The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

[Heathen Hammer]

As it was pointed out before, truth can only be determined in a good faith debate, where free market of opinions, generated by society's unlimited capacity to exchange ideas and concepts, allows for better opinions to triumph. Any attempt to suppress that is, in itself, an act to prevent people from reaching and speaking truthful statements. If you want that to happen, intentionally or not, then you don't want truth to be determined or spoken.

[Kritias]

As it was pointed out before, truth can only be determined in a good faith debate, where free market of opinions, generated by society's unlimited capacity to exchange ideas and concepts, allows for better opinions to triumph. Any attempt to suppress that is, in itself, an act to prevent people from reaching and speaking truthful statements. If you want that to happen, intentionally or not, then you don't want truth to be determined or spoken.

I believe the debate on racism, white supremacy and other less sugar coated forms of the same thing has been had during 1945-1960s. So, if what you say is truthful, would it also fall to reason that a) we have a debate that establishes truth once and therefore b) every reiteration of the same debate is falsehood?

Philosophy aside, what truth does a sieg hailing pug offer you exactly? That nazis are somewhat fun people, maybe?

[Aexodus]

You realise that the joke was making fun of the Nazis right? In WW2 Nazi Germany tried to prosecute a man for teaching his dog the sieg-heil, except they couldn’t find any witnesses. In Scotland however, you don’t need witnesses, the state can take its own initiative against you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_(dog)

[Kritias]

You realise that the joke was making fun of the Nazis right? In WW2 Nazi Germany tried to prosecute a man for teaching his dog the sieg-heil, except they couldn’t find any witnesses. In Scotland however, you don’t need witnesses, the state can take its own initiative against you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_(dog)

It definitely makes light of the nazis, which is why it was found grossly offensive. It doubles the offence due the commercial nature of the act - mainly, it was done for increased traffic and ad revenue.

The comparison to the story of Jackie, though indicative of the idiocy by which the simplest thing can get out of control and have a life of its own, draws no more similarities to danculas case. Unless you're insinuating that even the nazis dropped a similar case but her majesty's prosecution didn't.

In which case, I will inform you that the man was not on the Reich's territory but in Finland, which meant that the nazis tried to solve this diplomatically with the then allied government of Finland.

The reason for dropping this was more likely to stop a controversy that could sour relations with an important ally against USSR than lack of evidence. If the same man was in an occupied territory he would have been shot as soon as the authorities had been informed of the incident. They shot people for way less, you know.

I didn't understand your comment on the lack of witnesses. It surely was self evident since it was on YouTube, correct?

[Aexodus]

Kritias it wasn’t done for increased traffic and revenue. He uploaded it to a youtube channel whose only subscribers were his mates. It wasn’t commercial, it probably wasn’t even monetized.

In England, someone needs to go to the police and say ‘hey, I thought this video was offensive’, whereas in Scotland, the police don’t need a complainant. They had to go around showing the video to people until they found someone who wanted to take Meecham to court.

At the end of they day, Meecham was convicted under the communications act 2003, of which the relevant section doesn’t mention ‘commercial speech’. I really think it’s an irrelevant point.

[Kritias]

Kritias it wasn’t done for increased traffic and revenue. He uploaded it to a youtube channel whose only subscribers were his mates. It wasn’t commercial, it probably wasn’t even monetized.

In England, someone needs to go to the police and say ‘hey, I thought this video was offensive’, whereas in Scotland, the police don’t need a complainant. They had to go around showing the video to people until they found someone who wanted to take Meecham to court.

At the end of they day, Meecham was convicted under the communications act 2003, of which the relevant section doesn’t mention ‘commercial speech’. I really think it’s an irrelevant point.

That's not true. Members of the Scottish Jewish community brought the video to court as their representative stated their website was bombarded by the video and other abusive content after the release. The SCoJeC also spoke against the video Meecham put up and the video was reported in YouTube which was why it ended up being pursued by the Scottish courts. You can read about it here.

Where did you read the police were going around showing the video to find someone willing to pursue a lawsuit against Meecham?

On the commercial front, the video garnered 3 million views within the space of a few weeks after its release. Hardly bad ad revenue - and not something that could be done by a group of mates so fast.

And you didn't answer what kind of truth the video offers you.

