Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I'm not sure why people are so confidant he's a good guy with a distasteful sense of humour. I don't know enough about him to say whether he is or isn't a Nazi. I just know he's unfunny.

Has anybody suggested he's a good guy? About the best anybody has said is that he doesn't appear to be trying to incite violence or hatred - or at least if he was then he's really bad at it.

I would however agree that prosecuting him has made him a much more sympathetic figure than if he'd just been an asshole who made a shitty YouTube video.

Still just looks like an unfunny asshole to me.

purplerat wrote:I guess I made the mistake of assuming that most people aren't neutral on Nazis.

Are you suggesting that people's negative disposition towards Nazis means that a video that doesn't criticise Nazis in any meaningful way becomes anti-Nazi?

If not, I don't think I get what you're saying here.

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I guess I made the mistake of assuming that most people aren't neutral on Nazis.

Are you suggesting that people's negative disposition towards Nazis means that a video that doesn't criticise Nazis in any meaningful way becomes anti-Nazi?

If not, I don't think I get what you're saying here.

My assumption was that most people understand that being labeled a Nazi is a bad thing. It's pejorative and thus anti-Nazi, even if only mildly so. The comparison I would make is to somebody using the term "gay" as a pejorative. When somebody refers to something they don't like or are putting down as being "gay" even when it has nothing to do with homosexuality I think most of us recognize that as being offensive towards gay people. The primary difference here being that nobody gives a shit if Nazis are offended, but that doesn't change the underlying logic.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Still just looks like an unfunny asshole to me.

The thing about unfunny assholes is that they still have rights too.

Tolerating this kind of shit contributes to a climate in society wherein a shop assistant feels its OK to step up to my wife after she had been browsing the clothes for a few minutes with the words "I don't think we have anything in this shop for you".

Corneel wrote:Tolerating this kind of shit contributes to a climate in society wherein a shop assistant feels its OK to step up to my wife after she had been browsing the clothes for a few minutes with the words "I don't think we have anything in this shop for you".

It seems like that type of behavior has been rising right alongside the application of these types of laws. It's almost like giving these types of asshats a valid cause to rally around (free speech) contributes even more to embolden them.

That seems like a spurious correlation, the way people communicate has altered dramatically with the rise of instant messaging, social networking, mobile phones and faster and faster internet speeds.

The new laws are responses (and they might well be ineffective, at least in some people's opinion) to changes in society, not the other way around.

Thommo wrote:That seems like a spurious correlation, the way people communicate has altered dramatically with the rise of instant messaging, social networking, mobile phones and faster and faster internet speeds.

The new laws are responses (and they might well be ineffective, at least in some people's opinion) to changes in society, not the other way around.

Wouldn't it be a spurious correlation either way though? i.e. saying a shop owner being a jerk is related to some guy on the internet making a shitty video.

purplerat wrote:Wouldn't it be a spurious correlation either way though? i.e. saying a shop owner being a jerk is related to some guy on the internet making a shitty video.

It might well be, yes.

A protest march outside the Houses of Parliament is planned for the 23rd of April, the day of the sentencing. Apparently Stephen Knight, host of the Godless Spellchecker Podcast (anyone else familiar?), might be heading over there with his camera to document it.

Meanwhile, Index on Censorship has released a statement, condemning the conviction.

purplerat wrote:The comparison I would make is to somebody using the term "gay" as a pejorative.

Just as a tangent from this, Meechan has discussed that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBEK9NcIXIo
(I found this video entitled "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" from this article https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/20 ... ree-speech which takes a rather different view than most we've see so far)

I wonder whether his tone is equally critical in both?

Eating ice cream is only gay if you put Rainbow Sprinkles on it. Would that be Rainbow Hundreds and Thousands across the pond?

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The comparison I would make is to somebody using the term "gay" as a pejorative.

Just as a tangent from this, Meechan has discussed that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBEK9NcIXIo
(I found this video entitled "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" from this article https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/20 ... ree-speech which takes a rather different view than most we've see so far)

I wonder whether his tone is equally critical in both?

You misunderstood the context of what was meant by "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" there. It's not a pejorative use of gay the way I was discussing it. Rather it was literally meant that eating ice cream is associated with being homosexual. As in "a man who has sex with other men is gay" not "I don't like ice cream, therefore it's gay".

Additionally, Meechan goes on to say that if the behavior associated with "being gay" was negative (i.e. having AIDS) then he'd see a problem with it. I think a fairer comparison in what he is saying is between Nazis and AIDS.

This prosecution is a very bad day for justice. I don't want to live in a society that makes jokes illegal. Next step is banning any disrespect towards the royals or the government.

purplerat wrote:

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The comparison I would make is to somebody using the term "gay" as a pejorative.

