Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 132 of 132

Thread: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

  1. #121
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Crap.

  2. #122

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Skahn View Post
    I must say, I am absolutely shocked by mongrel's totalitarian ideas and perceived, at least to my eyes, absolute hatred of freedom of expression.
    A smack of firm government is much kinder than a smack in the face.



    I have seen people in this forum defend the 'right' to publish terrorist materials. This 'how can we define extremism' is nonsense. If a site calls for a race war or a jihad and offers manuals to make bombs and details of targets, what definition would do you possibly require, beyond those set out in anti terror laws?

    There is also this nonsense that we have to let extremists use your manor as their playgound, otherwise there will be more. Bollocks. The EDL was smashed in the UK and the more extreme splinter groups proscribed. Result, not a peep from the Nazis, although we have to round up a few now and again because they insist on planning terrorist attacks. A similar story for Islam4 UK. We left it way too late to proscribe them and lock up their leader, always proclaimed 'free speech' whilst recruiting terrorists. The result, mopping up the blood as people brainwashed by that outfit emerge from the rocks they crawled under and commit murder. Free speech? My arse, there is always a price to pay.

    Probably not a bright idea to be an apologist for sexist thought. It's taken a while, but seems to me that, at last, abuse on grounds of gender is now seen as the social cancer it is.

    Finally, there's a difference between expressing dissent according to one's own conscience and being a mere conduit for an extremist group, no doubt manipulated with Russian money, as we are now learning. I think Americans should stand up against what is clearly the contamination of their political scene . They certainly should not indulge it.
    Last edited by mongrel; November 05, 2017 at 04:13 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  3. #123
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Finally, there's a difference between expressing dissent according to one's own conscience and being a mere conduit for an extremist group
    Excellent. This is the point I thunk we're all most concerned with no matter how one feels about Freedom of Speech and Western Values.

    No doubt there is a serious and important difference: but who gets to decide where that line is, and how can they choose that line in any other way than in a self serving manner to the necessary detriment of all other citizens.

    A smack of firm government is much kinder than a smack in the face.
    Now there I'd quite seriously disagree.
    A smack in the face will heal. But the Orwellian governmental "Boot on the face forever" never heals and can only ever increase in pressure, no matter how often one chants the refrain "it's for the greater good".
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  4. #124

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    I have seen people in this forum defend the 'right' to publish terrorist materials. This 'how can we define extremism' is nonsense. If a site calls for a race war or a jihad and offers manuals to make bombs and details of targets, what definition would do you possibly require, beyond those set out in anti terror laws?
    Freedom of speech doesn't really cover the peddling of bomb manuals and premeditated murder AFAIK, just by the way, and I'm not sure anyone in this thread is arguing otherwise. I even noted that I was theoretically fine with outlawing incitements to violence and genocidal speech(which I think are theoretically illegal in my country--despite certain Imams not being charged for hate crimes after calling for the eradication of the Jews). Regardless, that doesn't mean that extremism is well defined, even if I agree with most of the anti-terror laws(for example, I don't agree with the mass surveillance which was brought on by the US's Patriot Act, and am staunchly opposed to the UK's online mass surveillance program--I am for targeted surveillance of dangerous individuals, though).

    There is also this nonsense that we have to let extremists use your manor as their playgound, otherwise there will be more. Bollocks. The EDL was smashed in the UK and the more extreme splinter groups proscribed. Result, not a peep from the Nazis, although we have to round up a few now and again because they insist on planning terrorist attacks. A similar story for Islam4 UK. We left it way too late to proscribe them and lock up their leader, always proclaimed 'free speech' whilst recruiting terrorists. The result, mopping up the blood as people brainwashed by that outfit emerge from the rocks they crawled under and commit murder. Free speech? My arse, there is always a price to pay.
    There is a price to pay with everything. Without free speech(which is almost solely designed to protect unpopular speech btw) the price will be much higher than anything you could imagine, and the fact that you're arguing this way just shows how much you take your freedom of expression for granted. Try telling dissidents in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China that freedom of speech isn't worth it, or that it doesn't matter--the most authoritarian and oppressive governments on earth ALWAYS lack freedom of expression(or have severely restricted it, or taken steps to restrict it, at the least)... Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Raif Badawi would not have been imprisoned and sentenced to 1000 lashes if his country allowed free expression. Of course, he's considered an enemy to Islam and the State, so who cares right? Who defines hate? If it's the Imams and the State of Saudi Arabia, then he's technically a hateful, treasonous and Islamophobic bigot.

