UK police warns those who post "hate crime" and threatens users with "criminal offences"

[TheDarkGreninja]

I get what you're saying, and you're right, but trying pointless things that obviously won't work isn't going to help. Thinking of better, innovative ideas will. I wish I had one to give, but obviously none of us do or this problem would already be a thing of the past. More possibilities will arise as technology progresses too. I don't think that not pursuing that particular course of action is "letting the world burn," and in the meantime, even if we do pursue it and watch it fail and burn, people still need to learn to deal with this sort of thing until something does work. Its not a fun part of life, but it is part of it.

How do we know something is pointless unless it's been done?

 

[rileysrjay]

This is a bit off topic and might be considered stupid to ask but it has been mentioned earlier in this thread so I'll ask: what kinds of knives are banned in the UK? Are all of them banned? Or are some excluded such as kitchen and utility knives?

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

This is a bit off topic and might be considered stupid to ask but it has been mentioned earlier in this thread so I'll ask: what kinds of knives are banned in the UK? Are all of them banned? Or are some excluded such as kitchen and utility knives?

This should help:
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

 

[leon315]

okay, Bye-bye cyberbullies....

 

[rileysrjay]

This should help:
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

Geez, that seems a bit extreme IMO. Almost all of those weapons listed as illegal are legal here in the states. Thanks for sharing!

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Geez, that seems a bit extreme IMO. Almost all of those weapons listed as illegal are legal here in the states. Thanks for sharing!

You're welcome.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Geez, that seems a bit extreme IMO. Almost all of those weapons listed as illegal are legal here in the states. Thanks for sharing!

Actually it seems pretty fair, especially since it lists scenarios in which someone is allowed to carry a restricted blade

 

[rileysrjay]

Actually it seems pretty fair, especially since it lists scenarios in which someone is allowed to carry a restricted blade

Fair enough, I guess I'm just to used to seeing them being carried or being in knife and outdoor stores.

 

[MadMageKefka]

How do we know something is pointless unless it's been done?

By literally every other time in history when the entire world tried to agree on something, and it didn't work.

 

[Subtle Demise]

If you want to defend people's right to say whatever they want, then let them bear with the consequences instead of getting a mere slap on the wrist for doing things that are very likely to cause societal discord, and stop getting anal over it and resorting to blaming the victim for feeling offended when it's an inborn feeling to be offended. If someone wants to act deliberately racist/sexist/prejudiced for the purpose of making other people feel sub-human and enjoy it and gets killed over it, that is virtually their fault in entirety and I swear that I will have little-to-no sympathy for that person whatsoever.

That reminds me of when I was in high school: we were discussing Beowulf and the teacher asked something about why Grendel was portrayed as black. One of the kids said "black is the color of evil." She replied, " if an African-American kid had heard you say that, you would get punched in the nose." The first thing I thought was "bitch, YOU'RE the racist one, implying that black people are prone to violence!" So the government is afraid of violent minority groups now?

(All answers which could've easily been google searched)

The law is still vague, and purposely so. They keep it vague so it can be more easily expanded to quell other forms of speech, like political dissent.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

By literally every other time in history when the entire world tried to agree on something, and it didn't work.

I'm trying to think of one of those times.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The law is still vague, and purposely so. They keep it vague so it can be more easily expanded to quell other forms of speech, like political dissent.

Please prove that it is vague, every time you have it's been explained away.

 

[MadMageKefka]

I'm trying to think of one of those times.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Please prove that it is vague, every time you have it's been explained away.

...the United Nations. Biggest example I can think of.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I'm trying to think of one of those times.

Free healthcare, for instance. The rest of the world's agreed on it but the US won't.

Same for clean energy.

Those are more of examples of us being dumb and refusing to cooperate rather than the idea not working, though

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

...the United Nations. Biggest example I can think of.

I'd argue it's not a failed idea, just that the countries that have the largest power within it are corrupt as hell.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I'd argue it's not a failed idea, just that the countries that have the largest power within it are corrupt as hell.

And that countries have veto power

Seriously, who thought that was a good idea

 

[MadMageKefka]

I'd argue it's not a failed idea, just that the countries that have the largest power within it are corrupt as hell.

Also remember that not all countries are members of the UN.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

And that countries have veto power

Seriously, who thought that was a good idea

Indeed, probably the reason nothing get's done by the UN.
The Syrian crisis would've been over if not for Russian vetos.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Also remember that not all countries are members of the UN.

But all countries can apply, provided they meet a threshold based on civil liberties

 

[MadMageKefka]

But all countries can apply, provided they meet a threshold based on civil liberties

That's true, but the fact that some countries refuse to take part is what I mean that its a time when the entire world cant agree on something. Sure the majority does, but getting everyone in the world to agree on anything is impossible. In the scenario with the whole online deal that my example is for, it would require literally everyone to participate in order to work, and even then there are ways to hide yourself online. I just simply do not see this as an idea that can ever work. Maybe reduce the amount a tiny bit at best.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Also remember that not all countries are members of the UN.

All the ones that matter are, though.