Just as a tangent from this, Meechan has discussed that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBEK9NcIXIo
(I found this video entitled "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" from this article https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/20 ... ree-speech which takes a rather different view than most we've see so far)

I wonder whether his tone is equally critical in both?

You misunderstood the context of what was meant be "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" there.

No I didn't.

I said that he'd discussed the phrase that you'd mentioned. In fact he was saying that just using a phrase like "eating ice cream is gay" does not mean it's perjorative.

You may think therefore that this particular use of "X is gay" is not pejorative and therefore unlike his use of "m8 yer dugs a Nazi", "Who's a good wee Nazi?" and "So I thought I'd turn him into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Nazi", but that doesn't mean I do, or people generally do.

One possibility is that he doesn't think any of those things can be assumed to be pejorative.

purplerat wrote:It's not a pejorative use of gay the way I was discussing it. Rather it was literally meant that eating ice cream is associated with being homosexual. As in "a man who has sex with other men is gay" not "I don't like ice cream, therefore it's gay".

But associating a cute dog that he plays with on a daily basis with Nazis, is clearly pejorative in a way this isn't?

I don't think so.

purplerat wrote:Additionally, Meechan goes on to say that if the behavior associated with "being gay" was negative (i.e. having AIDS) then he'd see a problem with it. I think a fairer comparison in what he is saying is between Nazis and AIDS.

Right, and if he was associating Nazis with a cute dog is that more like an obvious negative like having aids, or like a not so obvious negative like eating ice cream?

While I posted it because I thought it was a tangent and not a continuation of our previous discussion, since you've made this point, I'll again reiterate that I think it's very clearly like the latter, and it's in this that the attribution you've made to me errs.

CarlPierce wrote:This prosecution is a very bad day for justice. I don't want to live in a society that makes jokes illegal. Next step is banning any disrespect towards the royals or the government.

It's a terrible slippery slope. I'm sure this will happen any day now. It's absolutely entailed by this prosecution.

More background info here: Meechan's "apology" (inverted commas because this is how I've seen people refer to it, but he doesn't actually apologise, he explains his version of why he did it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgdWoIDoPU

I did also read (although can't find the argument directly right now) that although he says he expected the video to just be seen by a few friends he left the video up after being asked to take it down, due to it being offensive and being made aware of the antisemitic comments that were piling up under it. It racked up more than two million additional views after he was made aware. I can't provide any link to confirm that at the moment though.

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The comparison I would make is to somebody using the term "gay" as a pejorative.

Just as a tangent from this, Meechan has discussed that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBEK9NcIXIo
(I found this video entitled "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" from this article https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/20 ... ree-speech which takes a rather different view than most we've see so far)

I wonder whether his tone is equally critical in both?

You misunderstood the context of what was meant be "Eating Ice Cream Is Gay" there.

No I didn't.

I said that he'd discussed the phrase that you'd mentioned. In fact he was saying that just using a phrase like "eating ice cream is gay" does not mean it's perjorative.

You may think therefore that this particular use of "X is gay" is not pejorative and therefore unlike his use of "m8 yer dugs a Nazi", "Who's a good wee Nazi?" and "So I thought I'd turn him into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Nazi", but that doesn't mean I do, or people generally do.

One possibility is that he doesn't think any of those things can be assumed to be pejorative.

You're right. I'd only watched the part about "eating ice cream is gay" initially but then rewatched the whole thing. So he thinks calling things "gay" as a pejorative even when it's not really about homosexuality is not offensive to gay people. I certainly disagree with him.

purplerat wrote:

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:It's not a pejorative use of gay the way I was discussing it. Rather it was literally meant that eating ice cream is associated with being homosexual. As in "a man who has sex with other men is gay" not "I don't like ice cream, therefore it's gay".

But associating a cute dog that he plays with on a daily basis with Nazis, is clearly pejorative in a way this isn't?

I don't think so.

I suppose if he just dressed the dog as a Nazi or called it Hitler then maybe. But he is using the phrase "Gas the Jews". So unless you believe that he thinks gassing Jews is neutral (like eating ice cream) and not something terrible (like AIDS) then it's clear he's using the Nazi portrayal pejoratively. Just like when he acknowledges that associating AIDS with gay people is offensive towards gay people.

To simplify:
AIDS = gay people = Offensive to gay people
Gas Jews = Nazis = Offensive to Nazis

The only difference is that nobody really gives a shit about being offensive to Nazis.

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:This prosecution is a very bad day for justice. I don't want to live in a society that makes jokes illegal. Next step is banning any disrespect towards the royals or the government.

It's a terrible slippery slope. I'm sure this will happen any day now. It's absolutely entailed by this prosecution.

I'm sure you mean this in jest but here in the US we have a president who thinks not clapping for him is treasonous.

Of course, he says all kinds of shitty things that other people would like to see criminalized and that's the problem with criminalizing speech, you never know who's going to be the one deciding what is or isn't allowed.