[Aexodus]

That's not true. Members of the Scottish Jewish community brought the video to court as their representative stated their website was bombarded by the video and other abusive content after the release. The SCoJeC also spoke against the video Meecham put up and the video was reported in YouTube which was why it ended up being pursued by the Scottish courts. You can read about it here.

Where did you read the police were going around showing the video to find someone willing to pursue a lawsuit against Meecham?

No-one complained about the video, until the police had to search for witnesses to find someone who took offence.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/1...beral-britain/

During the course of making the documentary, I asked various members of the public how they felt about the case. Virtually everyone I spoke to understood that the pug video was intended as a joke, irrespective of whether they found it funny or not. Of the roughly three million people who watched the video online, not one complained to the police – the investigation was only able to proceed because the authorities actively trawled for witnesses who would find the material offensive.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...g-britain/amp/

Meechan’s lawyer said at trial that no one had complained to the local police about the Nazi pug video; the police simply took it upon themselves to go after him.

On the commercial front, the video garnered 3 million views within the space of a few weeks after its release. Hardly bad ad revenue - and not something that could be done by a group of mates so fast.

It doesn’t matter if it’s commercial or not. It’s an electronic message and thats all the communications act covered.

And you didn't answer what kind of truth the video offers you.

Um, what do you mean? I don’t understand what you mean by what ‘truth’ it would offer me.


Edit:

Philosophy aside, what truth does a sieg hailing pug offer you exactly? That nazis are somewhat fun people, maybe?

You didn’t ask me this, this was a reply to HH. At any rate, it doesn’t matter what Meecham meant about the Nazis, it’s free speech.

However, what he meant was that the Nazis are evil and pugs are cute and innocent, hence the incongruent humour. All that matters is that he was not inciting violence against anyone.

[Common Soldier]

I disagree, Aexodus. It makes sense that the case would go under communications act 2003, since it was an electronic communication ie a YouTube video. It also makes sense to go under article 127, since I quote



So, as you can see, the judge tried the case under EU precedent on using "hate speech" for commercial benefit. In addition, you can see here the layout of indicators and parameters required for a legal procedure under article 127.

I am curious of how "hate speech" is defined, and how is "Holocaust Denial" also defined? Is it hard speech to assert that Sub Saharan Africa was already less advanced and less developed in many aspects even before colonialism? Is it hate speech to point out that many of the actions of Muhammad in Muslim's own histories would make him a war criminal by today's standards? Or is it considered to be a Holocaust Denier to propose that with events like the Armenian gsnocide, or the Urkrainian Holodomor, the Holocaust was not unique? Or that the numbers killed, although large, not as many as commonly claimed?


To be against hate speech and against Holocaust Deniers sound well and good, but it could be used to suppress any view you don't happen to agree with, and goes against the agenda that is being promoted. (Note, that does not mean the opposing views are necessarily right, just is it necessarily wrong to express those views even if you don't agree with them?). Tell me, does the EU ban speech by those who claim there was no Armenian genocide? Or is extremist fundamental Islamist speech banned in the EU? (If so, I would be curious to know how those are defined to. The same danger exist if these terms are carefully defined of them being potentially abused.

I don't agree with things like the US Supreme Court definition of pornography "I know it when I see it" approach.

[Kritias]

No-one complained about the video, until the police had to search for witnesses to find someone who took offence.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/1...beral-britain/

URL]https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/count-dankula-verdict-free-speech-dying-britain/amp/[/URL]

It doesnÂ’t matter if itÂ’s commercial or not. ItÂ’s an electronic message and thats all the communications act covered.

Um, what do you mean? I don’t understand what you mean by what ‘truth’ it would offer me.
Edit:

You didnÂ’t ask me this, this was a reply to HH. At any rate, it doesnÂ’t matter what Meecham meant about the Nazis, itÂ’s free speech.

However, what he meant was that the Nazis are evil and pugs are cute and innocent, hence the incongruent humour. All that matters is that he was not inciting violence against anyone.

Nowhere in the two articles you provided is there any mention of the Jewish community of Scotland which, as you can see on the link from independent I attached in my previous reply, played an integral part on the prosecution and their speaker was a witness for the prosecution on the trial.

From independent, it's obvious the Jewish community in Scotland were offended by Meechams video and acted on it. They were also the ones most vocal during the whole debacle. How is this even depicted as "no one protested the video"? Its clear that the Jewish people who saw the video were offended and that should have been that.

