech are criminal.

This is about as meaningless a semantic game as you could muster. That would mean if I tried to kill someone and failed spectacularly, my actions wouldn't be criminal because the results of it weren't criminal.

Speech as part of a criminal act has nothing to do with the right to free speech, just like the right to own a baseball bat has nothing to do with beating someone in the head with the bat.

Analogy fail, freedom to own the bat and freedom to do things with the bat are two completely different categories. Freedom to say what I want and freedom to yell what I want in a crowded theater are not two completely different categories. Try harder.

Hopkins is nothing but a troll used to wind people up so it makes things interesting. If she didn't say the things she did, she wouldn't be on TV because without her trolling, she's a nobody.

Strontium Dog wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:As reality indicates you have a long and celebrated history of complaining in the most absurdly exaggerated way about being offended at things people say on this forum, which you could easily just ignore, I think I understand the irony quite well.

Why should anyone ignore attacks aimed at them?

For the same reason they should ignore attacks aimed at other people, if avoiding offense is the goal. If it isn't, then why should anyone ignore attacks aimed at other people? Do other people just not matter to you at all, SD? Is it only worth going into a tizzy if it's about you you you?

It's up there with "rape victims should just quit their whining" as good advice.

So people voluntarily reading words is comparable to being a rape victim now, I love it SD, keep the hyperbole coming

SafeAsMilk wrote:Trivially, perhaps. But the offense one experiences on a forum that other people aim at them is just as avoidable, if the goal is avoiding offense. Don't fret, I'm sure someone somewhere on this forum really appreciates being told by you, of all people, what should or shouldn't offend them

I'm not telling people what should or shouldn't offend them. Stop lying, thanks.

Sure you are. You're telling them that they shouldn't be offended by the OP article.

What I'm telling people is how to avoid things that might offend them.

Obviously when someone DELIBERATELY SEEKS YOU OUT TO ATTACK YOU, as happens routinely on this forum, then avoiding those things that offend you is impossible.

Not reading posts is impossible now? What ever next?

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes, we know, whenever you perceive anyone as aiming so much as a sniff your way it's a horrible crime against humanity that demands justice for your besmirched good name. Getting advice about ignoring offensive comments from someone who sees what other people say in such a way can never be anything other than side-splittingly funny. But, I suspect you already know this.

What I know is that the only way to deal with bullies who seek you out to attack you is to ram their words and/or their teeth back down their throat.

Then I guess you'd agree that people apply such a philosophy to the bullying they perceive in the OP article is a good thing then, right? No? Ah well, that's hypocrisy for you.

SafeAsMilk wrote:You could try appraising reality before responding next time, or perhaps not writing such a snotty, twattish post while being so completely wrong

As the evidence shows, I'm totally right.

As the evidence always shows, you think you're right even when you're clearly not

Somebody deliberately trying to run you down in a car is not the same as you deliberately jumping in front of a moving vehicle, however much you might try to argue otherwise.

That's nice. Next time I need another inept, completely irrelevant analogy I'll be sure to come to you.

And you've just written the most twattish post of the year, so kudos there.

Fairly mediocre one-upmanship, sub-standard uncreative hyperbole. Started strong, but not your best. 3/10

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Analogy fail, freedom to own the bat and freedom to do things with the bat are two completely different categories. Freedom to say what I want and freedom to yell what I want in a crowded theater are not two completely different categories. Try harder.

You are free the scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are free to own and swing a bat.

Those freedoms are not restricted, the results of those actions can be criminal.

Its pretty simple once you put your thinking cap on.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Analogy fail, freedom to own the bat and freedom to do things with the bat are two completely different categories. Freedom to say what I want and freedom to yell what I want in a crowded theater are not two completely different categories. Try harder.

You are free the scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are free to own and swing a bat.

Those freedoms are not restricted, the results of those actions can be criminal.

Its pretty simple once you put your thinking cap on.