    You also seem to be unaware of the recent downturn of people who believe free speech to be a core right of a free society--a surefire path to authoritarianism and oppression, just by the way. Recently in Canada an event called “The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses.” was cancelled by Ryerson U after protests by literal marxists(pictures of them depict them holding signs with the hammer and sickle). Isn't that odd? An event talking about the stifling of free speech gets...Stifled. The protestors claimed that the speakers were fascists/nazis, as the group called itself “No Fascists in Our City!”. Interesting thing to say, since two of the speakers were Dr. Oren Amitay and Dr. Gad Saad, both Jews, and both with relatives who have suffered under antisemitism(Amitay's grandparents were holocaust victims; Gad Saad's family had to flee Lebanon in light of growing antisemitism). Sorry, but if you call liberal Jews who have a legacy of surviving/suffering under antisemitism Nazis, or call Jews Nazis in general for that matter, then there's seriously something wrong with your thought process. Calling Jordan B. Peterson, another speaker at the event, a Nazi is totally bogus too--when James Damore released the Google Memo and was fired, one of the first people he chose to speak with was Jordan B. Peterson. A news site wrote that James Damore met with "far-right youtuber Jordan B. Peterson", a statement that had to be corrected and retracted after JBP threatened the news site with libel, since he's a Classic British Liberal(and has repeatedly condemned both Nazism and Marxism, having studied totalitarianism for a very long time). So again, when you call someone who's studied Nazism and Marxism, and cautions his students against these ideologies, a Nazi, something's not right here. This is all the product of the "Nazimania" narrative pushed by the far left, and to quote Dr. Oren Amitay: "Anyone they disagree with they call a Nazi".

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/35637/

    Who decides if you're a Nazi? Well it's easy to call these "WLM" guys Nazis, because some of them are, but what about speakers who clearly aren't Nazis, but who espouse ideas that the far-left, or the liberal media in general, disagrees with? Are they Nazis? Is a liberal Jew a Nazi because he's slightly opposed to mass immigration? You see the issue here, and it's because of problems like these that we need freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not just a value of a free society, it is THE value of a free society. The stabilizing effect it has on a populace and a nation cannot be minimized: it is the foundation for all criticism of government, criticism of controversial issues, criticism of institutions, criticism of our neighbors and etc. To reduce it, even very slightly, poses a huge potential risk to the liberty of a people. Which is fine, if you're a Nazi, Marxist, Islamist or other type of authoritarian, because you don't care about what others who disagree with you think, and you definitely don't care about freedom. But for the rest of us, freedom of speech is a fundamental right which moreso serves to protect controversial/unpopular speakers and opinions than the dangerous radicals, racists and what have you which you seem obsessed with.

    Probably not a bright idea to be an apologist for sexist thought. It's taken a while, but seems to me that, at last, abuse on grounds of gender is now seen as the social cancer it is.
    Who said that I was? And who said I was against gender abuse being viewed as unacceptable(I find it intolerable)? And who defines sexism? Is James Damore a sexist? If you believe that, you must either be an ideologue or totally uneducated about biology and psychology, and you probably didn't read the full Google Memo. Some of his central claims were: 1. Women are higher on average in the Big 5 personality traits of Agreeableness and Neuroticism(totally backed up by scientific literature; also they're traits which are important for motherhood), and 2. That women, on average, are more interested in people vs. things, whilst men, on average, are more interested in things vs. people(also supported by scientific literature). Thus, extrapolating from these two fairly solid points(assuming you're an empiricist), that at least some of the gender disparity in tech was caused by biological/psychological differences, and not necessarily discrimination via "toxic male/patriarchal" culture. Worth noting that the Scandinavian countries are some of the most gender equal countries in the world, but despite this what has been observed in the general population is that biological differences between men and women have maximized in light of their highly egalitarian culture(repeatedly stated by Jordan B. Peterson in many of his talks). Despite their best efforts to get more female engineers into engineering via quota, the quotas have utterly failed to even out the roughly 20:1 male to female ratio of engineers in Scandinavia. Likewise, there is a roughly 20:1 ratio of female nurses to male nurses in those countries(all of this can be conveniently confirmed by viewing Swabian's signature link to the the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary). Are these differences in employment choice due to sexism and culture? Or are they due to biological differences between men and women? You tell me. And what about dangerous jobs? We know that men account for 93% of all workplace related deaths, and dominate the market for the most dangerous jobs in the world--are women being excluded from dangerous jobs via sexism? Or are they not as prone to risk-taking as men are(supported by scientific literature)? And so what if they avoid dangerous jobs? Aren't they much smarter for putting a high priority on their own personal safety in a way that men generally do not? Is acknowledging biological differences between men and women sexist? Or is it the path to a freer and even more egalitarian society? According to the feminist narrative, acknowledging such biological differences is sexist, despite there being much data to support this idea. To quote a satirical remark on twitter by Jordan B. Peterson: "Data? How patriarchal can you get.".