My question was about your reference of Orwellian laws that should be repealed. If you understand the communication act as Orwellian it means its effect is the hindrance of truth. I asked which truth can you find on the pug debacle.

Ps: I am concerned since both these articles you sited refer to Jackie insinuating or outright saying that the crown's prosecution is more tenacious than the nazis. That's... problematic.

On to answer a common soldier,

As in all things, the hows and whys you say something is more important than what you have said. The wording and sentiment transferred by your speech is key. Its impressive to me that many protesting hate speech incidents do so in cases where someone is taking the fall after saying racist or bigoted things. It's really curious.

Let's take the arguments you brought forward for example. Sub saharan Africans. Islam. And Jewish genocide.

Yes, if by saying that you insinuate some inferiority brought by genetics or otherwise on the part of those people. History has explain the various socioeconomic parameters that affected these differences.

Yes, if by saying that you also insinuate some fundamental bellicose rhetoric in the teachings of all the various sub religions that we westerners call islam; and yes, if you insinuate some religious superiority to christianity in juxtaposition. Theres some pretty sick stuff in the bible too, ya'll.

On the holocaust. You're right. The numbers sited are often off. People tend to forget that along side 6 million Jewish people, there were an additional five million of other undesirable groups like Roma, homosexuals, communists, deserters, political activists and so on and so on. That's a total of 11 million people.

Read more here: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/conte...zi-persecution

[Common Soldier]

On to answer a common soldier,

As in all things, the hows and whys you say something is more important than what you have said. The wording and sentiment transferred by your speech is key. Its impressive to me that many protesting hate speech incidents do so in cases where someone is taking the fall after saying racist or bigoted things. It's really curious

"Wording and sentiment" somewhat vaguely defined. Wording and sentiment can be misinterpreted. Like the wife who says "I heard what you said but I know what you are really thinking" and takes anything her husband says as a criticism of her. In the case of Dinner in the Trayvon Martin shooting, nothing Zimmer.said had anything to due with race, no racially offensive words were used, yet Zimmer's shooting was accused being racially motivated and a hate crime, with the fact that Trayvon Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman and bashing his head into the ground of absolutely no importance. Your answer is inadequate and packs actual factually criteria that can be used.

Let's take the arguments you brought forward for example. Sub saharan Africans. Islam. And Jewish genocide.

Yes, if by saying that you insinuate some inferiority brought by genetics or otherwise on the part of those people. History has explain the various socioeconomic parameters that affected these differences.

While socio economic factors are claimed to explain at the differences , that is often assuming that which actually needs to be proved.

Simply because an argument has been abused in the past, does not make it necessarily wrong or an exams.of hate. For example, there was a book called the Bell Curve, that argued that there was a racial element in the differences between IQ and in test scores. They were were sincere scientist whose work was unsurprisingly villified because it was not politically correct. They didn't argue that all blacks were automatically inferior to a whites, but that was a statistical difference between the races, with Asians having the highest IQ genetically. Since we are talking statistically, it becomes meaningless when applied to just the individual. But it is of potential importance of you are using statistical results alone to claim bias, that any statistical difference must be the result of discrimination and no other causes. For example, even in medieval times African illiteracy was higher than Europe, with many African societies having no form of literacy and written language at all. Things like dislexia are higher in African Americans, which can lead to learning disorders and higher rates of illiteracy in African Americans. Higher rates of illiteracy might not be due to or entirely due to racial discrimination as peoplencommonly claimed, and you have clearly shown you would label anyone who even suggested the possibility of hate speech. It is funny, that many of those of the left who claim to promote tolerance are in fact are completely intolerant of people who express views contrary to their own.

Personally, I don't think racial difference play a major difference in the development difference between Africa and Europe, you have only to look at the history of Germany and Japan to see that - in 1 AD, both peoples were among the more backwards people's of the world, neither really having any illiteracy, yet both nation's are now among the most advanced in the world. I don't the people's of Germany and Japan became genetically smarter since 1 AD as the cause of this but I am not going to automatically label anyone who suggest there could be a biological difference in IQ as a rarixst and guilty of hate speech, just wrong.

Yes, if by saying that you also insinuate some fundamental bellicose rhetoric in the teachings of all the various sub religions that we westerners call islam; and yes, if you insinuate some religious superiority to christianity in juxtaposition. Theres some pretty sick stuff in the bible too, ya'll.