And you are free, as a citizen of North Korea, to criticize the government of North Korea. It is, of course, your fault if you get thrown in jail for the criminal results of that criticism, and those results are of course in no way a restriction on your freedom of speech. Really, NK has just as much freedom of speech as we do. It's just that, gosh darn it, pretty much all their speech has criminal results! I'm sure they'll be happy to know that you think they're free, though.

VK-machine wrote:

tuco wrote:

The point here is that we have recent historical examples of propaganda contributing to the rise of totalitarianism and mass murder.

That's a nice theory. Where's the evidence? When has that happened?

I gave an example in the post you quoted. I do not see where your problem is understanding it.

Another famous example, as mentioned up-thread, is the infamous Rwandan radio station that indeed referred to Tutsi as "cockroaches". There are further examples (or at least one regarding Serbia) but I am not too familiar with those.

Just/unjust .. I dunno I have not studied his case. How it compares to Katie is beyond me though. What she said anyway?

I understand that a day has only 24 hours and you can't read up about everything. But why not save some more time by not BSing about things on which you are ignorant? All that you achieve is make a fool of yourself in public.

I make fool of myself by dismissing Katie and you make what of yourself by comparing it to Nazis and Rwanda? I do not doubt its close to reality, the impression or image we make here, and that is why I do not think most people think clearly.

I tell you what you cant see but only this time and only because I am nice.

Lets go with OP and .. Huff

Headline: Katie Hopkins Wrote This In The Sun About Migrants And Now Everyone Is Really Angry

There is nothing to debate because EVERYONE is REALLY ANGRY. That is given. You cannot be not angry.

Then vid I am not going to watch and following:

A blistering row over a controversial Katie Hopkins article about migrants inThe Sun shows no sign of dying down more than a day after the piece was published.

So while everyone is really angry the article is controversial? How is that scratching smiley? Never mind the babble .. its blistering row. Blistering. Shows no sign of dying. No kidding since you take part in it by writing about it. Who are you? Not a fool that is for sure.

They don't even have full text, just photo lol and they quote out of context, necessarily:

NO, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad.

I still don’t care.

Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a bit “Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984”, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors.

It’s time to get Australian. Bring on the gunships, force migrants back to their shores and burn the boats.

Alright.

And next we know:

Jordanian Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said the reality television star had used language in her Sun column similar to that used by newspapers and radio stations in Rwanda before the 1994 genocide that led to hundreds of thousands of people being slaughtered.

Apparently she used cockroaches. So now I am to think that there is gonna be genocide because she said cockroaches .. lol?

Now you are on alert. Rwanda was tough shit. What did you do when it was happening? Its not like if you hear Tahiti .. la la la. What is left? Well, now when you are ready to escalate it a little more:

Al Hussein urged authorities in the UK to use the law to clamp down on "vicious verbal assault on migrants and asylum seekers in the UK tabloid press", adding: "The Nazi media described people their masters wanted to eliminate as rats and cockroaches. This type of language is clearly inflammatory and unacceptable, especially in a national newspaper.

So this fucking nobody Al Hussein read a book and now he thinks he is clever or something. Nazis used it so do not use cockroaches. Speaking of which maybe then, if it so big deal, it should be part of formal education. Don't say cockroaches Jonny, gonna be Nazi genocide. wtf?

At the end you get to know:

"The Sun's editors took an editorial decision to publish this article, and - if it is found in breach of the law - should be held responsible along with the author."

IF .. but by that time you cant think clearly no more.

The level of journalism by Huff is abyssal, just fire that person who wrote it, situation in UK is nowhere magnitude of mentioned events, but we should censor and punish Katie because she said cockroaches instead of just ignoring her because she either does not think clearly or she is indeed trolling and you are indeed biting.

A quick Bing search for this talentless prick brings back a slimming Ad. I see no Daily Mail articles here. Remember the articles they had to that ESPN reporter? Where are the petitions to get katie hopkins sacked? Where is the demonisation? Presumably advocating genocide is fine to these people.