    I've also read enough academic abstracts on Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory and Post-Modernism in general to know that my claim regarding the state of feminist scholarship is far from unreasonable. The twitter account Real Peer Review(now called New Real Peer Review because the old account was taken down after radicals called for it to be removed) was created solely because the academics who created this account(who have had to remain anonymous given the enormous pressure they would face by going public) found the peer review process in much of the Humanities totally lacking(baseless theories, small sample sizes, total lack of empirical method--you name it, they're lacking in it). The real question again is, am I sexist for holding those views? According to most radical feminists, yes I am. But according to more reasonable speakers such as Christina Hoff Summers and Camille Paglia, I'm right on the money--they have been speaking out against this poor scholarship and hysteria for decades now. Oh but wait! They have internalized misogyny(aka a made up term to denounce the opponents of fainting arm-chair feminism, and other types of radical feminism IMO). Well, better disregard any sapient points they made...So again, who decides what is sexist? Is legitimate criticism of Feminist Theory sexist? Is believing that there are natural biological and psychological differences between genders sexist?

    Excellent. This is the point I thunk we're all most concerned with no matter how one feels about Freedom of Speech and Western Values.

    No doubt there is a serious and important difference: but who gets to decide where that line is, and how can they choose that line in any other way than in a self serving manner to the necessary detriment of all other citizens
    Agreed, and that's exactly been my point: who the hell decides where freedom of speech ends and begins? It is NOT an easy thing to determine in the slightest, and if we are to go with the method of majority rules(ie. we all collectively agree that speech X is intolerable) then there is also the risk of invalidating the very concept of freedom of speech, which involves protecting unpopular speech(as noted above, popular speech doesn't need the protection of the law; the public protects it) and dissidents in general.

    Finally, there's a difference between expressing dissent according to one's own conscience and being a mere conduit for an extremist group, no doubt manipulated with Russian money, as we are now learning. I think Americans should stand up against what is clearly the contamination of their political scene . They certainly should not indulge it.
    The political scene in America was already contaminated by radicalization as a general rule(both left wing and right wing; if we're to look at University campuses, it's the far left who has done much worse in terms of contamination--I would even go so far as to say that they have "woken up" the beast that is the far right) and it's not getting better anytime soon:

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...on-in-america/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/u...-politics.html

    One of the ways we can decrease said political radicalization is communication between opposing groups(in points 2 and 3 of the Pew Research link, it describes increased partisan antipathy and increased numbers of "ideological silos" at the partisan level respectively; how is that a good thing again?). Something which has declined over time, in favor of "punch a Nazi" and "commies get helicopter rides" narratives of today. Not to mention that the Center has grown smaller, as evinced in point 5 of the Pew Research link. A smaller political Center is NOT good if you want a free society; it is very good for the authoritarian left and right, though.

    Regarding said communication between opposing groups, we run into a fundamental problem regarding Antifa, Nazis and Islamists: they don't seem the slightest bit interested in communicating/debating with their opposites, since they're authoritarians who hate free expression and automatically think their viewpoint is right.