I gave you a very specific example, which you ignored and haven't answered. So to you, even if something is truthful and factual, it doesn't matter if you don't like what the facts are? Apparently "hate speech" is anything that doesn't give you the outcome you want.

On the holocaust. You're right. The numbers sited are often off. People tend to forget that along side 6 million Jewish people, there were an additional five million of other undesirable groups like Roma, homosexuals, communists, deserters, political activists and so on and so on. That's a total of 11 million people.

Again, younhavent answered some of the questions I raised. I happen to believe the total numbers given, and have personally met many Holocaust survivors while growing up, so I have no doubt at all. But I want to know isnwhat constitutes denial. I think there could be people who think the numbers are inflated, does that constitute denial? I happen to know that a number of people who vehement attack Holocaust deniers in turn claimed there was no Armenian Genocide, that the Holodomor never happened. I know that neither of those genocides were covered in the history I learned at school, but the Holocaust was.

So let me ask you - do you deny that the Holodomor and the Armenian Genocide happened? Many of those who the fiercest critics of Holocaust Deniers in their turn deny both the Armenian Genocide and the Holodomor.

PS - After thinking about it, imply that some races are genetically inferior is valid for hate speech after all, because words like "inferior" have a pejorative implicstion and bias. While saying there could be a genetic racial component to intelligence, it is true only in a statistical sense, and the word inferior is subjective anyways. It could be argued that whites are inferior to blacks athletically, based on the dominance of African Americans in sports,.especially track. Who to say whether physical prowess isn't as important or more importance academic excellence? For.mostmof human history, the guy better with the spear often beat the guy with the pen.

[Aexodus]

Nowhere in the two articles you provided is there any mention of the Jewish community of Scotland which, as you can see on the link from independent I attached in my previous reply, played an integral part on the prosecution and their speaker was a witness for the prosecution on the trial.

Even the SCoJC disagrees with you. Your assertion that the ‘Jewish community’ played a part in the prosecution is flatly incorrect. Meecham was prosecuted by the Crown ergo the state, only the state, and just the state. Not by Scottish Jews.

If this happened in England things would be different, as they don’t have Procurator Fiscals, and as such the Crown can’t prosecute on its own initiative. You, me, or Borowski have to take someone to court, whereas in Scotland the state can take you to court of it’s own accord.

https://www.scojec.org/news/2018/18i...e_verdict.html

We wish to make it clear that the video was not reported to the police by us; it was prosecuted by the Procurator Fiscal, not by us; the decision to prosecute was taken by Crown Office, not by us, after consideration of information supplied to them by the police, and we have not made any attempt to "send the guy to prison".

The Director of SCoJeC, Ephraim Borowski, was called to give evidence in court, and therefore did so as required by law. He answered the questions he was asked both in a personal capacity as the child of holocaust survivors, and based on his long experience of working for the community, of the effect on the community, many of whom are are holocaust survivors, their children, or grandchildren, and of 'jokes' that minimise and mock the holocaust.

They did not bring the case against Meecham, the state did. The two articles don’t mention the Jewish community of Scotland because Jews didn’t bring the case against him. The Procurator Fiscal did. Ephraim Borowski, from the organisation SCoJC was just a witness. The SCoJC did not report the video.

The police first arrested him, and then after the fact looked for potential witnesses who had never seen nor reported the video to prosecute Meecham with.

Here’s two articles from when Meecham was first arrested, which state that it was the police who arrested him and the police who sent the charges to the PF.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...harge-scotland

Officers said the video had been shared online and “caused offence and hurt to many people in our community”.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 28-year-old man was arrested on Thursday 28 April in relation to the alleged publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003).
“A report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-west-36251698

Officers said the video had been shared online and "caused offence and hurt to many people in our community".

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "A 28-year-old man was arrested on Thursday April 28 in relation to the alleged publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003).

"A report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal."

The BBC really does copy the Guardian lol.

From independent, it's obvious the Jewish community in Scotland were offended by Meechams video and acted on it. They were also the ones most vocal during the whole debacle. How is this even depicted as "no one protested the video"? Its clear that the Jewish people who saw the video were offended and that should have been that.

What are you on about. Jews aren’t a hive mind. Some Jews took offence and some didn’t. You claim all Jews who saw the video found it offensive, but you don’t know that. And what does ‘that should have been that’ mean? Are you saying he should have been arrested just for offending some Jews?



Actually at 10:36 he mentions his friend, called Josh who’s Jewish and didn’t take offense, as well as other Jews from around the country who support him. You’re invoking the ‘Jewish community’ card to give your argument moral superiority.

My question was about your reference of Orwellian laws that should be repealed. If you understand the communication act as Orwellian it means its effect is the hindrance of truth. I asked which truth can you find on the pug debacle.

Orwellian doesn’t mean hindrance of truth.

Ps: I am concerned since both these articles you sited refer to Jackie insinuating or outright saying that the crown's prosecution is more tenacious than the nazis. That's... problematic.

It’s true. Scotland succeeded where Germany failed.

[Kritias]

Even the SCoJC disagrees with you. Your assertion that the ‘Jewish community’ played a part in the prosecution is flatly incorrect. Meecham was prosecuted by the Crown ergo the state, only the state, and just the state. Not by Scottish Jews.

If this happened in England things would be different, as they donÂ’t have Procurator Fiscals, and as such the Crown canÂ’t prosecute on its own initiative. You, me, or Borowski have to take someone to court, whereas in Scotland the state can take you to court of itÂ’s own accord.

https://www.scojec.org/news/2018/18i...e_verdict.html


They did not bring the case against Meecham, the state did. The two articles donÂ’t mention the Jewish community of Scotland because Jews didnÂ’t bring the case against him. The Procurator Fiscal did. Ephraim Borowski, from the organisation SCoJC was just a witness. The SCoJC did not report the video.

The police first arrested him, and then after the fact looked for potential witnesses who had never seen nor reported the video to prosecute Meecham with.

HereÂ’s two articles from when Meecham was first arrested, which state that it was the police who arrested him and the police who sent the charges to the PF.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...harge-scotland


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-west-36251698


The BBC really does copy the Guardian lol.


What are you on about. Jews aren’t a hive mind. Some Jews took offence and some didn’t. You claim all Jews who saw the video found it offensive, but you don’t know that. And what does ‘that should have been that’ mean? Are you saying he should have been arrested just for offending some Jews?



Actually at 10:36 he mentions his friend, called Josh who’s Jewish and didn’t take offense, as well as other Jews from around the country who support him. You’re invoking the ‘Jewish community’ card to give your argument moral superiority.



Orwellian doesnÂ’t mean hindrance of truth.



ItÂ’s true. Scotland succeeded where Germany failed.

From the article on independent it seemed that the Jewish community had taken part in the prosecution. I quote the part that confused me here,

Ephraim Borowski, 66, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC), told Airdrie Sheriff Court that the Holocaust should not be joked about and that doing so normalised anti –Semitism. He was speaking at the trial of Mark Meechan, of Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, who filmed his girlfriend's pug, Buddha responding to statements such as "gas the Jews" and "Sieg Heil". He uploaded it to video sharing site, YouTube in April last year.
After complaints were made about the content of the film, entitled "M8 Yer Dugs a Nazi" he was arrested last year for allegedly committing a hate crime.

I got this wrong, and I am sorry for that. The positioning of the two sentences right next to each other hint towards the SCoJeC filing the complaint. Even so, the Jewish community welcomed the verdict of the trial as can be seen from the link you provided, the quote here

SCoJeC has welcomed the conviction of Mark Meechan at Airdrie Sheriff Court for making and publishing a grossly offensive video of himself training his dog to give a Nazi salute in response to the prompts "Gas the Jews" and "Sieg Heil". The video has been viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube, and Meechan has since made a number of other videos attempting to justify himself, seeking to represent the prosecution as an attack on his freedom of speech, and denying the video is antisemitic.We are grateful to the court for recognising that shouting "Gas the Jews" over and over again is not a joke, and that claiming that something is a joke does not make it any less offensive. This case was not about whether the video was a "joke" but about whether it was intended to give offence; Meechan himself made clear both in the video and in court that that was his intention, and far from apologising or expressing regret, is now presenting himself as a martyr and has been embraced by the extreme right.

And from all the articles we have shared, there are mentions of compaints raised to the police, which lead to the arrest and the prosecution by the procurator fiscal. As for why it was offensive and considered a hate crime, Borowski said that

The threat is against the Jewish community and there is an echo chamber effect with people trying to be more offensive. 160 pages of messages about this were collected by us in a day, they supported it and it was extremely anti-Semitic. I did not find anything about the video humorous. Repeating over and over and over again in a positive and enthusiastic tone of voice to 'gas the Jews' is what this trial is all about, an offensive video and whether it is offensive or threatening."