    There is also this much newer report from Pew:

    http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/...-values-widen/

    And then there's this Pew Research study regarding how highly ideological members of congress have more facebook followers than moderate ones(and although I can't seem to find where I read this, I believe there's also evidence to suggest that moderates are receiving less votes than their more ideological counterparts):

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-moderates-do/

    So yeah, I think Americans have a lot more to stand up against than just these WLM guys(although if they're peacefully protesting, and not planning any violence... They may well be within their rights to protest). They need to take a hardline stance against all forms of "extremism", which includes Antifa, Islamism, Nazis, etc. and political polarization in general. Even reading threads in the political mudpit, it seems like conservatives and liberals are speaking different languages. Mark my words, you can kiss your democracy goodbye once people with different viewpoints stop being able to communicate. Freedom of speech facilitates this communication, by allowing the minority the protection to freely speak to a majority. Indeed, if you are for minority rights, then you should be for freedom of speech as well, since it is freedom of speech which is supposed to protect these voices against the tyranny of the majority.
    Last edited by Genghis Skahn; November 05, 2017 at 09:46 AM.

  5. #125

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    There is also this nonsense that we have to let extremists use your manor as their playgound, otherwise there will be more. Bollocks. The EDL was smashed in the UK and the more extreme splinter groups proscribed. Result, not a peep from the Nazis, although we have to round up a few now and again because they insist on planning terrorist attacks. A similar story for Islam4 UK. We left it way too late to proscribe them and lock up their leader, always proclaimed 'free speech' whilst recruiting terrorists. The result, mopping up the blood as people brainwashed by that outfit emerge from the rocks they crawled under and commit murder. Free speech? My arse, there is always a price to pay.

    Probably not a bright idea to be an apologist for sexist thought. It's taken a while, but seems to me that, at last, abuse on grounds of gender is now seen as the social cancer it is.

    Finally, there's a difference between expressing dissent according to one's own conscience and being a mere conduit for an extremist group, no doubt manipulated with Russian money, as we are now learning. I think Americans should stand up against what is clearly the contamination of their political scene . They certainly should not indulge it.
    Boring totalitarianism again, this time peppered with rusophobic paranoia. How ironic, that people who scream about "bigotry" end up being actual bigots themselves.
    As we told you earlier in this thread, your totalitarian ideas actually don't have a history of, well, working. Just like USSR during Cold War, governments in Western Europe are desperately trying to suppress and shut down any idea that contradicts the globalist nonsense that ruling oligarchies are peddling to European population to further maintain their position of power at population's expense.
    Free market of ideas will always trample an obsessive nanny state (such as the current governments in UK or Germany) that ends up eating itself in countless examples in recent history.
    Having said that, I'm glad that people that share your views are a dying marginal minority.

  6. #126

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Boring

    Bah. You are just gathering fodder for the Russian troll farms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Skahn View Post
    Lengthy piece
    Impressive response.

    I would say that an absolute approach to the free speech principle mitigates a minor evil whilst failing to adress greater ones arising from the misuse of that principle. Experience tells us that when such abuse happens more fundamental rights are infringed, including the right to life itself.

    While people living in a free society could decide that they wish to inflict their greivanvces upon other communities, there are sometimes clear reasons why it is wise not to let them do so . I don't beleive the founding fathers had legions of bots, sponsored by a hostile foreign power, duping the polulace, in mind when they framed the amendment. We know that the intent of this power is not to stimulate a parlour room debate, but to fragment and disrupt the societies targetted. The principles contained within an 18th century parchment isn't up to the job of countering very modern problem.
    Last edited by mongrel; November 05, 2017 at 03:19 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  7. #127
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    I applaud both Ghengis Skahn and Mongrel for an very good recent series of posts. Though the hinted problem of Russian meddling is not really a problem. Like all outside government powers, there is always a temptation to thy and steer events to the outside power's personal advantage. The issue is internal and the solution has to be internal as well. Free speech has to be part of the solution and I do not think the knowledge of bomb making, driving onto pedestrian walk ways, or making a semi-automatic into a fully or more fully automatic weapon is the problem either. We have our percentage of bad guys doing in some cases truly horrific criminal acts of mass murder. The problem is not the gun, the bomb, the rental truck, or the airplane. The problem is how we within our society helpd or choose to ignore people having problems. The problem may be failing at assimilation upon immigrating, walking the streets homeless, addiction to some drug, a even a mental imbalance that may be from either physical or psychological (or both) sources. The problem is not the failings of the individual, but that society either does not care or does not choose to notice such failings. We are ashamed when we have such failings. The personal shame coupled with the society not caring is a very explosive combination.