You also misrepresent how the Scottish state handles prosecutions. From this pdf, it appears that in Scotland the Public Criminal Justice System handles the majority of the prosecutions, instead of individuals. I quote

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is part of the Scottish Government,
with responsibility for:
 the prosecution of crime (including decisions on whether criminal prosecution is
appropriate in individual cases)
 the investigation of sudden or suspicious deaths
 the investigation of complaints against the police involving allegations of criminal conduct
The COPFS is the only public prosecution authority in Scotland. Prosecutions by private
individuals are possible in some circumstances, but are very rare.

Although it is possible for a private individual to bring a prosecution in some circumstances,instances of this happening are very rare. Thus, virtually all prosecutions in Scotland are
brought, in the public interest, by the Lord Advocate or by the local procurator fiscal acting on
behalf of the Lord Advocate.

This means that what happened to Meecham is commonplace under the Scottish legal system, and not some extraordinary circumstance. So, claiming that the case of the Nazi pug was somehow different than most prosecutions in Scotland is incorrect.

I also never claimed that the Jews are some kind of hive mind; of course some were more offended than others and some not at all. What I said was that the representatives of the community in Scotland found the video very offensive and representing their community, as is their role, produced evidence on the trial against Meecham and welcomed the verdict. So, yes, it appears they were offended to a significant degree. They also, as I quote above, provided evidence that the video caused a bombardment of anti-semitic messages at the rate of a hundred and sixty pages in a single day.

Orwellian does mean the hindrance of truth, since the essence of the term can be summed up by Winston's quote - Freedom is the truth to say two plus two equals four. Since the equation is true, then INGSOC hindered the ability of the citizens of airstrip one from reaching and speaking that truth.

On Scotland and Germany of 194os its obvious that the two countries wanted the same outcome from vastly different reasons. The latter wanted to punish a Finnish person because he had insulted Hitler, while the former acted to protect part of its citizenry from abuse at a rate of 160 pages a day. The same outcome does not infer the same motive.

To answer a common soldier,

I think it's clear that Hate Speech is communication that's a) villifying, b) abusive, c) insulting, d) stiring racial animosity and e) normalizing racial hatred or distrust. Most statures on hate speech use more or less the same formula for dealing with hate speech, albeit better worded than here. So, I don't think there's anything unclear about the laws. It counts intent and outcome of an action.

About the infamous Bell Curve research, you should know that even when it was published it was very controversial because it took a regressive approach on how IQ was measured, ie taking into account only genetic/inheritable qualities such as race, and enviromental parameters. The research has also been debunked many years ago, and I'll just give you the latest research re-affirming the debunking here. As you can see, researchers found that IQ flunctuates in Indian farmers based on whether the harvest period is over or not; re-affirming the hypothesis that IQ, ie the ability to problem solve under duress, is linked to socioeconomic parameters like financial stability. Simply put, poor people appear to be more stupid because the way the IQ is structured favours those of more stable financial status. Seen this way, the Asian population in America, comprised to a good degree of highly specialized individuals appear more 'smart' than the African Americans and the Latinos, and moderately smarter than the White population (since it's more evenly distributed among the financial axis).

Of course, the logical question would be why do you rehash a research that has been debunked some decades earlier? The world wonders.

You also brought the Treyvon Martin and Zimmer case up; while this is not the place to discuss this, and I would be willing to debate this on its own thread, I will simply say that Zimmer profiled Martin for the crime of walking around at night (while being African American) and called the police on him. Zimmer then disobeyed the police who instructed him to stay put and wait for them to arrive, and tried to acost Martin himself. Then the two men fought, as would be the obvious reaction by anyone who gets jumped by another dude in the middle of the night for no reason, leading to Martin's death. Isn't this whole story based squarely due to Zimmer's prejudice? If not, how so.

You also raise Holomodor and the Armenian genocide, and I can't fiugure out why. No one says that genocide is okay, or that some are and some aren't; and no one is denying neither case aside for the respective governments of the involved states. In the former case a handful of countries have already recognized it as a genocide. So what's the point of this question? The Holocaust however is unique in the sense that for the first time a dedicated bureocracy to stream-line the process of murdering people for ideological reasons was set up and it was horiffyingly efficient; bringing up other historical precedents to normalize the Holocaust is a stern no-no. It is also the common practice of neo-nazis to downplay or outright deny it ever happened, so again - no-no.

Your last paragraph I couldn't really understand; please, elaborate what you meant by that.

[Aexodus]

From the article on independent it seemed that the Jewish community had taken part in the prosecution. I quote the part that confused me here,

I got this wrong, and I am sorry for that. The positioning of the two sentences right next to each other hint towards the SCoJeC filing the complaint. Even so, the Jewish community welcomed the verdict of the trial as can be seen from the link you provided, the quote here

And from all the articles we have shared, there are mentions of compaints raised to the police, which lead to the arrest and the prosecution by the procurator fiscal. As for why it was offensive and considered a hate crime, Borowski said that

You also misrepresent how the Scottish state handles prosecutions. From this pdf, it appears that in Scotland the Public Criminal Justice System handles the majority of the prosecutions, instead of individuals. I quote

This means that what happened to Meecham is commonplace under the Scottish legal system, and not some extraordinary circumstance. So, claiming that the case of the Nazi pug was somehow different than most prosecutions in Scotland is incorrect.

I never said what happened to meecham was uncommon, I just disagree with it. I never said it was unusual to have the crown litigate a legal case against someone. If Ephraim Borowski pursues a case against Meecham, I’ll criticise him. But he didn’t so I don’t care about him. If the state or more accurately the local Proculator takes a man to court over something as harmless as this, I’ll criticise them too. If this guy seriously thought, the Proculator I mean, that this joke was grossly offensive, he’s a plonker for ruining someone’s life over it.

I also never claimed that the Jews are some kind of hive mind; of course some were more offended than others and some not at all. What I said was that the representatives of the community in Scotland found the video very offensive and representing their community, as is their role, produced evidence on the trial against Meecham and welcomed the verdict. So, yes, it appears they were offended to a significant degree. They also, as I quote above, provided evidence that the video caused a bombardment of anti-semitic messages at the rate of a hundred and sixty pages in a single day.

I disagree with the entire concept of ethnic community leaders as it implies that group has one agreed opinion that can be represented by a council. It’s needlessly, eh, divisive, in the sense it sort of institutionalizes segregated identities. Sure people can form a group claiming to speak for an entire race, I just don’t have to take them seriously and I don’t.

There’s no council of Northern Irish Protestant communities (it’s as much an ethnic label as a sectarian one here), nor should there be one, because I never agreed to be born to an Ulster-Protestant family, in the ethnic sense not the religious aspect. Same goes for Irish-Catholics.

Anyway, that’s different to say, a religious organisation of a certain sect of Jews, or a denomination of Christian, or a particular Islamic tradition. Do you get me? I wouldn’t accept a non-state representative who I never asked for, so why should I take the same thing for other groups seriously?

So I don’t seriously take the SCoJeC (just noticed I’ve been missing the ‘e’ lol) as the voice of Scottish Jews the same way I wouldn’t consider Ian Paisley Sr. as representing myself. Until he was First Minister I guess. When people say ‘the Jewish community reject this or like that’ or they say ‘the Muslim community like this or like that’ I really don’t give it much attention. Some Jews thought this joke was okay. Some Muslims agree with Johnson on the burqa.

You say they represent Jews, as is their role. I don’t think that role should exist in Britain nor do I think it can possibly represent a racial group. It’s not like the Jews are a persecuted minority, in that case I would obviously understand. Take the Rohingya Muslims in Asia or the Yazidis in Syria.

And the video did not cause that abuse. Meecham is not responsible, at all, for that.

Orwellian does mean the hindrance of truth, since the essence of the term can be summed up by Winston's quote - Freedom is the truth to say two plus two equals four. Since the equation is true, then INGSOC hindered the ability of the citizens of airstrip one from reaching and speaking that truth.

On Scotland and Germany of 194os its obvious that the two countries wanted the same outcome from vastly different reasons. The latter wanted to punish a Finnish person because he had insulted Hitler, while the former acted to protect part of its citizenry from abuse at a rate of 160 pages a day. The same outcome does not infer the same motive.

The former was to ‘protect’ people from a joke. Do not pin the online abuse of SCoJeC, which is horrible, on a man who had nothing to do with it and justify his arrest and prosecution. Don’t do it. It didn’t start until the SCoJeC got involved in the court case anyway as far as I know.

I find it hard to believe that for something to be Orwellian it has to only censor ‘true’ things, whatever that is.

I guess the truth of the joke that it offers me is that the Nazis are evil and genocidal, and a dog is friendly and harmless. The juxtaposition of the two is the joke.

I think the different motives are to be noted, but it’s not particularly important when a man is being arrested for teaching it’s dog to heil the fuhrer as a joke.

[Kritias]

Mate, the thing is that in Scotland the procurator fiscal is bringing the prosecution regardless who brings the matter to the attention of the police, the PS themselves or to the Lord Advocate. There are cases where individuals bring prosecution themselves to court but these are very rare; so the PS just did their job. A case was brought to their attention and they had to take it to court.

Ethnic community leaders are voted on (which is problematic since we all know lobbying and other fine stuff influence the votes), but is the closest thing to direct representation there is. They are representatives nonetheless, so you don't have to take them seriously but the democratic system we live by does.

On Jewish people being persecuted in Britain, I am definitely sure its not as bad as other places; still, Jewish people are mistrusted and generally persecuted, even if concealed, as is evidence by what their representatives say about 160 pages of abuse in one day. I assume this had to be a spike in anti-semite activity, all revolving the video.

I agree with you that it's an idiotic thing to reach the courts in the first place since its just a video on poor taste and not directly advocating for any abuse. But I say that without being in the shoes of a Jewish person who can experience this way differently than I do. There are legal reasons for the fine and I do not presume to know the legal statures of the UK to such a degree that I can reach a definite decision about the trial.

Again, my beef with this is that we just heard bits and pieces of the trial and not the entire justification by the judge to understand the whole reasoning; we had a few quotes about it albeit without their context. But in any case, a handful of controversial cases spreadout within years in the thousands per month doesn't constitute a social issue of any magnitude.

The question is why is it made to be a problem, to the point there's this myth of Orwellian states and propaganda networks.

[Aexodus]

Ethnic community leaders are voted on (which isproblematic since we all know lobbying and other fine stuff influence the votes), but is the closest thing to direct representation there is. They are representatives nonetheless, so you don't have to take them seriously but the democratic system we live by does.

What are you on about. Scotland has MSPs. That’s the closest thing to direct representation there is.

The United Kingdom is obviously not an airstrip one Orwellian state, but hate speech laws are inherently harmful to the welfare of a free and open society, therefore they are Orwellian.

[Kritias]

What are you on about. Scotland has MSPs. That’s the closest thing to direct representation there is.

The United Kingdom is obviously not an airstrip one Orwellian state, but hate speech laws are inherently harmful to the welfare of a free and open society, therefore they are Orwellian.

Mate, there's national representation like the MSPs, then there's local, regional, occupational and yes, ethnic and religious representation. All these types are forms of direct representation.

How is laws on hate speech harmful to the welfare of a free and open society, when hate speech is the act of communicating the closing of that free and open society for some based on their skin color, religion, ethnicity? Do you deny that there's still prejudice, bigotry, racism in the world? Because its easy to talk about freedom of speech when you're not on the group targeted.

[Aexodus]

Hate speech doesn’t harm anyone or infringe on their liberty or welfare. Therefore banning it is harmful to freedom.

[Kritias]

Hate speech doesn’t harm anyone or infringe on their liberty or welfare. Therefore banning it is harmful to freedom.

It does when it motivates violence against people of certain creed. Do you claim there's no connection between hate speech and crime against minorities (ie hate crime)?

[Aexodus]

Because its easy to talk about freedom of speech when you're not on the group targeted.

Huh? What makes you think that? This one’s got me tickled. Every group’s targeted by hate speech.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-37226606.html


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/84...ce-public-fire

It does when it motivates violence against people of certain creed. Do you claim there's no connection between hate speech and crime against minorities (ie hate crime)?

Then why not just make do with the laws we already have against incitement to violence?

[Kritias]

Huh? What makes you think that? This one’s got me tickled. Every group’s targeted by hate speech.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-37226606.html


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/84...ce-public-fire




Then why not just make do with the laws we already have against incitement to violence?

Damn Irishman...!

I can't really answer this since I am not a criminal lawyer but I think the difference lays in the fact that incitement is considered by international and most national laws as an inchoate offence, meaning that an arrest can be made before an actual crime has been committed (and was reserved mostly for incitement to conspiracy cases). Can you imagine that with hate speech? The talk about thought police then!