    Now to get back to the original basis of this thread which was that the police either did not care to protect free speech because the people speaking were unpopular or they were simply following the lead of political leaders who said that these people were not welcome in that particular county or state or country or even on the planet. This not caring is in some way related to the broader society not caring -- of course we care when the problem hits personally, but then it may be too late. When the police do not care can other failures related to speech and failures to treat the social ills be much farther behind?

    At this point I have probably said all that I need to say on this topic or at least in this thread. This being the mudpit, I am certain that things will continue fine with or without my input.

  8. #128

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Bah. You are just gathering fodder for the Russian troll farms.
    Thanks for proving my point about rusophobic paranoia going hand in hand with globalist statism which you are promoting here.

  9. #129

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Thanks for proving my point about rusophobic paranoia going hand in hand with globalist statism which you are promoting here.
    Nothing Russophobic about having an electoral system that isn't bought out by a foreign power.

    @NorseThing. I can follow the idea that in many circumstances the police may not care about the people in their charge, or rather, they do the minimum amount possible. The police did little to stop locals blocking an EDL march I had observed (antifa were kettled elsewhere, near the end point, so had missed all the action).As drunken bladders gave way, they beat a humiliating retreat.

    However I can safely say that the anarchist protests in London were not popular with business and commuters and locals tended to be furious when the EDL insisted on shouting drunken racist abuse, at great cost to taxpayers. New tactics including kettling of potentially violent groups, such as the aforementioned, and court orders imposed on those bent on public nuisance were effective in breaking them up after a couple of years.
    Last edited by mongrel; November 06, 2017 at 01:30 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  10. #130

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by NorseThing View Post
    I applaud both Ghengis Skahn and Mongrel for an very good recent series of posts. Though the hinted problem of Russian meddling is not really a problem. Like all outside government powers, there is always a temptation to thy and steer events to the outside power's personal advantage. The issue is internal and the solution has to be internal as well. Free speech has to be part of the solution and I do not think the knowledge of bomb making, driving onto pedestrian walk ways, or making a semi-automatic into a fully or more fully automatic weapon is the problem either. We have our percentage of bad guys doing in some cases truly horrific criminal acts of mass murder. The problem is not the gun, the bomb, the rental truck, or the airplane. The problem is how we within our society helpd or choose to ignore people having problems. The problem may be failing at assimilation upon immigrating, walking the streets homeless, addiction to some drug, a even a mental imbalance that may be from either physical or psychological (or both) sources. The problem is not the failings of the individual, but that society either does not care or does not choose to notice such failings. We are ashamed when we have such failings. The personal shame coupled with the society not caring is a very explosive combination.

    Now to get back to the original basis of this thread which was that the police either did not care to protect free speech because the people speaking were unpopular or they were simply following the lead of political leaders who said that these people were not welcome in that particular county or state or country or even on the planet. This not caring is in some way related to the broader society not caring -- of course we care when the problem hits personally, but then it may be too late. When the police do not care can other failures related to speech and failures to treat the social ills be much farther behind?

    At this point I have probably said all that I need to say on this topic or at least in this thread. This being the mudpit, I am certain that things will continue fine with or without my input.
    Still don't get the issue. The protesters were given a berth. A wide berth. Their message sucked and the opportunity to shut them up and send a counter-message clearly won. A free market place of ideas doesn't mean every message gets heard equally. It means that every message has a chance to be heard. And the nazis did have their chance, except nobody wanted to hear it. Those who did either emailed them, talked to them, or phoned them. And if wanted to but still didn't, then clearly they don't care enough to hear it.

  11. #131

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Nothing Russophobic about having an electoral system that isn't bought out by a foreign power.
    Nobody sane is claiming that Russia "bought out" American electoral system.
    In any case, you are clearly claiming that anything critical of your globalist statism is "Russian propaganda", which speaks for itself.

  12. #132

    Default Re: What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Nobody sane is claiming that Russia "bought out" American electoral system.
    In any case, you are clearly claiming that anything critical of your globalist statism is "Russian propaganda", which speaks for itself.
    Americans will work it out, if they haven't already.
    Last edited by alhoon; November 10, 2017 at 12:58 PM. Reason: off topic removed
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •