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



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 26, 2017)

They have deleted their tweet but many made backups, here's one:






Twitter​And after this, they tweeted this 'gem':





Twitter​George Orwell warned us.


----------



## Kevinpuerta (Jul 26, 2017)

The emojis make it look like a joke.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jul 26, 2017)

Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing ?


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 26, 2017)

lcie nimbus said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing ?


Hey, they may consider your post somehow hate crime.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jul 26, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Hey, they may consider your post somehow hate crime.


dude, i say screw privacy if it means getting criminals off the streets, but i'm also pretty sure they can distinguish between trolling and actual "hate".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

Meanwhile in America...


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jul 26, 2017)

Kevinpuerta said:


> The emojis make it look like a joke.


At this point the entire UK government is a joke. (Also, it is in fact possible for jokes to be unfunny.)


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 26, 2017)

To correct myself, they actually didn't delete the tweet. It's on there and with over 5k comments.



 

Source: https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/889585359297945602


hobbledehoy899 said:


> At this point the entire UK government is a joke. (Also, it is in fact possible for jokes to be unfunny.)


Completely. Another UK police branch has said that if any citizens are found with knives or w/e for protection they will be arrested.






More at: https://twitter.com/polNewsForever/status/890193193962262529


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 26, 2017)

OP is LYING, they certainly DID NOT delete the tweet, and uuuuuh newsflash: this shit aint news, they're enforcing the law!!!! 
https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/889585359297945602


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 26, 2017)

yuyuyup said:


> OP is LYING, they certainly DID NOT delete the tweet, and uuuuuh newsflash: this shit aint news, they're enforcing the law!!!!
> https://twitter.com/wiltshirepolice/status/889585359297945602


I corrected myself.

http://gbatemp.net/threads/uk-polic...s-with-criminal-offences.478727/#post-7471440


----------



## smileyhead (Jul 26, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> To correct myself, they actually didn't delete the tweet. It's on there and with over 5k comments.
> 
> View attachment 93756
> 
> ...


what if I'm coming out of the store and just bought a kitchen knife for home use? :eyes:


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 26, 2017)

smileyhead said:


> what if I'm coming out of the store and just bought a kitchen knife for home use? :eyes:


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

And yet people in the UK who illegally hunt foxes are never punished. Damn stupid Tories. Anyways.  Sounds pretty ass-backwards like our justice system.  Don't they have better things to punish people for instead of trying 1984 bullshit on speech?

Knives can be weapons
Cars can be weapons
Forks can be weapons

Okay, the UK should ban them all /s


----------



## Ryccardo (Jul 26, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Don't they have better things to punish people for instead of trying 1984 bullshit on speech?


As long as you try to be sensationalist and scaremongering (example: Daily Mail), it's more than welcome



the_randomizer said:


> Knives can be weapons
> Cars can be weapons
> Forks can be weapons
> 
> Okay, the UK should ban them all /s


No need to give them ideas, they already know


----------



## Haider Raza (Jul 26, 2017)

I herd about this long time ago. Glad they done it.


----------



## smf (Jul 26, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And yet people in the UK who illegally hunt foxes are never punished. Damn stupid Tories. Anyways.  Sounds pretty ass-backwards like our justice system.  Don't they have better things to punish people for instead of trying 1984 bullshit on speech?
> 
> Knives can be weapons
> Cars can be weapons
> ...



Your points are irrelevant.

1. You can't argue that if one person is allowed to get away without being punished, then everyone should be allowed to get away without being punished as it's impossible to punish everyone. You have to start somewhere.

2. A kitchen knife has a legitimate purpose. If you've just been shopping and are taking it home then you're fine, if you're walking around on a friday night with it then you're not. Your intent changes whether it's a weapon or not. Of course it's not up to the person carrying the weapon to define the intent, because they're all scum sucking liars who don't have the balls to admit why they are carrying.

3. 1984 is about controlling thoughts and speech against the government, the police were tweeting about trolls who victimise people who often end up committing suicide.



smileyhead said:


> what if I'm coming out of the store and just bought a kitchen knife for home use? :eyes:



If you buy it and leave it in it's packaging until you get home then you're fine. If you "just come out of the store" and take it to a football match where it's no longer in it's packaging then you're not. Law is complex and often has to deal with grey areas where something may be reasonable in one situation and not in another. Recognising the appropriate and in-appropriate situations is what being a grown up is about.



lcie nimbus said:


> dude, i say screw privacy if it means getting criminals off the streets, but i'm also pretty sure they can distinguish between trolling and actual "hate".



There isn't one.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

Ryccardo said:


> As long as you try to be sensationalist and scaremongering (example: Daily Mail), it's more than welcome
> 
> 
> No need to give them ideas, they already know



I blame those Tory twits for being over-censoring pantywaists.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 26, 2017)

lcie nimbus said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing ?


No you're not.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 26, 2017)

Bad, because in today's day and age, simply having a different opinion is hate speech. Fuck that noise.

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

I'd also like to point out that they do not state what constitutes hate speech. Double whammy.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 26, 2017)

It's always fun to see those not from England posting their opinion of hate speech. Here's what British law says:
"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]"

Just a wikipedia search away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom)

Edit:

Find it beyond hilarious how Saiyan thinks that Wiltshire police is our entire police force.


----------



## smf (Jul 26, 2017)

StarGazerTom said:


> Bad, because in today's day and age, simply having a different opinion is hate speech. Fuck that noise.



No. Having a different opinion is fine. You are even allowed to hate people for their colour, religion etc. However you're not allowed to do anything about it. The same as it's perfectly legal to harbour murderous thoughts, as long as you don't commit murder.



StarGazerTom said:


> I'd also like to point out that they do not state what constitutes hate speech. Double whammy.



They don't have to. It's up to you to know what the law is.



the_randomizer said:


> I blame those Tory twits for being over-censoring pantywaists.



I thought the law was bought in under Labour. Tories wouldn't ban hate speech, they love it too much.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

Yes, you end up in jail for having an offensive knife, because that's the law in most Europe. Same for any kind of weapon.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 26, 2017)

UK couldn't cuck itself any harder if they tried.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 26, 2017)

Good old Airstrip One /s


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

I think people here don't catch that this is already the law. Hate Speech is punished by law in most countries of Europe.


----------



## T-hug (Jul 26, 2017)

Oh yeah they won't even help you  when you know where your stolen stuff is.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 26, 2017)

T-hug said:


> Oh yeah they won't even help you  when you know where your stolen stuff is.


That lady is a complete badass.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Yes, you end up in jail for having an offensive knife, because that's the law in most Europe. Same for any kind of weapon.



By that same token, anything can be made a weapon, even a fork, so they should ban forks, same with cars, and while we're at it, maybe they should ban fry pans. Criminalizing knives won't stop knives from being used illegally.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2017)

It is sad to see people here that are actually ok with laws that limit hate speech


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> It is sad to see people here that are actually ok with laws that limit hate speech



Hate speech is asinine, but so are threats of violence against another person. Why the government should feel it control what other says however, is bullshit. Theresa May has the Tories' support up her ass.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

They aren't talking about kitchen knives. There are kives used specifically as weapons.


----------



## Armadillo (Jul 26, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> By that same token, anything can be made a weapon, even a fork, so they should ban forks, same with cars, and while we're at it, maybe they should ban fry pans. Criminalizing knives won't stop knives from being used illegally.



They aren't banned. As long as you have a good and resonable reason, you are fine.

https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/

"It is illegal to:

carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, e.g. a Swiss Army knife"

If you have a good reason, are stopped and declare it, you are fine.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

Armadillo said:


> They aren't banned. As long as you have a good and resonable reason, you are fine.
> 
> https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/
> 
> ...



Wasn't aware of that. Apologies.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

Armadillo said:


> They aren't banned. As long as you have a good and resonable reason, you are fine.
> 
> https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/
> 
> ...


Oh, in that case those knife bins are an awesome idea


----------



## tbb043 (Jul 26, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> It is sad to see people here that are actually ok with laws that limit hate speech



Sadder still how many are okay with laws that limit speech.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

tbb043 said:


> Sadder still how many are okay with laws that limit speech.



There are always people who blindly defend whatever the government tells them.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

Not a government issue, it's in the French Consitution for example lol. for me it's sad to see people defending racism, discrimination and hate speech, as well as cyber-harassment.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Not a government issue, it's in the French Consitution for example lol. for me it's sad to see people defending racism, discrimination and hate speech, as well as cyber-harassment.



On the other hand, I can't stand it when people attack others for having different political opinions.  It's a crime to have a different opinion on the internet, nowhere is safe.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> On the other hand, I can't stand it when people attack others for having different political opinions.  It's a crime to have a different opinion on the internet, nowhere is safe.


It's because Europe and USA have radically different definitions of "opinions". Right-wing people in Europe are almost centrists in the US. So when US people learn about the european definition of free speech, they say it's censorship, while it's really not, it's just a matter pf preventing people from saying "gays are mentally ill", or "Muslims are all terrorists" etc, which would be unacceptable even for european alt-right. Here free speech doesn't cover hate speech, and I think that's good.


----------



## tech3475 (Jul 26, 2017)

I think that posting that tweet was a mistake, I've known a***holes who I bet would see that as a challenge more so than a threat.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> It's because Europe and USA have radically different definitions of "opinions". Right-wing people in Europe are almost centrists in the US. So when US people learn about the european definition of free speech, they say it's censorship, while it's really not, it's just a matter pf preventing people from saying "gays are mentally ill", or "Muslims are all terrorists" etc, which would be unacceptable even for european alt-right. Here free speech doesn't cover hate speech, and I think that's good.


Actually, the super far right is moving towards the "Muslims are all potential terrorists" thing


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 26, 2017)

Want to stop hatecrimes?
Ban religion.


----------



## emigre (Jul 26, 2017)

Can someone explain to me what the message behind this thread is meant to be?


----------



## th3joker (Jul 26, 2017)

Eof... Seriously do u watch the news and hide inside all day in fear of the outside world?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

th3joker said:


> Eof... Seriously do u watch the news and hide inside all day in fear of the outside world?


You say that as though that isn't why FOX news still exists today


----------



## th3joker (Jul 26, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You say that as though that isn't why FOX news still exists today


I dont watch news so i dont relate


----------



## Vipera (Jul 26, 2017)

_This post has been removed due to the staff's corruption to money and other people._


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 26, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> It's because Europe and USA have radically different definitions of "opinions". Right-wing people in Europe are almost centrists in the US. So when US people learn about the european definition of free speech, they say it's censorship, while it's really not, it's just a matter pf preventing people from saying "gays are mentally ill", or "Muslims are all terrorists" etc, which would be unacceptable even for european alt-right. Here free speech doesn't cover hate speech, and I think that's good.



I don't think anyone is defending people who say these cappy things. However I will defend their right to say it. Don't like it? Call them out and debate them under the table on the market place of ideas. This is what I defend not what they say.


----------



## Nightwish (Jul 26, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Right-wing people in Europe are almost centrists in the US.


 They were, but not anymore. Your president, for example, is not centrist by any definition, he's a staunch neo-liberal tool who'll extend state of emergency powers for the foreseeable future


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> They were, but not anymore. Your president, for example, is not centrist by any definition, he's a staunch neo-liberal tool who'll extend state of emergency powers for the foreseeable future


Erm


----------



## Nightwish (Jul 26, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> Want to stop hatecrimes?
> Ban religion.


And how's that going to protect women, gays, blacks, asians and arabs, exactly? Bigots will be bigots.
Also, free speech and all that.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 26, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> They were, but not anymore. Your president, for example, is not centrist by any definition, he's a staunch neo-liberal tool who'll extend state of emergency powers for the foreseeable future



No...to all that nonsense. I mean for the love of Rai there are less regulations in place now then there were 6 months ago.


----------



## smf (Jul 26, 2017)

Vipera said:


> If I say "kill all muslims" I should be prosecuted, but if I say "Islam is dangerous" I shouldn't. Yet this could still be seen as hate speech.



In the UK you cannot be found guilty of hate speech for criticising a religion. If the police and cps take a dislike to you then you might find yourself in court, but it doesn't mean you'll be found guilty. That is down to what a "reasonable person" would think.

There was an interesting blasphemy case 10 years ago, which came to a similar conclusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/dec/05/independentproductioncompanies.bbc

Our law system is based on a continual feeding back of decisions to interpret what is right and wrong. Politicians pass acts that try to influence the process, but they are often found themselves to be unlawful.

Black and white thinkers have a real problem as they think it's all so simple, but law is not simple at all.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 26, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> And how's that going to protect women, gays, blacks, asians and arabs, exactly? Bigots will be bigots.
> Also, free speech and all that.



Exactly, free speech.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> No...to all that nonsense. I mean for the love of Rai there are less regulations in place now then there were 6 months ago.


He was referring to the French President, Macron 

Also fewer regulations =/= a Good Thing


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> They were, but not anymore. Your president, for example, is not centrist by any definition, he's a staunch neo-liberal tool who'll extend state of emergency powers for the foreseeable future


Errrr, nope, the state of emergency will be disabled by November, and Macron is a centrist despite what you want.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 26, 2017)

What they're trying to do is impossible.
Does the DMCA make a manhunt for every user that downloads a GBA rom? No! Same here.
They will only attend major cases like 'Hahaha I raped your sister' kind of tweets, not the
'U suck LMAO kys lololol' tweets.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> What they're trying to do is impossible.
> Does the DMCA make a manhunt for every user that downloads a GBA rom? No! Same here.
> They will only attend major cases like 'Hahaha I raped your sister' kind of tweets, not the
> 'U suck LMAO kys lololol' tweets.


Quite accurate.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 26, 2017)

If free speech doesn't cover 'hate speech' then what exactly is it defending?


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 26, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Quite accurate.


But that's not all! Hard-Core Christian/Catholic/Muslim citizens will start asking the police
to censor things like Science, free sexual orientation, and anything that violates
their beliefs. Of course, they won't listen to them, but just imagine the chaos!


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> If free speech doesn't cover 'hate speech' then what exactly is it defending?


It defends the right to have an opinion, not the right to be a shitbag and insult people who are different.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> If free speech doesn't cover 'hate speech' then what exactly is it defending?


Free sharing of differing ideas as to how to tackle a given issue

Is that really such a foreign concept??? Is "free speech" really to the point where it's synonymous to "fuck you, you and your kind don't deserve to exist"?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 26, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> But that's not all! Hard-Core Christian/Catholic/Muslim citizens will start asking the police
> to censor things like Science, free sexual orientation, and anything that violates
> their beliefs. Of course, they won't listen to them, but just imagine the chaos!


There are legal definitions of hate speech. Gay people don't insult anyone directly by being who they are, and science isn't even the same, it's facts lol.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 26, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Free sharing of differing ideas as to how to tackle a given issue
> 
> Is that really such a foreign concept??? Is "free speech" really to the point where it's synonymous to "fuck you, you and your kind don't deserve to exist"?


To some people, it is.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 26, 2017)

You genuinely think innocuous ideas need defense?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 26, 2017)

They better catch actual bandits rather than jail everyone for blaming their football team.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> But that's not all! Hard-Core Christian/Catholic/Muslim citizens will start asking the police
> to censor things like Science, free sexual orientation, and anything that violates
> their beliefs. Of course, they won't listen to them, but just imagine the chaos!


Science isn't hate speech

Expression of sexuality isn't hate speech unless it's being done to egg someone on

Someone else violating a personal belief does not mean that person's free speech is being violated. Quite the opposite, actually


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 26, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Science isn't hate speech
> 
> Expression of sexuality isn't hate speech unless it's being done to egg someone on
> 
> Someone else violating a personal belief does not mean that person's free speech is being violated. Quite the opposite, actually


I've seen people who do consider it hate speech.
I live in Mexico. 90% of it is Christian/Catholic.


----------



## Vipera (Jul 26, 2017)

_This post has been removed due to the staff's corruption to money and other people._


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> I've seen people who do consider it hate speech.
> I live in Mexico. 90% of it is Christian/Catholic.


Well clearly there's a difference between what they think hate speech is and the commonly accepted legal definition is


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jul 26, 2017)

filth lol


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

mech said:


> filth lol


Who DO you like


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Jul 26, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Who DO you like



You! <3


----------



## mario5555 (Jul 26, 2017)

Everyone that's in support of this, where does the line get drawn?

When thought crime laws are enacted?  When you look at someone funny?  When you have a bad day and someone turns you in because you are being rude?

Where does it STOP?

Seriously.... You don't need the government or the police to tell you how to act, what to do, and how to be civil.

Some people are just ***holes.

We ignored them in the past.  You can block, ignore, etc. them on social media too.  You DON'T have to READ that post, or comment to that annoying wanker.

Why should that be criminalized behavior now?  (it's like saying someone who wrote a book or a post should be held liable for what some idiot did in response to that, it's ridiculous)

Be the bigger man and walk away, why is that so hard a concept for people to understand, let the scum be ignorant and wallow in their hatred and self-pity, they aren't worth the time people seem to spend on them.

(Social Media concerns me because people have forgotten their **** filters and how to be civil to one another).

Why are people so easily convinced to piss away their civil liberties so everyone is forced to be nice to everyone all of the time.

That's not a world I want to live in (1984, Minority Report) and I feel sorry for those of you who do.  (which I'm shocked with how many people responded in support of something so ludicrous sounding like this). =/

I don't need BIG Brother telling me what to think, what to say, and what to do.  If you do you need to rethink things about your life.

'Nuff said.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

mech said:


> You! <3


Thx bb <3

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



mario5555 said:


> Everyone that's in support of this, where does the line get drawn?
> 
> When thought crime laws are enacted?  When you look at someone funny?  When you have a bad day and someone turns you in because you are being rude?
> 
> ...


I feel like you answered your own question

Edit: I guess I should make it clear I was not referring to the "thought police" part, but the "when people learn to use a filter" part


----------



## Viri (Jul 26, 2017)

Feels good being able to call someone a faggot online, and not having Scotland yard kick my door in. I am also saving up to buy an revolver, because they look bad ass!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

Viri said:


> Feels good being able to call someone a faggot online


If that makes you feel good I think you need to get outside more


> I am also saving up to buy an revolver, because they look bad ass!


Congrats?...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 26, 2017)

Viri said:


> I am also saving up to buy an revolver, because they look bad ass!


Sure, ask Ocelot. He sure looks like an bad ass /s


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 26, 2017)

IRL


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 26, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> IRL



But he didn't load them while spinning


----------



## Viri (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If that makes you feel good I think you need to get outside more
> 
> Congrats?...


Damn right, feels great not having the police kick my door in for saying mean things online. And yea, being able to legally own a gun is pretty nice.



sarkwalvein said:


> Sure, ask Ocelot. He sure looks like an bad ass /s


Hell yeah! I would love to get Magnum revolver like the one used in RE. Or a Mauser c96, like they use in RE4. Too bad it's an old gun and expensive.


----------



## jt_1258 (Jul 27, 2017)

so even livin over here in the us by Chicago they think they think they'll cuff me up for tellin ya to go kys, hay, I've always wanted to travel so lets go bois


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

This is how free speech dies, this is how western civilization starts to fall... except it's been happening for a while and the fall has already started.

UK is quickly becoming another Sweden. What counts as hate speech? Critiques to Islam? Offending communists? Being against feminism?
This is stupid, I'm glad I don't live there.


----------



## Viri (Jul 27, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> This is how free speech dies, this is how western civilization starts to fall... except it's been happening for a while and the fall has already started.
> 
> UK is quickly becoming another Sweden. What counts as hate speech? Critiques to Islam? Offending communists? Being against feminism?
> This is stupid, I'm glad I don't live there.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Thankfully our supreme court made things a bit more clear. So, no worries of this in the US at least.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 27, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> It's because Europe and USA have radically different definitions of "opinions". Right-wing people in Europe are almost centrists in the US. So when US people learn about the european definition of free speech, they say it's censorship, while it's really not, it's just a matter pf preventing people from saying "gays are mentally ill", or "Muslims are all terrorists" etc, which would be unacceptable even for european alt-right. Here free speech doesn't cover hate speech, and I think that's good.


You just described censorship in attempting to explain how it's not censorship.


----------



## Catastrophic (Jul 27, 2017)

I don't think hate speech of any sort should be considered a crime, no matter how bigoted or offensive it is. I think that for two reasons: I believe law should never exist on a subjective level; no one or few people should be able to look at something and just _decide _whether it's legal or not. Secondly, I feel like it's discouraging people from being mature adults and not taking everything they see so personally.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 27, 2017)

Viri said:


> Damn right, feels great not having the police kick my door in for saying mean things online.


Granted, I understand what you're saying, but why is it so important to you that you have the unrestrained ability to be a complete and utter douchebag?

Have you ever tried... I dunno... just being a decent person?...


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Granted, I understand what you're saying, but why is it so important to you that you have the unrestrained ability to be a complete and utter douchebag?
> 
> Have you ever tried... I dunno... just being a decent person?...


It's easy to support freedom of speech when you agree with what is being said.  The true test of your convictions comes when you do not agree with what is being said.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 27, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> It's easy to support freedom of speech when you agree with what is being said.  The true test of your convictions comes when you do not agree with what is being said.



Came here to say this.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jul 27, 2017)

Brooklyn police are scarier.

Chip chip, cheerio!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 27, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> It's easy to support freedom of speech when you agree with what is being said.  The true test of your convictions comes when you do not agree with what is being said.


Exactly, but you can do so in a way that isn't rude. I've seen it before, and, even though I can be sarcastic sometimes, I strive not to be aggressive with anyone no matter what

Edit: unless it's in person and they're physically hurting someone


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Exactly, but you can do so in a way that isn't rude. I've seen it before, and, even though I can be sarcastic sometimes, I strive not to be aggressive with anyone no matter what
> 
> Edit: unless it's in person and they're physically hurting someone


Firstly, so?  Why should it be illegal to be rude?
Secondly, "rude" is subjective.  Who gets to decide what level of rudeness about what subject to whom should be a crime?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 27, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Firstly, so?  Why should it be illegal to be rude?
> Secondly, "rude" is subjective.  Who gets to decide what level of rudeness about what subject to whom should be a crime?


Not saying it should be illegal, I'm saying people shouldn't be feeling good about it

And yes, "rude" is subjective, but generally the baseline for when to back off is if the person you're interacting with tells you so


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not saying it should be illegal, I'm saying people shouldn't be feeling good about it
> 
> And yes, "rude" is subjective, but generally the baseline for when to back off is if the person you're interacting with tells you so


Not gonna lie, it's pretty cathartic sometimes.  I generally try to be respectful on here and other forums, however sometimes I'll just let loose on someone that (in my not-_that_-humble opinion) deserves it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 27, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Not gonna lie, it's pretty cathartic sometimes.  I generally try to be respectful on here and other forums, however sometimes I'll just let loose on someone that (in my not-_that_-humble opinion) deserves it.


's why I said "strive," because I'm the same way lol. It doesn't make me feel good afterwards, though, which is the overall point I'm trying to make


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 's why I said "strive," because I'm the same way lol. It doesn't make me feel good afterwards, though, which is the overall point I'm trying to make


I guess that's where we differ.  I feel generally feel pretty good about it when I do go off on someone.  I don't blow up in a fit of rage so much as I come to a decision that I will rip into them and then contemplate on how best to do so.  Definitely think about it long enough to know I'll have no regerts.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Damn stupid Tories.


Both political parties are shit (Labour/Tories) as they only look out for their own interests rather than the people yet there are those who firmly believe A or B are any good.

UK is going down a path that the best thing to do is get out while there's still time.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 27, 2017)

The UK is fucked.

Also, arresting people for "hate crimes" is a direct threat to freedom of speech. Because what if a political adversary labels something you say a "hate crime" and then arrests you for it? Who decides what is "hate"? Since language is dynamic and changes constantly, how can the legal system keep up with the vernacular? Sure, cyberbulling and abuse is terrible, but I'd much rather ensure freedom of speech is protected. That seems like the much larger bounty.
It seems nowadays we have to defend freedom of speech for the worst of people. But it's freedom of speech nonetheless, and something that should never be given up, at any cost.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 27, 2017)

If free speech is being able to send death threats and insult people, I don't want of free speech.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

Viri said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
> 
> Thankfully our supreme court made things a bit more clear. So, no worries of this in the US at least.



The US is doing fine, I'm quite happy with how things are going.
It's one of the only countries I'd like to move to.


----------



## Nightwish (Jul 27, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> UK is quickly becoming another Sweden.



Oh no, not Sweden! One of the countries with less crime in the world, one of the best economies, one of the best education systems, one of the best health systems where no one goes bankrupt for being sick, where you can't be fired because the quarterly reports needs to be a bit higher, where women are respected and paid accordingly, yeah, it's a hellish place to live. 

Ya all need to read some personal accounts about how it feels to be harassed all day, every day, because we're otherwise too blind to imagine living with our white male privilege. Been there, grew up.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> Oh no, not Sweden! One of the countries with less crime in the world, one of the best economies, one of the best education systems, one of the best health systems where no one goes bankrupt for being sick, where you can't be fired because the quarterly reports needs to be a bit higher, where women are respected and paid accordingly, yeah, it's a hellish place to live.
> 
> Ya all need to read some personal accounts about how it feels to be harassed all day, every day, because we're otherwise too blind to imagine living with our white male privilege. Been there, grew up.



You can keep lying to yourself all you want, this changes nothing.
I'd much rather have my country which is often regarded as a shit hole than to go to Sweden and get bombed or mugged.
Also, welfare states don't work, they always collapse and Sweden is no exception.
"Women are respected"
they aren't in the USA? I'm pretty sure they are, feminists are twisting the meaning of respect. There is no wage gap too, you're delusional.

Also, there is no white male privilege, if there was, why are south african boers getting killed? Why am I not rich?
Stop being stupid.
Brazil had the same system as Sweden for 13 years, full on socialism bullshit, and guess what? It didn't work, these ideologies never will work, they may be good in the beginning but the cracks show immediately, with these crooked politicians and their stupid ideas.

"Harassed every day" huh? Most of the shit these pussies complain about is far from harassment, you haven't grown up at all, you've become brainwashed.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 27, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> Oh no, not Sweden! One of the countries with less crime in the world, one of the best economies, one of the best education systems, one of the best health systems where no one goes bankrupt for being sick, where you can't be fired because the quarterly reports needs to be a bit higher, where women are respected and paid accordingly, yeah, it's a hellish place to live.
> 
> Ya all need to read some personal accounts about how it feels to be harassed all day, every day, because we're otherwise too blind to imagine living with our white male privilege. Been there, grew up.


Citizens in UK and other countries where weapons for self-defence are banned/illegal just have to disregard the police's threat and carry one for their own protection. It's nonsense that the police is pushing people to end up dead on the streets without any possibility of fighting back.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Citizens in UK and other countries where weapons for self-defence are banned/illegal just have to disregard the police's threat and carry one for their own protection. It's nonsense that the police is pushing people to end up dead on the streets without any possibility of fighting back.



This dude is probably against people being armed because "guns kill people reee"

Most armed states in Brazil are the safest ones, why would you rob a person that can fight back?
Dad has a gun, we feel a lot safer with it than without it.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jul 27, 2017)

Not going to look through every page, sorry if it's been brought up, but did they purposely use bad grammar (your-you're) to try to get people to "spew hate speech"? Regarding the knives, with all the CCTV, do they really need to push that law? This seems a little silly and will only push people to think of creative was to defend themselves.....or maybe this is the first step in trying to make _that one dude_ build a practical laser gun? Besides, people do this (carry weapons to defend themselves, in most cases) because what's stopping a 6'6'', 300+lbs, MMA wanna-be drunk dude with a broken beer bottle from violating you until help can "arrive"?




the_randomizer said:


> Cars can be weapons



"Britain will ban sales of new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 as part of a bid to clean up the country's air."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/news/uk-bans-gasoline-diesel-engines-2040/index.html

It's a step toward "cars=/=weapons"; forks will be replaced with rubber sporks in 2050. Sales of sharpened chopsticks will skyrocket by 2051.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> This dude is probably against people being armed because "guns kill people reee"
> 
> Most armed states in Brazil are the safest ones, why would you rob a person that can fight back?
> Dad has a gun, we feel a lot safer with it than without it.


Brazil has the highest murder rate in the world

Edit. I'm sorry. One of the highest, they made it to 14th


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Brazil has the highest murder rate in the world
> 
> Edit. I'm sorry. One of the highest, they made it to 14th


But have you lived in Brazil to check if it is truly that bad?
I am sure Pacheko hasn't lived in Sweden either.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 27, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> If free speech is being able to send death threats and insult people, I don't want of free speech.


Move to Iran


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

This entire thing in a nutshell....


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Hate speech is asinine, but so are threats of violence against another person. Why the government should feel it control what other says however, is bullshit. Theresa May has the Tories' support up her ass.



So someone shouldn't be held accountable for what they say? 
Words can cause as much distress as actions.

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



Vipera said:


> How do you define hate speech though? The british law says that it's about derogatory speeches towards people of different ethnicity or sex, but that can be interpreted in many ways. If I say "kill all muslims" I should be prosecuted, but if I say "Islam is dangerous" I shouldn't. Yet this could still be seen as hate speech.


 
one is the attack of an individual.
the other is an attack of an ideology.

It's not vague at all.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So someone shouldn't be held accountable for what they say?
> Words can cause as much distress as actions.


AFAIK some girl got into jail in the _USA _not so long ago for convincing and pusing someone to commit suicide by telephone...


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So someone shouldn't be held accountable for what they say?
> Words can cause as much distress as actions.


That's wrong.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> But have you lived in Brazil to check if it is truly that bad?
> I am sure Pacheko hasn't lived in Sweden either.


If I had a choice, I'd go to sweden. In comparison Brazil has about 2400% the amount of murder per capita.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> If I had a choice, I'd go to sweden. In comparison Brazil has about 2400% the amount of murder per capita.


Yeah I know, I can't talk for Sweden myself, but I live in Germany.
And for the past year or so I've heard many people talking out of their asses how "Germany is burning"/whatever, and that is nothing but a big lie.
That is why I say, people talk a lot as if they knew how life is where they don't live, but most of the time they just talk BS.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> But that's not all! Hard-Core Christian/Catholic/Muslim citizens will start asking the police
> to censor things like Science, free sexual orientation, and anything that violates
> their beliefs. Of course, they won't listen to them, but just imagine the chaos!



That's a pretty ignorant statement.

Please dont conflate all religous people with the church during the dark ages.

Because, Islam was never the centre of knowledge or anything,


sarkwalvein said:


> AFAIK some girl got into jail in the _USA _not so long ago for convincing and pusing someone to commit suicide by telephone...



So murder is only valid if you personally kill them?


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Brazil has the highest murder rate in the world
> 
> Edit. I'm sorry. One of the highest, they made it to 14th



I'm tired of explaining this but Brazil is pretty big, most of the murders happen in places like Rio.
The rest of the country is absolutely fine and much much better than Sweden and it's migrants. 

I'm alive, all the people I've known are alive and no one I know has been robbed, besides my grandmother... on a trip to Argentina.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So murder is only valid if you personally kill them?


Actually, judges from the USA think otherwise.
On the one side I see many Americans stating "words" can't be punished, but they sent this girl (righlty IMHO) to jail.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jul 27, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> I'm tired of explaining this but Brazil is pretty big, most of the murders happen in places like Rio.
> The rest of the country is absolutely fine and much much better than Sweden and it's migrants.
> 
> I'm alive, all the people I've known are alive and no one I know has been robbed, besides my grandmother... on a trip to Argentina.


And Brazil isn't an island like UK is.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Words can cause as much distress as actions.


This is the problem with people today... Those are NOTHING alike. If someone is physically bullying you, you cant stop them with anything besides outside help or a weapon. They are using sheer force to overpower you. When someone says something mean on the internet, you can choose to ignore them, you can block the person, you can quit the website, or you could just quit the entire internet since you're such a sensitive little bitch.... (you, plural. Not you, specifically)

People need to stop being so damn thinly-skinned and learn that words cant really hurt. If you let them, then I'd say the problem lies with your insecurities and not so much the people pointing them out.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Actually, judges from the USA think otherwise.
> On the one side I see many Americans stating "words" can't be punished, but they sent this girl (righlty IMHO) to jail.



I'm finding it hard to pinpoint your opinion on this.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> I'm tired of explaining this but Brazil is pretty big, most of the murders happen in places like Rio.
> The rest of the country is absolutely fine and much much better than Sweden and it's migrants.
> 
> I'm alive, all the people I've known are alive and no one I know has been robbed, besides my grandmother... on a trip to Argentina.





WeedZ said:


> If I had a choice, I'd go to sweden. In comparison Brazil has about 2400% the amount of murder *per capita*.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Actually, judges from the USA think otherwise.
> On the one side I see many Americans stating "words" can't be punished, but they sent this girl (righlty IMHO) to jail.


That girl sealed her fate when her bf got out of the car, and she told him to get back in and finish killing himself. At that point its no longer harsh words, but a close, dear person telling him he should end his life (repeatedly). At that exact moment, this case became murder.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> This is the problem with people today... Those are NOTHING alike. If someone is physically bullying you, you cant stop them with anything besides outside help or a weapon. They are using sheer force to overpower you. When someone says something mean on the internet, you can choose to ignore them, you can block the person, you can quit the website, or you could just quit the entire internet since you're such a sensitive little bitch.... (you, plural. Not you, specifically)
> 
> People need to stop being so damn thinly-skinned and learn that words cant really hurt. If you let them, then I'd say the problem lies with your insecurities and not so much the people pointing them out.



You're arguing the wrong points.

Threatening to kill someone and telling someone they're a dumbass are two different things.
Seeing as how in today's world I could find out who you are and where you live in moments, I think the distress is rightly justified.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You're arguing the wrong points.
> 
> Threatening to kill someone and telling someone they're a dumbass are two different things.
> Seeing as how in today's world I could find out who you are and where you live in moments, I think the distress is rightly justified.


Maybe re-read the OP? This thread is about hate crime speech, not word-murder....


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Maybe re-read the OP? This thread is about hate crime speech, not word-murder....



And often hate crime speech comes with a death threat.

On another note, I'd argue causing unnecessary hatred is pointless and should be criminalised.
Also maybe read the post I was replying to.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm finding it hard to pinpoint your opinion on this.


Well, my opinion...
I think extremes are bad, and both the American way, and the... well at least the German way are bit of extremes.
On the one hand they don't punish psychological wearing and targeting at all (supposedly), on the other hand they censor way too much.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> And often hate crime speech comes with a death threat.
> 
> On another note, I'd argue causing unnecessary hatred is pointless and should be criminalised.
> Also maybe read the post I was replying to.


Read the post you were replying to? You mean mine?! The one I wrote? Pretty sure I know what it says....


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Read the post you were replying to? You mean mine?! The one I wrote? Pretty sure I know what it says....


Lowering yourself to snark weakens your argument.

@the_randomizer said that it is asinine to punish death threats. You argued a moot point.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> And often hate crime speech comes with a death threat.
> 
> On another note, I'd argue causing unnecessary hatred is pointless and should be criminalised.
> Also maybe read the post I was replying to.


You're willing to forfeit your liberty for the illusion of safety. That's a dangerous thing to do. Sorry for the 'murica speech. But if you really wanted to kill someone, with enough planning, who could stop you? On the other hand, you suggest that the government should have the right to regulate the voice of its citizens. That's asinine.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Lowering yourself to snark weakens your argument.
> 
> @the_randomizer said that it is asinine to punish death threats. You argued a moot point.



I didn't say anything about defending death threats. I said that any form of speech censorship was asinine. Censorship is for pantywaists. It's not cool to make death threats, hell, even people get their panties in a twist when I dare to have the audacity to have a different political view nowadays. If it's not in alignment with liberal overtones, I get verbally emasculated for it.


----------



## smf (Jul 27, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Citizens in UK and other countries where weapons for self-defence are banned/illegal just have to disregard the police's threat and carry one for their own protection. It's nonsense that the police is pushing people to end up dead on the streets without any possibility of fighting back.



Your argument is false. The majority of people who end up dead on the streets in the UK, are the ones with weapons. A weapon does not protect you. America is a good example of this.



MadMageKefka said:


> People need to stop being so damn thinly-skinned and learn that words cant really hurt. If you let them, then I'd say the problem lies with your insecurities and not so much the people pointing them out.



No matter how much you want to bully people with mental health problems into committing suicide, nobody will ever think it's acceptable. OK?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I didn't say anything about defending death threats. I said that any form of speech censorship was asinine. Censorship is for pantywaists.


So you think we shouldn't stop people from inciting violence?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Lowering yourself to snark weakens your argument.
> 
> @the_randomizer said that it is asinine to punish death threats. You argued a moot point.


You said my argument was weak! I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need someone to filter out these comments for me, my fragile little ego cant take mean words. Police!!!

"Snark" aside, your post simply said words cause as much distress as actions. I'm saying youre wrong. This has nothing to do with that specific case, and if you wanna bring it up, I disagree that that can be compared to almost anything else. This girl was the kid's girlfriend. She was a close person to him, not some random scrub on the internet. Imagine someone in your family, or someone close to you telling you to kill yourself over and over. Bit more serious that hearing it online from some random bigoted moron.

EDIT: Oh, and they guy you claim to be talking to says youre full of crap. lmao, nice.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 27, 2017)

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So you think we shouldn't stop people from inciting violence?



You think criminalizing something will honestly stop people from doing it?  Something being illegal never stopped people from doing it before, like banning gun ownership, only people who break the law will own one. Same with this. or with drugs, etc.  Illegality was never an effective means of stopping people from committing crimes. Or with piracy, just because it's illegal doesn't mean people will stop doing it, it only makes something more enticing, more desirable to do.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You're willing to forfeit your liberty for the illusion of safety. That's a dangerous thing to do. Sorry for the 'murica speech. But if you really wanted to kill someone, with enough planning, who could stop you? On the other hand, you suggest that the government should have the right to regulate the voice of its citizens. That's asinine.



It's always interesting to see this "freedom matters" post. In the end, I would remove my freedom to hate any day of the week if it means that I don't cause unnecessary hatred.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> It's always interesting to see this "freedom matters" post. In the end, I would remove my freedom to hate any day of the week if it means that I don't cause unnecessary hatred.


Well, maybe you should move to North Korea then, where they censor EVERYTHING. Have fun kiddo, let us know how you like it there.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> You think criminalizing something will honestly stop people from doing it?  Something being illegal never stopped people from doing it before, like banning gun ownership, only people who break the law will own one. Same with this. or with drugs, etc.  Illegality was never an effective means of stopping people from committing crimes.



It won't stop it. It's not meant to, it will put those who do it away from society.

Do you seriously think laws are there to stop people from doing things? No, they're there to punish people when they do them.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> It won't stop it. It's not meant to, it will put those who do it away from society.
> 
> Do you seriously think laws are there to stop people from doing things? No, they're there to punish people when they do them.



Yes, but it's  not a very good deterrent for some people, either. Sheesh, this is what I get for trying to show the downside of criminalizing. I'm not in favor, I'm just saying a fine would suffice. Incarceration isn't all that effective for this. Just look at the incarceration per capita in the US.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Well, maybe you should move to North Korea then, where they censor EVERYTHING. Have fun kiddo, let us know how you like it there.



Nice strawman.

I'm not asking for people to censor everything. Just punishing those who would attempt to cause hate.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nice strawman.
> 
> I'm not asking for people to censor everything. Just punishing those who would attempt to cause hate.


Why stop there? Once they can censor that, whats to stop them from censoring anything else? You know the saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile."


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Yes, but it's  not a very good deterrent for some people, either.


So what? To build a cohesive society you can't have everyone hating each other. It doesnt matter if those who do it don't care. By not caring they'll pay the price in jail and their chances at a life will be gone.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> It's always interesting to see this "freedom matters" post. In the end, I would remove my freedom to hate any day of the week if it means that I don't cause unnecessary hatred.


I'm baffled. You can't remove hate. That's a ridiculous thing to even suggest. Just like you can't remove ignorance. Just be a good person, not that hard. What you're suggesting is removing the freedom of others. Something people value and take seriously. Something thousands of people died for. That makes you the bad guy.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nice strawman.
> 
> I'm not asking for people to censor everything. Just punishing those who would attempt to cause hate.



I would have to ask what do you mean by "attempt to cause hate"

Do you mean something like "all Faqs should be killed who is with me?" along with meet up dates? - If so then I would have to agree.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Why stop there? Once they can censor that, whats to stop them from censoring anything else? You know the saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile."



That's an issue with corruption. Not the idea I am proposing.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nice strawman.
> 
> I'm not asking for people to censor everything. Just punishing those who would attempt to cause hate.



Why not those dumbass celebrities who make violent threats against leaders in power? Like Madonna or the like? Why aren't they getting punished for threatening to blow up the White House?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> I would have to ask what do you mean by "attempt to cause hate"
> 
> Do you mean something like "all Faqs should be killed who is with me?" along with meet up dates? - If so then I would have to agree.



Yup.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's an issue with corruption. Not the idea I am proposing.


Well.... its also a problem with the idea youre proposing. You need to look at the big picture. Actions have consequences.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Why not those dumbass celebrities who make violent threats against leaders in power? Like Madonna or the like? Why are they getting punished for threatening to blow up the White House?


That's because of your failing democratic system.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's because of your failing democratic system.


Celebrities saying stupid shit has NOTHING to do with our form of government, lmao. What are you even talking about at this point?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Well.... its also a problem with the idea youre proposing. You need to look at the big picture. Actions have consequences.



Exactly. And pen on paper is an action is it not? Simply put, there should be fail safes to stop complete censorship from ever happening. 
I'd rather a society that is cohesive rather than fragmented by belief.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's because of your failing democratic system.



Yeah, I totally have a choice of where I was born and raised in, you think the UK government is any better off, what with that May wanting to control the internet? Pot calling kettle black much? No government is perfect, no country  has a good justice system either, so there's that.

Let me just get the money I don't have and move over to the EU.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

@WeedZ 
25.5 per 100,000 is not 2400%.
You're simply wrong. Very wrong.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Yeah, I totally have a choice of where I was born and raised in, you think the UK government is any better off, what with that May wanting to control the internet?



I thought that was just an example.

Anyway, if you're being serious, they're probably not being punished because they're rich.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Exactly. And pen on paper is an action is it not? Simply put, there should be fail safes to stop complete censorship from ever happening.
> I'd rather a society that is cohesive rather than fragmented by belief.


Yea, just look how well those fail-safes worked in the past....
2nd amendment, anyone?


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> 25.5 per 100,000 is not 2400%.
> You're simply wrong. Very wrong.


First, you have to take the latest which is 34."4" I believe. Then take sweden. 1.4 per 100,000. Then

100%/x%=1.4/34
(100/x)*x=(1.4/34)*x    
100=0.041176470588235*x      _(0.041176470588235)_
100/0.041176470588235=x 
2428.5714285714=x 

x=2428.5714285714

About 2400


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I thought that was just an example.
> 
> Anyway, if you're being serious, they're probably not being punished because they're rich.



And most celebrities are dumbasses anyway, threatening to leave the country just because their precious candidate didn't win.  Boo hoo.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 27, 2017)

Do the math! - Atari


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Yea, just look how well those fail-safes worked in the past....
> 1st amendment, anyone?



https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.

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



the_randomizer said:


> And most celebrities are dumbasses anyway, threatening to leave the country just because their precious candidate didn't win.  Boo hoo.



Not disagreeing


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
> Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.



And why should the government be responsible for what people are responsible for? Citizens should be responsible for what citizens do, government shouldn't be in control, they can't be trusted in any way, shape or form.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
> Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.


Yes, I do.... but we were currently talking about USA's "failed democratic system," remember? Stop grasping at straws to discredit me and actually post a valid argument, please.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
> Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.


But that never happens. Youre suggesting some sort of dystopian orwellian hell. I'm still baffled


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And why should the government be responsible for what people are responsible for? Citizens should be responsible for what citizens do, government shouldn't be in control, they can't be trusted in any way, shape or form.



Isnt exactly what a government is meant to do? Unless of course, you're an anarchist.
Governments exist to keep society working. So it's a governments responsibility to not have hate within its borders.

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



MadMageKefka said:


> Yes, I do.... but we were currently talking about USA's "failed democratic system," remember? Stop grasping at straws to discredit me and actually post a valid argument, please.



Maybe read my reply to randomizer regarding it.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> First, you have to take the latest which is 34."4" I believe. Then take sweden. 1.4 per 100,000. Then
> 
> 100%/x%=1.4/34
> (100/x)*x=(1.4/34)*x
> ...



Latest (2015) is 25.5 though.
It's still higher than Sweden, but as I said, stay away from dangerous areas and you'll suffer no danger.
It's like going to Siberia and complaining that Russia is too cold.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Isnt exactly what a government is meant to do? Unless of course, you're an anarchist.
> Governments exist to keep society working. So it's a governments responsibility to not have hate within its borders.



Yes, but there needs to be a line. They think they should control what we eat, what kind of drinks we consume, how much gas we use, etc. Micromanaging is too far for them to control. People need to be responsible for what they eat, drink, fuel they use, etc.  If I want to eat a triple cheeseburger with a large drink, that's my prerogative, not the government's.

I'm not saying it's right to  hate, no, but criminalizing people is vague, what is hate, really? Hate is subjective. By someone's definition of hate, someone can not agree with Obama or any POTUS and that can be defined as hate.


Edit: You know what, forget it, I'm too stressed and anxious to be part of this, I'm bailing.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> But that never happens. Youre suggesting some sort of dystopian orwellian hell. I'm still baffled



Then that's an issue with government. I'm not arguing that government is perfect. What I am arguing that if these laws are correctly followed there are no negatives.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Isnt exactly what a government is meant to do? Unless of course, you're an anarchist.
> Governments exist to keep society working. So it's a governments responsibility to not have hate within its borders.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


But when governments overreach you have revolt. You have any idea how many people die in a civil war?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> But when governments overreach you have revolt. You have any idea how many people die in a civil war?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope


This has been observed. My country went through a civil war relatively not long ago. One where relatives had to kill each other.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> This has been observed. My country went through a civil war relatively not long ago. One where relatives had to kill each other.



Still a logical fallacy. You can't know until you try as "overreaching" is very different based on what you are doing.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Still a logical fallacy. You can't know until you try as "overreaching" is very different based on what you are doing.


Well let's use a sample for experimentation. Next time you see someone irl saying something you don't like, go up to them and tell them they shouldnt have the right to say that. Then we'll look at the number of violent results compared to peaceful ones. Then we'll know with good evidence.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 27, 2017)

I believe its everyone's right to be a douche bag. Although i may not like what they say, they can say it. I mean if you threatening the life of someone, that should not be aloud. But speech is speech. Protect it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

Stephano said:


> I believe its everyone's right to be a douche bag. Although i may not like what they say, they can say it. I mean if you threatening the life of someone, that should not be aloud. But speech is speech. Protect it.



Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with someone being a douchebag. Just not a prejudiced one.



WeedZ said:


> Well let's use a sample for experimentation. Next time you see someone irl saying something you don't like, go up to them and tell them they shouldnt have the right to say that. Then we'll look at the number of violent results compared to peaceful ones. Then we'll know with good evidence.



But that's not hate speech.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Maybe read my reply to randomizer regarding it.


Ok, let me explain to you how posting on a forum works. In order for me to quote and reply to what you said, I have to read it first (that includes the quote in your post too). This is how language works, we don't just shout random words and assume they will fit. So yea, I did read it, thanks for the tip.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 27, 2017)

How is the UK doing economically?


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with someone being a douchebag. Just not a prejudiced one.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not hate speech.


Do you like hate speech?

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



kingtut said:


> you know, you say that as a joke but there are people who would love enforcing that sort of thing. I do not like it when religious people censor other non religious people, I do not like it the other way around either.


Any religion that organizes does so to enforce their policies or cultural standards. For that reason I believe we should ban 'organized' religion. Personal beliefs should be protected


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

kingtut said:


> you know, you say that as a joke but there are people who would love enforcing that sort of thing. I do not like it when religious people censor other non religious people, I do not like it the other way around either.


Bring the hate on, but I'm ok with that. I'm saying my point then shutting up to keep this thread from derailing, so PM me or start a blog if you wanna discuss this... Ever hear of an atheist running into a crowded area, blowing himself up and screaming "FOR SCIENCE!!!!" Did atheists ever have a crusade? Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people. Ever hear of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fun group of people they are...

I'm not saying religion in inherently bad, I was giving extreme examples, but you have to admit that believing has caused infinitely more problems than NOT believing. Just saying.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Bring the hate on, but I'm ok with that. I'm saying my point then shutting up to keep this thread from derailing, so PM me or start a blog if you wanna discuss this... Ever hear of an atheist running into a crowded area, blowing himself up and screaming "FOR SCIENCE!!!!" Did atheists ever have a crusade? Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people. Ever hear of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fun group of people they are...
> 
> I'm not saying religion in inherently bad, I was giving extreme examples, but you have to admit that believing has caused infinitely more problems than NOT believing. Just saying.



Just to clarify, when you say your ok with that, do you mean banning religions? 

Also correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Oregon shooter anti religion, like I remember reading an article saying he would ask people about their religion before he shoots them and he would shoot religious people. This is from two years ago so I do not remember all the details. but if it is true, I will classify that as an atheist extremist.

but regardless, I do not think religions should be banned even if I disagree with parts of it. I mean wouldn't it be extreme censorship right there?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
> Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.


Can you stop linking this to everyone who replies to you like its the friggin bible please? The link you gave me in this quote is about black and white, giving only 2 options when there are, in fact, more possibilities. I was not doing that in the least. I gave an example of a government I'm familiar with (you know, where I freaking live). Me mentioning my own government doing exactly what I said was the risk of something like your suggestion in no way, shape, or form says anything about any other country. Just because I don't specifically give examples about them and call them by name does NOT mean that I'm acting like they don't exist, its just hard to give an example about a government you know nothing about, right?

The sheer audacity of you linking this site to everyone here.... get over your own ego please. You don't even understand what you're linking.



kingtut said:


> Just to clarify, when you say your ok with that, do you mean banning religions?
> 
> Also correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Oregon shooter anti religion, like I remember reading an article saying he would ask people about their religion before he shoots them and he would shoot religious people. This is from two years ago so I do not remember all the details. but if it is true, I will classify that as an atheist extremist.
> 
> but regardless, I do not think religions should be banned even if I disagree with parts of it. I mean wouldn't it be extreme censorship right there?


Yes, but I'm also not saying its a GOOD solution, just that I, personally, would be okay with it. You bring up some very good points and I'd be happy to discuss them elsewhere if you'd like, but I'm trying not to further derail this thread.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with someone being a douchebag. Just not a prejudiced one.



I think people who are prejudice are scum, but if they say, I hate "x" people, they can say it. Although if they got shanked in an alieway for it, it's there own fault.

The reason why I'm defending it is because it's a slippery slope. If the government takes away something from someone, they will have more power and use that power to take more. I will protect whatever rights the people have, even if I disagree.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Bring the hate on, but I'm ok with that. I'm saying my point then shutting up to keep this thread from derailing, so PM me or start a blog if you wanna discuss this... Ever hear of an atheist running into a crowded area, blowing himself up and screaming "FOR SCIENCE!!!!" Did atheists ever have a crusade? Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people. Ever hear of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fun group of people they are...
> 
> I'm not saying religion in inherently bad, I was giving extreme examples, but you have to admit that believing has caused infinitely more problems than NOT believing. Just saying.



Quick thing to note: If you're going to quote me, do it once.

"Ever hear of an atheist running into a crowded area, blowing himself up and screaming "FOR SCIENCE!!!!" Did atheists ever have a crusade? Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people"

This is always the copy and paste argument.
It's ideology that leads people to blow themselves up. Not religion. Try to pull up a quranic/biblical verse that allows for violence under any circumstance.



MadMageKefka said:


> Ok, let me explain to you how posting on a forum works. In order for me to quote and reply to what you said, I have to read it first (that includes the quote in your post too). This is how language works, we don't just shout random words and assume they will fit. So yea, I did read it, thanks for the tip.



Then you'd know that I didnt mean the US is a failed state. I was merely discussing what I thought was a hypothetical rather than a real world example. So no you clearly did not.



MadMageKefka said:


> The link you gave me in this quote is about black and white, giving only 2 options when there are, in fact, more possibilities. I was not doing that in the least. I gave an example of a government I'm familiar with (you know, where I freaking live). Me mentioning my own government doing exactly what I said was the risk of something like your suggestion in no way, shape, or form says anything about any other country. Just because I don't specifically give examples about them and call them by name does NOT mean that I'm acting like they don't exist, its just hard to give an example about a government you know nothing about, right?



That's the thing though, if it fails because of the way your government works it doesnt make it a failed concept since we're discussing the UK not the USA.
So it is a logical fallacy, it doesnt need to be intentional.

"The sheer audacity of you linking this site to everyone here."

This is a good laugh. I've only done so twice and yet you claim I've been doing so all the time.



MadMageKefka said:


> get over your own ego please.



And I'm arrogant because I pointed out something? I think you're the thin skinned person here seeing as how you're clearly flustered.



MadMageKefka said:


> You don't even understand what you're linking.



I don't think you do.



WeedZ said:


> . For that reason I believe we should ban 'organized' religion.



I thought you were against censorship?

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



Stephano said:


> I think people who are prejudice are scum, but if they say, I hate "x" people, they can say it. Although if they got shanked in an alieway for it, it's there own fault.
> 
> The reason why I'm defending it is because it's a slippery slope. If the government takes away something from someone, they will have more power and use that power to take more. I will protect whatever rights the people have, even if I disagree.



But that's why protest exists, we're still the ones who put them in power are we not? 
So they are here to serve us not the other way around. Simply put, all we have to do is protest and remove them from power.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I thought you were against censorship?


You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence _you're_ on.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> This is always the copy and paste argument.
> It's ideology that leads people to blow themselves up. Not religion. Try to pull up a quranic/biblical verse that allows for violence under any circumstance.


http://www.alternet.org/30-most-violent-exhortations-bible-torah-and-quran 5 seconds on google. There are sooooooo many more. The bible is a pretty messed up book, my dude.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Then you'd know that I didnt mean the US is a failed state. I was merely discussing what I thought was a hypothetical rather than a real world example. So no you clearly did not.


We are a country, not a state.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's the thing though, if it fails because of the way your government works it doesnt make it a failed concept since we're discussing the UK not the USA.
> So it is a logical fallacy, it doesnt need to be intentional.
> 
> "The sheer audacity of you linking this site to everyone here."
> ...


You referenced it at least 3 or 4 times. I'm guessing you read this sometime recently so now you're an expert on debate? I can see what you mean with the original topic being in the UK, but even still that's not what you linked. I gave no options, no choices, no ultimatum, I based my opinion on "irrelevant" information (although, I still don't feel they are all that different, especially given the UK's recent track record with online privacy laws. I'd even say its an even worse threat). So even though I'm willing to admit you are right in this regard, you clearly still don't understand the information you are linking people.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> And I'm arrogant because I pointed out something? I think you're the thin skinned person here seeing as how you're clearly flustered.


Anyone who knows me will get a good laugh from this one. I could give a fuck less about ANYTHING said on the internet. Me using a harsh tone does not mean I'm upset. My entire original point was exactly this, remember? Think what you will, though.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> I don't think you do.


No u


I'm not discussing this with you here any further, its just a back-and-forth at this point and clearly pointless for both of us. I don't blame you for responding to what I said, either, just putting a stop to it. We just don't see each other's side of things, and that's clearly how its going to remain. Feel free to PM me if you wish to keep arguing.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence _you're_ on.



Banning people from sharing beliefs is censorship.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Banning people from sharing beliefs is censorship.



And we all know censorship is for pantywaists.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Banning people from sharing beliefs is censorship.


That's not why they organize together


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> http://www.alternet.org/30-most-violent-exhortations-bible-torah-and-quran 5 seconds on google. There are sooooooo many more. The bible is a pretty messed up book, my dude.
> 
> 
> We are a country, not a state.
> ...



I can't be bothered right now to debunk that source, maybe later.



MadMageKefka said:


> We are a country, not a state.



Speaking of ignorance:
State:

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.



MadMageKefka said:


> You referenced it at least 3 or 4 times. I'm guessing you read this sometime recently so now you're an expert on debate?



You're new, right? I've been in a number of these arguments, anyone who's been here as long as I have will tell you that. 



MadMageKefka said:


> So even though I'm willing to admit you are right in this regard, you clearly still don't understand the information you are linking people.



Show me one place I have not understood?



MadMageKefka said:


> I'm not discussing this with you here any further, its just a back-and-forth at this point and clearly pointless for both of us. I don't blame you for responding to what I said, either, just putting a stop to it. We just don't see each other's side of things, and that's clearly how its going to remain. Feel free to PM me if you wish to keep arguing.



One thing to note, I don't hate you or anything. To me, the thing I care about most is debate, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.




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



WeedZ said:


> That's not why they organize together


Enlighten me.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence _you're_ on.


I thought we had... like... a Constitutional amendment that... protects that right

I'm actually pretty sure it's the first one even


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I thought we had... like... a Constitutional amendment that... protects that right
> 
> I'm actually pretty sure it's the first one even


It protects peaceful assembly. I would argue that's it's harmful.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> It protects peaceful assembly. I would argue that's it's harmful.


Assembling for a church/mass/synagogue/temple/mosque service is literally one of the most peaceful things you can do. It's when you get extremist, fundamentalist whackos leading the services that things become an issue

But then we get into the issue of banning hate speech


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 27, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Assembling for a church/mass/synagogue/temple/mosque service is literally one of the most peaceful things you can do. It's when you get extremist, fundamentalist whackos leading the services that things become an issue
> 
> But then we get into the issue of banning hate speech


It's all connected. Typically church services revolve around telling people how to live in accordance with the moral standards set in place by the dogma. It's also not uncommon for these services to encourage it's members to recruit others as their lifestyles are seen as heathenistic. It's a machine built on control -> recruit -> control. I could agree with Dino and say that banning religion would stop hate speech. When I think of peaceful assembly I think of people starting soup kitchens to feed the needy, or those that occupy Wallstreet to oppose poverty. Not a bunch of cultists colluding to enforce their morals.

I would argue that no religious gathering contributes positively to their respective communities. Btw, those amendments are among documents, among which, one that declares our freedom from religious persecution. 'Organized' religion has already been detrimental to the point that another nation spawned to get away from it.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 27, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> It's all connected. Typically church services revolve around telling people how to live in accordance with the moral standards set in place by the dogma. It's also not uncommon for these services to encourage it's members to recruit others as their lifestyles are seen as heathenistic. It's a machine built on control -> recruit -> control. I could agree with Dino and say that banning religion would stop hate speech. When I think of peaceful assembly I think of people starting soup kitchens to feed the needy, or those that occupy Wallstreet to oppose poverty. Not a bunch of cultists colluding to enforce their morals.
> 
> I would argue that no religious gathering contributes positively to their respective communities. Btw, those amendments are among documents, among which, one that declares our freedom from religious persecution. 'Organized' religion has already been detrimental to the point that another nation spawned to get away from it.


I see your logic, but Most church or religious gatherings here in America are, for the most part, pretty peaceful. But just because a few people start cults, brainwash a bunch of people, and have them kill themselves or others doesn't mean every religious gathering is going to be harmful. In a way it's the same logic train as saying you should ban not only knifes but forks and whatever else could be used as a weapon. Most churches around my house actually help the community by holding food drives and whatnot. And also I still think there would be hate crimes here in America anyways if religion was banned because of race and even politics. Idiots are still going to do idiotic things just because others don't agree with them.


----------



## DarthDub (Jul 27, 2017)

It'd be nice if they took care of the REAL terrorists..


----------



## Stephano (Jul 27, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> But that's why protest exists, we're still the ones who put them in power are we not?
> So they are here to serve us not the other way around. Simply put, all we have to do is protest and remove them from power.



Yes we are the ones who put people in office, but there are cases where a politician does not fulfil their constituents wishes. And that's what protest is for. But the act of protesting does not remove someone from office. If they do something illegal or do something that causes them to resign will kick them out, but protesting exists to shed light on an issue.

Now, with that being said, I'm not sure how the pertains to speech. Now while people can freely protests "hate speech" and what not, I would disagree with those protesters. I view them as trying to invoke politicians to silence speech. I don't like the idea of giving politicians that power.

You can freely disagree with me, but I want to uphold our bill of rights as much as possible, despite its controversial nature and my own views of, "don't be rude to others." Although you can freely be mean and rude. It's your right.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 27, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Yes we are the ones who put people in office, but there are cases where a politician does not fulfil their constituents wishes. And that's what protest is for. But the act of protesting does not remove someone from office. If they do something illegal or do something that causes them to resign will kick them out, but protesting exists to shed light on an issue.
> 
> Now, with that being said, I'm not sure how the pertains to speech. Now while people can freely protests "hate speech" and what not, I would disagree with those protesters. I view them as trying to invoke politicians to silence speech. I don't like the idea of giving politicians that power.
> 
> You can freely disagree with me, but I want to uphold our bill of rights as much as possible, despite its controversial nature and my own views of, "don't be rude to others." Although you can freely be mean and rude. It's your right.



That's the thing though, once you've protested there are a few things the corrupt individual can do, either:
1. Resign avoiding the controversy all together.
2. Try to quash protests through violence
3. Stay, although in most political systems they person can be removed from their position

Of course the possibilities are not limited to just these three, I just think these are the most likely.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's the thing though, once you've protested there are a few things the corrupt individual can do, either:
> 1. Resign avoiding the controversy all together.
> 2. Try to quash protests through violence
> 3. Stay, although in most political systems they person can be removed from their position
> ...



Of course they can do more... although i can't think of anything either. lol

1. Sometimes that happens. People fight for certain things fora long time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If you believe in something, you shouldn't just quit believing in it or quit protesting. Fight for the change you want to see in the world. I might call someone an idiot for fighting for a certain cause, but i'd never tell them to stop.
3. This should never be done. This would be silencing someone's right to speech. Unless the protesters are violent or disturbing the peace. If that's the case, then I would have a lot of fun with a taser and pepper spray. (Only if i'm provoked though. I don't advocate the start of any violence)
3. How exactly would they be removed? If they do something illegal, than that's obvious. But I can't think of any reason a politician would be impeached. Typically, if a politician does not satisfy his constituents, then they wouldn't get a second term.

Any ways, i think we got off topic of the subject of "Speech."


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> If free speech is being able to send *death threats* and *insult* people, I don't want of free speech.


Yes, these two things are equivalents.

Maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet if you're so worried about *gasp* insults.  Or maybe we can find you a safe space somewhere.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 28, 2017)

Did I even only talk about the Internet lol?


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence _you're_ on.


Define "impose." I don't think there is anything wrong with someone sharing their believes with others (Whether political, moral, or religious). People can talk about or share anything they want with someone. If you do not care about it, then respectfully decline. Or if they are being awful like the West burro Baptist church, then tell them to Piss off. Just because i'm a christian, i would never want a Mormon to stop sharing their believes. Its all just a form of speech that's protected. They same goes for people who don't believe in anything. I wouldn't want to silence those individuals, even though i may disagree with them. It's all just a form of speech that has to be protected.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 28, 2017)

Discrimination is illegal anyways, so of course discrimination speech is illegal too. That's logic.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Yes, these two things are equivalents.
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet if you're so worried about *gasp* insults.  Or maybe we can find you a safe space somewhere.


Me personally, i wouldn't call death threats as a form of free speech because that's threatening to take someones right to life away. And one's rights to life, speech, ect. can not be used to silence another person's right to life, speech, ect.

Insults? Yes, free speech. Anyone who is offended by words needs to grow a pair.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Of course they can do more... although i can't think of anything either. lol
> 
> 1. Sometimes that happens. People fight for certain things fora long time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If you believe in something, you shouldn't just quit believing in it or quit protesting. Fight for the change you want to see in the world. I might call someone an idiot for fighting for a certain cause, but i'd never tell them to stop.
> 3. This should never be done. This would be silencing someone's right to speech. Unless the protesters are violent or disturbing the peace. If that's the case, then I would have a lot of fun with a taser and pepper spray. (Only if i'm provoked though. I don't advocate the start of any violence)
> ...



1. I can agree with that
2. Not disagreeing here either.
3. In a perfect political system, a leader with overwhelming negativity should be removed from their position.

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



Stephano said:


> Me personally, i wouldn't call death threats as a form of free speech because that's threatening to take someones right to life away. And one's rights to life, speech, ect. can not be used to silence another person's right to life, speech, ect.
> 
> Insults? Yes, free speech. Anyone who is offended by words needs to grow a pair.



But balls are pretty fragile dude.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 1. I can agree with that
> 2. Not disagreeing here either.
> 3. In a perfect political system, a leader with overwhelming negativity should be removed from their position.



3. Yes in a perfect world. Although nowadays, everyone is quite split. Sometimes evenly or sometimes one has a big majority but not like a 99 to 1 ratio.
Evil people should not be in office, i agree. But i can't think of a time when someone like who we are talking about has been democratically elected into office and had to be removed. If you can name someone, I would love to know. Just for the sake of learning. No disrespect to you.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jul 28, 2017)

*you're


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> But balls are pretty fragile dude.


touche. 
But the metaphor stands.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> 3. Yes in a perfect world. Although nowadays, everyone is quite split. Sometimes evenly or sometimes one has a big majority but not like a 99 to 1 ratio.
> Evil people should not be in office, i agree. But i can't think of a time when someone like who we are talking about has been democratically elected into office and had to be removed. If you can name someone, I would love to know. Just for the sake of learning. No disrespect to you.



Well probably not seeing as how hate speech laws are commonplace in the western world, and we have yet to see serious censorship other than in Germany.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well probably not seeing as how hate speech laws are commonplace in the western world, and we have yet to see serious censorship other than in Germany.


Well, that is good you haven't seen any censorship. Now, while you may have your own believes, all i can ask is that you not let anyone censor you and not be afraid to speak. The world is getting more frail everyday. Life is hard and people are rude and it all just sucks. That is reality. People try to hide this and it just can't be hidden. The sooner people realize this, the stronger we all become.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Did I even only talk about the Internet lol?


Well you are here on the interenet, are you not?  There are a lot of mean things said on the internet.  If it bothers you so much, you should cut the cable and move to a nice safe-space.  I hear the Amish are rather friendly people, and you won't be tempted with the internet full of mean people when you are living amongst them.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 28, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> To correct myself, they actually didn't delete the tweet. It's on there and with over 5k comments.
> 
> View attachment 93756
> 
> ...



bruh none of this makes sense
people aren't even allowed to carry like a pocket knife if some guy charges at them?
this is just making everyone have no way to defend themselves if someone wants to kill people.
the guys who commit crimes will still find a way, no anti-knife law will stop it

also i ain't no wild yee-haw gun advocate but i think cops that patrol normal areas in the UK should be allowed to have pistols.
If you find some giant carrying a shotgun, the cops should be able to fight back rather than just yelling "put down your gun" and having their brains get blown out
sure police brutality exists, but them having guns still saves quite a lot of lives


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 28, 2017)

We should rename American "freedom of speech" in "freedom of shitbag-ness"


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> We should rename American "freedom of speech" in "freedom of shitbag-ness"



people should be allowed to be mean and act like shitbags though
it's like human nature to have negativity, and you can't just pretend it doesn't exist


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> We should rename American "freedom of speech" in "freedom of shitbag-ness"


Well under your laws, you'd be off to jail just about now for saying mean things.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> We should rename American "freedom of speech" in "freedom of shitbag-ness"


I'll keep my freedom of shitbagness any day over being in a place like North Korea where the censorship is so bad you'll get shot if your caught with any media from the south.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Well under your laws, you'd be off to jail just about now for saying mean things.


Glad you know nothing about our laws.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Glad you know nothing about our laws.


well i know you're not allowed to carry knives soon


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 28, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> I'll keep my freedom of shitbagness any day over being in a place like North Korea where the censorship is so bad you'll get shot if your caught with any media from the south.


I complain about the weather all the time, but I would rather live all my life under this shitty sunless rainy place than boarding a spaceship directly to the sun.

PS: but what about some holidays in some sunny resort?.... no!, to the sun! let's go to the extremes!


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> one is the attack of an individual.
> the other is an attack of an ideology.
> 
> It's not vague at all.


What if you're criticizing someone as a person, for example, the Prime Minister? What if you just don't like someone and you say that to them (i.e. call your ex a "cheating bitch")? If the person you say it to is of another ethnicity, couldn't that also be interpreted as "hate speech" in a court of law, especially by a cunning lawyer? I think the wording is pretty vague.

Imo, there isn't any good way to police for harmful language without also allowing political adversaries or those who dislike someone from "trolling" the system. Language is highly, highly subjective. Once person could find a certain statement offensive while another person, even of the same ethnicity, could care less. Language changes over time, and what might be offensive once might later be an accepted term (i.e. calling an LGBT individual a "queer"). Even if you were to get accurate wording at one point, I think the dynamism of language itself would render that wording inaccurate at a later date. Therefore, "hate speech" laws can be very harmful. One dastardly usage I could think of is a political using a hate speech law to silence their detractors. Lawyers can be very, very crafty, especially with loose language. This is why I think hate speech laws just do not work.



StarTrekVoyager said:


> We should rename American "freedom of speech" in "freedom of shitbag-ness"



See above as to why any attempt to limit freedom of speech could be detrimental and have unintended consequences.
There will always be idiots and douchebags, but freedom of speech should never be questioned. One day it's silencing hate speech, the next day it's silencing political dissent. I can't get on board with any attempt to censor speech.
The douchebags should be dealt with on a social level. They should be socially changed, not forced to change through laws. Banning them from being dumbasses doesn't stop them from being dumbasses. Rather, social change does, and it creates a ripple effect throughout communities. If you want to deal with haters, you can't do it by force, it never works.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Insults? Yes, free speech. Anyone who is offended by words needs to grow a pair.


I agree, but there _are _a lot of people who, for one reason or another, are very emotionally fragile


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree, but there _are _a lot of people who, for one reason or another, are very emotionally fragile



Indeed, but at the same time, political correctness needs to be toned down a bit IMO.  Just my two cents.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Orangy57 said:


> well i know you're not allowed to carry knives soon


Not true, you can't carry knifes with a non-folding blade over 3 inches long

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



the_randomizer said:


> Indeed, but at the same time, political correctness needs to be toned down a bit IMO.  Just my two cents.


Eh... recently I've been seeing "political correctness" used as a synonym for "politeness," so I'm wary to agree there


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree, but there _are _a lot of people who, for one reason or another, are very emotionally fragile


I can understand that. This is my stance....
When i was in 5th grade, i was diagnosed with Aspergers. If you don't already know, its a form of Autism. The disorder mainly messes with one's emotions. I would sometimes get very happy for no reason or i would get very upset over the smallest things. I would take things to seriously, freak out and get upset. I sometimes still do, it's something i have been struggling with my whole life. Despite this, while i did have help to fight this, i wasn't treated any differently. Aspergers makes a person's emotions weak and sensitive. It was through harsh realities and lack of special treatment, that i was able to see things as they really are.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Eh... recently I've been seeing "political correctness" used as a synonym for "politeness," so I'm wary to agree there


It's more like "forced politeness," and I'm not too keen on being forced into behaving a certain way.
I wish we could all just agree to be nice, period. But no forcing, please.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> I can understand that. This is my stance....
> When i was in 5th grade, i was diagnosed with Aspergers. If you don't already know, its a form of Autism. The disorder mainly messes with one's emotions. I would sometimes get very happy for no reason or i would get very upset over the smallest things. I would take things to seriously, freak out and get upset. I sometimes still do, it's something i have been struggling with my whole life. Despite this, while i did have help to fight this, i wasn't treated any differently. Aspergers makes a person's emotions weak and sensitive. It was through harsh realities and lack of special treatment, that i was able to see things as they really are.


I'd argue that the most beneficial treatment anyone with emotional instability could get is the same as anyone else would get, unless otherwise specified. I'd hate feeling patronized. But again, if someone asks for a reasonable accommodation they should be given it.


HaloEliteLegend said:


> It's more like "forced politeness," and I'm not too keen on being forced into behaving a certain way.
> I wish we could all just agree to be nice, period. But no forcing, please.


Right, politeness that isn't genuine obviously means nothing. But I see no reason why people should criticize _other _people's choices to be polite


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Right, politeness that isn't genuine obviously means nothing. But I see no reason why people should criticize _other _people's choices to be polite


They shouldn't, but some do for some reason, haha. I don't like political correctness because of the "forced" aspect, but being polite is always nice.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not true, you can't carry knifes with a non-folding blade over 3 inches long
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Then again I'm not in the right frame of mind right now and shouldn't express my opinions


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> being polite is always nice.


Fuck this PC bullshit

I kid I kid


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd argue that the most beneficial treatment anyone with emotional instability could get is the same as anyone else would get, unless otherwise specified. I'd hate feeling patronized. But again, if someone asks for a reasonable accommodation they should be given it.



Oh, i'm not saying accommodations should not be given. But when it comes to speech and talking, a person should not be sheltered from obstacles. They might need help getting though it, but they should be reminded that this is how the world is and need to be taught not how to change it, but persevere through it.

Am i off topic? I think i'm half on, half off.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Then again I'm not in the right frame of mind right now and shouldn't express my opinions


Not at all true, you are adding to the discussion after all


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jul 28, 2017)

Ah, yes, the UK and Europe, where saying you want to kill all infidels and establish a caliphate is fine, but where criticising those beliefs is "hateful". 

It's very saddening to see people here defending censorship and the erosion of the freedoms of speech and expression.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Oh, i'm not saying accommodations should not be given. But when it comes to speech and talking, a person should not be sheltered from obstacles. They might need help getting though it, but they should be reminded that this is how the world is and need to be taught not how to change it, but persevere through it.
> 
> Am i off topic? I think i'm half on, half off.


Lol I don't know if there still is a topic

No I completely agree dude, learning the cruelty of the world is an inevitable developmental step. However, as you said, there are ways to be helped through tough situations, and that's why people automatically build "safe spaces" around themselves that they can retreat to if need be

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



Xiphiidae said:


> Ah, yes, the UK and Europe, where saying you want to kill all infidels and establish a caliphate is fine, but where criticising those beliefs is "hateful".
> 
> It's very saddening to see people here defending censorship and the erosion of the freedoms of speech and expression.


Fairly certain death threats falls under the "hate speech" umbrella, and I don't think "caliphate" means what you think it means


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Lol I don't know if there still is a topic
> 
> No I completely agree dude, learning the cruelty of the world is an inevitable developmental step. However, as you said, there are ways to be helped through tough situations, and that's why people automatically build "safe spaces" around themselves that they can retreat to if need be


I KNOW RIGHT. These people need to learn that reality sucks and you just have to go through it. They are not special, they should suffer through it like the rest of us. At least we are "man" enough to go through it.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Glad you know nothing about our laws.


I'm speaking you personally, not your country.  You expressed the desire to have people thrown in jail for saying insulting things.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not at all true, you are adding to the discussion after all



Well, it doesn't feel like it.  It's been a very off day for me, like, really off. The reason I don't like PC terms is because some of them are condescending, like calling "STD", "STI" oh yeah, calling a disease
an infection is _*so *_much better, right? See what I mean?  Or better example, instead of calling someone a boyfriend or girlfriend, they use the term "partner", that's just me though. Like, it's as if we can't say anything without someone getting uppity.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, it doesn't feel like it.  It's been a very off day for me, like, really off. The reason I don't like PC terms is because some of them are condescending, like calling "STD", "STI" oh yeah, calling a disease
> an infection is _*so *_much better, right? See what I mean?  Or better example, instead of calling someone a boyfriend or girlfriend, they use the term "partner", that's just me though. Like, it's as if we can't say anything without someone getting uppity.


I don't see why people shouldn't just use the term they prefer. And "partner" is a relatively "safe" term to use if, for instance, you don't want to out yourself to strangers


Stephano said:


> I KNOW RIGHT. These people need to learn that reality sucks and you just have to go through it. They are not special, they should suffer through it like the rest of us. At least we are "man" enough to go through it.


Eh, everyone has hardships they need to overcome. I don't think it has to do with how "manly" someone is, they either overcome it themselves or with help. I haven't seen many examples where people have complained unreasonably about a situation they're in


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't see why people shouldn't just use the term they prefer. And "partner" is a relatively "safe" term to use if, for instance, you don't want to out yourself to strangers
> 
> Eh, everyone has hardships they need to overcome. I don't think it has to do with how "manly" someone is, they either overcome it themselves or with help. I haven't seen many examples where people have complained unreasonably about a situation they're in



I withdraw my opinion in that case. *sigh*


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Me personally, i wouldn't call death threats as a form of free speech because that's threatening to take someones right to life away. And one's rights to life, speech, ect. can not be used to silence another person's right to life, speech, ect.
> 
> Insults? Yes, free speech. Anyone who is offended by words needs to grow a pair.



Thank you! Your right to freedom does not allow you to make anyone else feel unsafe. Whoever thinks defacing religious properties or communities with racial or anti-<insertReligionHere> slurs is freedom of speech/expression should get themselves educated.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't see why people shouldn't just use the term they prefer. And "partner" is a relatively "safe" term to use if, for instance, you don't want to out yourself to strangers
> 
> Eh, everyone has hardships they need to overcome. I don't think it has to do with how "manly" someone is, they either overcome it themselves or with help. I haven't seen many examples where people have complained unreasonably about a situation they're in


Manly as a synonym for bold, brave, courageous, ect. Thus the quotes.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Manly as a synonym for bold, brace, courageous, ect. Thus the quotes.


Sorry, while I was kind of insinuating what you thought I was, I was also trying to say everyone eventually makes that leap no matter how bold or courageous they're outwardly perceived to be


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry, while I was kind of insinuating what you thought I was, I was also trying to say everyone eventually makes that leap no matter how bold or courageous they're outwardly perceived to be



Eventually ya, they do. 


But, maybe not on the near future. 
The more PC the world gets, the smaller steps mankind takes. Sooner or later, we will going backwards unless things change.
I hate to be a debby-downer.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Eventually ya, they do.
> 
> 
> But, maybe not on the near future.
> ...


Gonna have to disagree with you there, political correctness is simply a buzzword used to get one wing angry at the other, just as bigotry is. Both are obviously issues, but not nearly as much as people make it out to be, at least as far as I can tell


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Gonna have to disagree with you there, political correctness is simply a buzzword used to get one wing angry at the other, just as bigotry is. Both are obviously issues, but not nearly as much as people make it out to be, at least as far as I can tell


I pray that your right. Although, it does make sense why it's overblown in the media. I may live in the south but there is no PC here. I guess what we see is the minority. 
However, things like this and Canada's bill 89 make me think otherwise.

I may not know proportions, but I know what I want and believe the World should be. And that's good enough for me.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Stephano said:


> I pray that your right. Although, it does make sense why it's overblown in the media. I may live in the south but there is no PC here. I guess what we see is the minority.
> However, things like this and Canada's bill 89 make me think otherwise.
> 
> I may not know proportions, but I know what I want and believe the World should be. And that's good enough for me.


What channels/outlets do you watch


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry, while I was kind of insinuating what you thought I was, I was also trying to say everyone eventually makes that leap no matter how bold or courageous they're outwardly perceived to be



Did you quote me just now? The Temp notified me you did but I see nothing.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> What if you're criticizing someone as a person, for example, the Prime Minister? What if you just don't like someone and you say that to them (i.e. call your ex a "cheating bitch")? If the person you say it to is of another ethnicity, couldn't that also be interpreted as "hate speech" in a court of law, especially by a cunning lawyer? I think the wording is pretty vague.



 Well no, this is what comes from a lack of knowledge of the law in the UK.
There's a pretty detailed description of what constitutes hate speech, what you've been trying to do is finding loopholes which can be simply explained. So, before I just show you the description I'll discuss some flaws in your argument.

Criticism is not hate speech. Just compare the definitions:
"the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes."

-Criticism

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden"

- Hate speech

So, criticism is the disapproval based on falsifiable evidence, whereas hate speech is an expression of hatred without the requirement of evidence/basis. So what do they mean by this?
If the above were the only thing in UK law that described hate speech then yes, it would be vague. But it's not.

"

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]"


I think this is pretty clear, they must clearly show intent to stir up racial hatred, so they must at least mention something that identifies a specific race or religion etc.

So no, there is very little room for interpretation.
I'd chalk that down to ignorance of law, no offence of course.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
(All you had to was google search, dude)

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



Stephano said:


> Well, that is good you haven't seen any censorship. Now, while you may have your own believes, all i can ask is that you not let anyone censor you and not be afraid to speak. The world is getting more frail everyday. Life is hard and people are rude and it all just sucks. That is reality. People try to hide this and it just can't be hidden. The sooner people realize this, the stronger we all become.



Indeed.

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



grossaffe said:


> Well under your laws, you'd be off to jail just about now for saying mean things.


Look above 

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



Xiphiidae said:


> Ah, yes, the UK and Europe, where saying you want to kill all infidels and establish a caliphate is fine, but where criticising those beliefs is "hateful".
> 
> It's very saddening to see people here defending censorship and the erosion of the freedoms of speech and expression.



Ignorance. Prove your claim.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't think "caliphate" means what you think it means



Most who think they know what Islam is, do not.
I could bet you about 9/10 of you think Jihad means holy war.


----------



## geodeath (Jul 28, 2017)

Orangy57 said:


> bruh none of this makes sense
> people aren't even allowed to carry like a pocket knife if some guy charges at them?
> this is just making everyone have no way to defend themselves if someone wants to kill people.
> the guys who commit crimes will still find a way, no anti-knife law will stop it
> ...



Just replying to let you know that they asked the patrol police (regular ones, not special units or others) whether they would prefer to have a gun and the big percentage said no. This comes down to culture really and i do not mean it is to say that cops here are culturally better, just different.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What channels/outlets do you watch


I watch everything from independent to mainstream. I try to get a broad understanding of what's going on. Sure I have my biases, but I want to look at everything so I can defend my arguments.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
> 
> (a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
> (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
> Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]"


So every 13 year old kid who calls every one niggers on Call of Duty is going to prison then. "Stirring up racial hatred" is also not clearly defined, so even the most innocuous words or phrases could be construed as such. It's still all subjective.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> So every 13 year old kid who calls every one niggers on Call of Duty is going to prison then. "Stirring up racial hatred" is also not clearly defined, so even the most innocuous words or phrases could be construed as such. It's still all subjective.



You do know there are such things as severity in law right?
If a kid were to do it they'd be told off.

It's the same reason we have different degrees of manslaughter.

"
This offence refers to:


deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
distributing racist material to the public
making inflammatory public speeches
creating racist websites on the Internet
inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent."
Please do at least some research man.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Did you quote me just now? The Temp notified me you did but I see nothing.


I had started typing something earlier but deleted it. The Temp snuck it in as a draft that I didn't see though, sorry for the confusion


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

How about we just kill everyone? Problem solved.


----------



## Plstic (Jul 28, 2017)

lcie nimbus said:


> dude, i say screw privacy if it means getting criminals off the streets, but i'm also pretty sure they can distinguish between trolling and actual "hate".


Screw you if you think privacy is moot. Also the nothing the hide is not an excuse. Most people break 3 or 4 laws a day without even knowing.


----------



## XDel (Jul 28, 2017)

We live in a stupid stupid world. 

When I was growing up, we were taught to nevermind what people had to say about us. 

"I'm rubber, your glue", etc.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I can't be bothered right now to debunk that source, maybe later.


Later apparently meant in 5 seconds and in the same post, lol. That didn't take long. Or did you mean the link I provided? Confusing since you quoted the entire post... If that's the case, I'm willing to bet its because you know you're wrong. I can't speak for any other book, I haven't read them, but the bible is PACKED with condoned violence. TONS of it.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Speaking of ignorance:
> State:
> 
> a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.


We are the United STATES of America. Our COUNTRY is made up of multiple states. Although calling it a state _might_ be technically correct, considering USA is made up of 50 smaller governments / territories called (take a guess) STATES, anyone here would tell you that sounds wrong. USA is not a state, Massachusetts is a state. Texas is a state. I hope you get the point. If you call the entire USA a state, you're gonna confuse just about anyone here. I'm sorry, but when talking about USA (or other countries with states like Mexico) calling the entire country a state is wrong.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> You're new, right? I've been in a number of these arguments, anyone who's been here as long as I have will tell you that.


Eh, about a year. Little over. Obviously I don't know you well enough to make a claim like I did seriously, the point was more that you seem to like that website you linked a bit too much.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Show me one place I have not understood?


I did... I literally spelled out for you how the quote of mine that you linked the black-and-white logical fallacy definition to does not fit. If you really can't see that, good luck to you. It wasn't a matter of limiting the options I gave to make my argument seem more valid (intentional or not) there were no "options" at all. I gave a single example that you considered to be irrelevant information, which I do kinda understand. Still not a black-and-white logical fallacy, though.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> One thing to note, I don't hate you or anything. To me, the thing I care about most is debate, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.


That's not it at all. Id honestly prefer a "harsh" debate as things are often more clear when not sugar-coated. The reason I'm trying to put a stop to this is because I think it would be seen as "bickering" by most people and I don't wanna get either of us warning points or end up getting the thread locked or something stupid. Plus, its clear at this point that neither of us are going to see things the other person's way. That's fine and all, but it also means there is literally no point to continue arguing over it. No hard feelings or anything like that. Again though, If you really feel you have more to say to me on this, you can PM me, or you can open a blog about it if you'd like it to be public. You can get away with arguing in blogs as long as it doesn't get out of control from what I've seen.


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

XDel said:


> We live in a stupid stupid world.
> 
> When I was growing up, we were taught to nevermind what people had to say about us.
> 
> "I'm rubber, your glue", etc.


The problem with that is that it is biologically impossible to grow skin impervious to everything said about us throughout our entire lives unless we also happen to not give a shit about _anything_. "Don't feed the trolls" is bad advice because the troll is very likely to a) try something else that will get under your skin such as getting physical or b) go after somebody else who will cave much easier than you. Some turds will keep hammering at their target until they crack, and they eventually will if the turd doesn't run out of things to hit them with (and if one person doesn't do the trick, grab your friends! I'm sure it'll be a riot!). No one is totally invincible, acting like we can be without getting rid of our ability to feel emotion period is nothing short of stupid. There is a reason we have laws and "common sense" and it's why lines are drawn because without them we'd have collapsed a long time ago, but so far they are ineffective because no one truly upholds them and humanity is only getting worse. Just short of removing emotion (and thought in the process), wiping out the human species is the only effective way to put a stop to this because we humans as a whole are not inclined to be kind even though we have the capacity for it. Being kind is largely taught from someone who is going against the grain (and in the natural world of kill or be killed/survival of the fittest, kindness is very bad at keeping us alive). Our base nature of survival, pursuit of power, and pursuit of pleasure above most else makes our species just shy of outright evil as it is primarily defined at best because it lends itself too much to virtually everything wrong with this planet.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

Blue Sun said:


> The problem with that is that it is biologically impossible to grow skin impervious to everything said about us throughout our entire lives unless we also happen tonot give a shit about _anything_. There exists people who are assholes and will keep hammering at their target until they crack (and if one person doesn't do the trick, grab your friends! I'm sure it'll be a riot!). No one is totally invincible, acting like we can be without getting rid of our ability to feel emotion period is nothing short of stupid. There is a reason we have laws and "common sense" and it's why lines are drawn because without them we'd have collapsed a long time ago, but so far they are ineffective because no one truly upholds them and humanity is only getting worse. Just short of removing emotion (and thought in the process), wiping out the human species is the only effective way to put a stop to this because we humans as a whole are not inclined to be kind even though we have the capacity for it. Being kind is largely taught from someone who is going against the grain. Our base nature of survival, pursuit of power, and pursuit of pleasure above most else makes our species just shy of outright evil as it is primarily define at best because it lends itself too much to virtually everything wrong with this planet.


Online though? Just get twitter or whatever to add an option to filter out comments from a particular user. Then you don't have to lay your tender virgin eyes on those terrible, horrible, deadly words. The person wont even know they are blocked because for all they know, you could be seeing it, but not responding. ....or you could just stop reading them. Herp.

So your other point is that sometimes people don't stop. Well.... you're wrong. Trust me on this: ALL bullies / trolls / spammers / whatever eventually get bored. If you continue to get all butthurt over what they are doing, then yea.... they are gonna have fun with it and not stop. If you (and I know this is so insanely tough for some of you) JUST IGNORE THEM, they will EVENTUALLY get bored and stop. Maybe a month later, maybe more, but they will eventually get bored if it gets no reaction out of you. I could understand if a person was harassing you in real life, but online? There are so many ways to deal with it already, police action seems like a bit much to me unless its strait up death threats or something physically dangerous.

One more thing: I'm sorry, but people need to grow a pair / spine / something that makes them less weak. If words HONESTLY bother you that much (keep in mind physical harassment is very different) then I think you need to get off the internet. Completely. Getting mad at peoples (albeit often misguided) opinions on the internet is insane. Getting butthurt because someone is trolling you online is a bit more understandable, but if you wish to continue using the internet, you're gonna have to get used to it. Just because the UK takes police action on racist / whatever hatred remarks doesn't mean every other country in the world will too. There will still be people, out of reach of the law, that can say whatever the fuck they want to you. Whether or not you like it, this sort of problem will ALWAYS be a thing online, and if you can't deal with it, you need to leave before its too late.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Later apparently meant in 5 seconds and in the same post, lol. That didn't take long. Or did you mean the link I provided? Confusing since you quoted the entire post... If that's the case, I'm willing to bet its because you know you're wrong. I can't speak for any other book, I haven't read them, but the bible is PACKED with condoned violence. TONS of it.



I said I'd debunk the source if I was bothered. 
But simply linking me a source and telling me "evidence" is pretty pathetic, no offence.
"You know your wrong"
Nope.



MadMageKefka said:


> We are the United STATES of America. Our COUNTRY is made up of multiple states. Although calling it a state _might_ be technically correct, considering USA is made up of 50 smaller governments / territories called (take a guess) STATES, anyone here would tell you that sounds wrong. USA is not a state, Massachusetts is a state. Texas is a state. I hope you get the point. If you call the entire USA a state, you're gonna confuse just about anyone here. I'm sorry, but when talking about USA (or other countries with states like Mexico) calling the entire country a state is wrong.



It isnt when that's what the word means. Just because you don't agree with the definition doesnt make it any less true.



MadMageKefka said:


> the point was more that you seem to like that website you linked a bit too much.



It's a good way to point out logical flaws in an argument. I recommend you use it on me if something seems off .



MadMageKefka said:


> I literally spelled out for you how the quote of mine that you linked the black-and-white logical fallacy definition to does not fit. If you really can't see that, good luck to you. It wasn't a matter of limiting the options I gave to make my argument seem more valid (intentional or not) there were no "options" at all. I gave a single example that you considered to be irrelevant information, which I do kinda understand. Still not a black-and-white logical fallacy, though.



Now that i look at it again it would be much closer to a slippery slope fallacy. 
So you're right in a sense.



MadMageKefka said:


> That's not it at all. Id honestly prefer a "harsh" debate as things are often more clear when not sugar-coated. The reason I'm trying to put a stop to this is because I think it would be seen as "bickering" by most people and I don't wanna get either of us warning points or end up getting the thread locked or something stupid. Plus, its clear at this point that neither of us are going to see things the other person's way. That's fine and all, but it also means there is literally no point to continue arguing over it. No hard feelings or anything like that. Again though, If you really feel you have more to say to me on this, you can PM me, or you can open a blog about it if you'd like it to be public. You can get away with arguing in blogs as long as it doesn't get out of control from what I've seen.



I'm not a fan of harsh debates. I'd rather a debate where things are clearly put, but with a basic level of respect between the debaters.


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

Blue Sun said:


> The problem with that is that it is biologically impossible to grow skin impervious to everything said about us throughout our entire lives unless we also happen to not give a shit about _anything_. There exists people who are assholes and will keep hammering at their target until they crack (and if one person doesn't do the trick, grab your friends! I'm sure it'll be a riot!). No one is totally invincible, acting like we can be without getting rid of our ability to feel emotion period is nothing short of stupid. There is a reason we have laws and "common sense" and it's why lines are drawn because without them we'd have collapsed a long time ago, but so far they are ineffective because no one truly upholds them and humanity is only getting worse. Just short of removing emotion (and thought in the process), wiping out the human species is the only effective way to put a stop to this because we humans as a whole are not inclined to be kind even though we have the capacity for it. Being kind is largely taught from someone who is going against the grain. Our base nature of survival, pursuit of power, and pursuit of pleasure above most else makes our species just shy of outright evil as it is primarily define at best because it lends itself too much to virtually everything wrong with this planet.





MadMageKefka said:


> Online though? Just get twitter or whatever to add an option to filter out comments from a particular user. Then you don't have to lay your tender virgin eyes on those terrible, horrible, deadly words. The person wont even know they are blocked because for all they know, you could be seeing it, but not responding. ....or you could just stop reading them. Herp.
> 
> So your other point is that sometimes people don't stop. Well.... you're wrong. Trust me on this: ALL bullies / trolls / spammers / whatever eventually get bored. If you continue to get all butthurt over what they are doing, then yea.... they are gonna have fun with it and not stop. If you (and I know this is so insanely tough for some of you) JUST IGNORE THEM, they will EVENTUALLY get bored and stop. Maybe a month later, maybe more, but they will eventually get bored if it gets no reaction out of you. I could understand if a person was harassing you in real life, but online? There are so many ways to deal with it already, police action seems like a bit much to me unless its strait up death threats or something physically dangerous.
> 
> One more thing: I'm sorry, but people need to grow a pair / spine / something that makes them less weak. If words HONESTLY bother you that much (keep in mind physical harassment is very different) then I think you need to get off the internet. Completely. Getting mad at peoples (albeit often misguided) opinions on the internet is insane. Getting butthurt because someone is trolling you online is a bit more understandable, but if you wish to continue using the internet, you're gonna have to get used to it. Just because the UK takes police action on racist / whatever hatred remarks doesn't mean every other country in the world will too. There will still be people, out of reach of the law, that can say whatever the fuck they want to you. Whether or not you like it, this sort of problem will ALWAYS be a thing online, and if you can't deal with it, you need to leave before its too late.


You honest to god think that this issue is limited to the online world? Please. The truly assholish "trolls/bullies/spammers" don't bore that easy; there is literally no shortage of targets for them. "Trolls/bullies/spammers" don't stop being who they are because of a "lack of reaction" for the moment. They'll find someone else. And I don't care how think you think you can grow your spine, balls, or whatever. Stop acting like you can magically become some invincible superman that no one can touch. It's only by chance that you've never met someone who's willing to take it outside of the computer And if "mean" words shouldn't ever have some sort of impact on someone, than kind words shouldn't either. After all, they're all just words in the end. Only actions really should count for anything right?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Now that i look at it again it would be much closer to a slippery slope fallacy.
> So you're right in a sense.


"So you're right in a sense." ....in a sense. You can't even admit when you're wrong, lol. Also:



TheDarkGreninja said:


> I said I'd debunk the source if I was bothered.
> But simply linking me a source and telling me "evidence" is pretty pathetic, no offence.
> "You know your wrong"
> Nope.


You misquoted me and spelled "you're" and "offense" wrong. Good job. You do know there is a spell check built into the forum, right?



TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm not a fan of harsh debates. I'd rather a debate where things are clearly put, but with a basic level of respect between the debaters.


That would be much easier if I had any respect for you, but as I'm sure you guessed by my comment from yesterday basically calling you an arrogant tool, I don't. I said I had no hard feelings toward you, not that I had any respect for you. So again, for a 3rd time now... I'm going to try to do the right thing here and ask that we continue this argument elsewhere if you really wish to do so. Or don't, I honestly couldn't care less. I will not reply to you here again.



Blue Sun said:


> You honest to god think that this issue is limited to the online world? Please. The truly assholish "trolls/bullies/spammers" don't bore that easy; there is literally no shortage of targets for them. "Trolls/bullies/spammers" don't stop being who they are because of a "lack of reaction" for the moment. They'll find someone else. And I don't care how think you think you can grow your spine, balls, or whatever. Stop acting like you can magically become some invincible superman that no one can touch. It's only by chance that you've never met someone who's willing to take it outside of the computer And if "mean" words shouldn't ever have some sort of impact on someone, than kind words shouldn't either. After all, they're all just words in the end. Only actions really should count for anything right?


Uhh, isn't this about online problems, though? That is what we are talking about, isn't it? 'Cuz I mean.... yea, you're right. Some people will take that into the real world, and at that point it becomes a crime. I don't think anyone here is trying to say otherwise....

Also yes, only actions count. That's 100% correct. There was a discussion a while back on someone's blog here about how no one really cared any more when you say "sorry" for something. Pretty much that. Ever hear the phrase, "actions speak louder than words?"


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> You misquoted me and spelled "you're" and "offense" wrong. Good job. You do know there is a spell check built into the forum, right?


Don't be an ass


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Don't be an ass


lol, I think I already qualified for the "ass" position yesterday, but I'll keep your advice in mind, thanks. In my defense he is calling me pathetic in the quote. Ironic how pathetic it is that he can't tell a word is misspelled even when there is a little red line under it. This is why I asked him to move this elsewhere. It was eventually gonna come down to this.


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> "So you're right in a sense." ....in a sense. You can't even admit when you're wrong, lol. Also:
> 
> 
> You misquoted me and spelled "you're" and "offense" wrong. Good job. You do know there is a spell check built into the forum, right?
> ...


It is primarily about online problems, but it is an online problem in the first place because we haven't fixed the root of where it's stemming from which exists outside of the online world, i.e. humans. If the online world didn't exist, hardly much would change. It's like taking guns from criminals; just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean they're not going to look for a knife, a metal pipe, a bomb, or god knows whatever. Ignoring the trolls online ultimately solves nothing because it will eventually start crawling back into the real world, and things will get much worse from there. The solution? Take care of the problem outside of the computer or it will get worse.

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



MadMageKefka said:


> lol, I think I already qualified for the "ass" position yesterday, but I'll keep your advice in mind, thanks. In my defense he is calling me pathetic in the quote. Ironic how pathetic it is that he can't tell a word is misspelled even when there is a little red line under it. This is why I asked him to move this elsewhere. It was eventually gonna come down to this.


You're letting them calling you "pathetic" get to this point?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> .in a sense. You can't even admit when you're wrong, lol. Also:



Yes you're right that it wasn't a black and white fallacy but wrong in saying that it wasn't a fallacious argument at all.



MadMageKefka said:


> You misquoted me and spelled "you're" and "offense" wrong. Good job. You do know there is a spell check built into the forum, right?



Wow, that's just pathetic, you've sunk to a whole new low.
Also:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/offence

That's how you spell it in British English, so, no I'm not wrong.



MadMageKefka said:


> That would be much easier if I had any respect for you, but as I'm sure you guessed by my comment from yesterday basically calling you an arrogant tool, I don't. I said I had no hard feelings toward you, not that I had any respect for you. So again, for a 3rd time now... I'm going to try to do the right thing here and ask that we continue this argument elsewhere if you really wish to do so. Or don't, I honestly couldn't care less. I will not reply to you here again.



There's not point arguing with someone like you anyways.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

Blue Sun said:


> It is primarily about online problems, but it is an online problem in the first place because we haven't fixed the root of where it's stemming from which exists outside of the online world, i.e. humans. If the online world didn't exist, hardly much would change. It's like taking guns from criminals; just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean they're not going to look for a knife, a metal pipe, a bomb, or god knows whatever. Ignoring the trolls online ultimately solves nothing because it will eventually start crawling back into the real world, and things will get much worse from there. The solution? Take care of the problem outside of the computer or it will get worse.


Lol, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but how do you propose we do this? Go door to door looking for bullies, round them up, and put them into camps? I honestly mean no disrespect with the sarcasm, I just wanna make it clear that "solving" the problem of human beings being dicks is literally impossible. It will NEVER happen.


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Lol, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but how do you propose we do this? Go door to door looking for bullies, round them up, and put them into camps? I honestly mean no disrespect with the sarcasm, I just wanna make it clear that "solving" the problem of human beings being dicks is literally impossible. It will NEVER happen.


Then stop acting like there's some solution to this online problem. If we can't stop humans from being dicks, we'll absolutely never solve this problem, which was what I was pointing out in the first place, so thank you for reminding me how useless "ignore the trolls" actually is and that your words have no weight in the grand scheme of things. The topic has already derailed considerably despite your "attempts" at keeping it from doing so. Here's a pro-tip for you; if words like these bother you enough that you feel a need to respond, don't. You'll feel your time better spent or whatever you value. KTHXBYE


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

@TotalInsanity4 What would you call someone who think's their view is the only right one?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @TotalInsanity4 What would you call someone who think's their view is the only right one?


Either stubborn or narrow-minded. I think there's actually a word for it but its not coming to me


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

Blue Sun said:


> Then stop acting like there's something to be done online. If we can't stop humans from being dicks, we'll absolutely never solve this problem. Thank you for reminding me how useless "ignore the trolls" actually is.


Riiiight, because in 45 min when I go to work, I will care about this at all. I'm no troll, I'm just speaking in a somewhat harsh manner and you're getting offended, even though I specifically asked you not to, and was using the harsh tone / sarcasm for the sake of example. That's literally the entire point of this thread, correct? Saying mean things online? I literally do not care about you and have no interest in harassing you. You replied to me on a forum, obviously I'm going to respond, lol. Also, I think you messed that up? "Stop acting like there's something to be done online." ...I'm the one saying do nothing online, iirc.

I would still challenge you to answer my question. How do you propose we stop people, all over the globe, from being jerks? Seriously.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Riiiight, because in 45 min when I go to work, I will care about this at all. I'm no troll, I'm just speaking in a somewhat harsh manner and you're getting offended, even though I specifically asked you not to, and was using the harsh tone / sarcasm for the sake of example. That's literally the entire point of this thread, correct? Saying mean things online? I literally do not care about you and have no interest in harassing you. You replied to me on a forum, obviously I'm going to respond, lol. Also, I think you messed that up? "Stop acting like there's something to be done online." ...I'm the one saying do nothing online, iirc.
> 
> I would still challenge you to answer my question. How do you propose we stop people, all over the globe, from being jerks? Seriously.



I don't think he argued that we should stop them rather punish them, that way they have the liberty to do so and will be punished after the fact.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I don't think he argued that we should stop them rather punish them, that way they have the liberty to do so and will be punished after the fact.


Topic shift. Good. If I come off as closed-minded, that's fine, but I wanted to move on for that exact reason. This is a complicated topic with no clear answer, to think you are right and others are wrong is honestly the more closed-minded way of thinking to me. I have my beliefs on the matter, and I am standing by them. Your logic is obviously not sound enough to me to change my mind, and the conversation was getting more into personal bickering than the topic at hand. It was pointless and I am ending it. That being said...

I can see that, but my point is what are you going to do about places that don't enforce this with law? The internet is world-wide, remember.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Topic shift. Good. If I come off as closed-minded, that's fine, but I wanted to move on for that exact reason. This is a complicated topic with no clear answer, to think you are right and others are wrong is honestly the more closed-minded way of thinking to me. I have my beliefs on the matter, and I am standing by them. Your logic is obviously not sound enough to me to change my mind, and the conversation was getting more into personal bickering than the topic at hand. It was pointless and I am ending it. That being said...
> 
> I can see that, but my point is what are you going to do about places that don't enforce this with law? The internet is world-wide, remember.



That's the real issue at hand, the argument is that all countries should have this law.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's the real issue at hand, the argument is that all countries should have this law.


And I'm saying that will NEVER happen. EVER. Period. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to try.

EDIT: Plus, even if it did happen by some miracle, you can hide yourself online fairly easily.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> And I'm saying that will NEVER happen. EVER. Period. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to try.



Maybe all was too general, "all" first world countries. And if they don't then we'll just have hate speech in the world. 
Anyway, we should focus on laws of our own countries rather than the laws of other because at least that way those within our borders are punished.


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> @TotalInsanity4 What would you call someone who think's their view is the only right one?


"I have a severe case of tunnel vision"?


MadMageKefka said:


> Riiiight, because in 45 min when I go to work, I will care about this at all. I'm no troll, I'm just speaking in a somewhat harsh manner and you're getting offended, even though I specifically asked you not to, and was using the harsh tone / sarcasm for the sake of example. That's literally the entire point of this thread, correct? Saying mean things online? I literally do not care about you and have no interest in harassing you. You replied to me on a forum, obviously I'm going to respond, lol. Also, I think you messed that up? "Stop acting like there's something to be done online." ...I'm the one saying do nothing online, iirc.
> 
> I would still challenge you to answer my question. How do you propose we stop people, all over the globe, from being jerks? Seriously.


"Somewhat harsh"? Pfft. You don't harsh to me at all, more so self-righteous. If you "literally" had no interest in harassing me, you'd have not posted anything to whatever I said to whoever else (and I don't recall ever speaking to you), let alone "I would still challenge you to answer my question…" etc. Doing nothing online does not solve the issue. The online exists whether you're specifically in it or not. I could have never touched a digital device and went on the internet but that's no different than an ostrich sticking its head in the muck. You can ignore it all you want, but that doesn't make it go away; it's there and it'll be there with or without you. You say I'm offended, but what about you? There's something in your head that is keeping you here until you "go to work", and I know it's because something on this thread bothers you (which is ironically what you told me to stop being; bothered by something someone said). You know what? I think I will take your advice unlike you. And to your last question, I've already answered the question as seriously as possible, outside of literal human genocide or rewiring of the human brain for everyone (both of which are virtually unlikely to happen unless our world leaders push the nuke button and push for a heavy search every door with all occupants willing), it won't happen. In light of this, any advice to get a problem to stop is utterly useless which I somewhat hope you've recognized at some point in this thread. Have fun at work if you can.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You do know there are such things as severity in law right?
> If a kid were to do it they'd be told off.
> 
> It's the same reason we have different degrees of manslaughter.
> ...


Still who defines what's considered "racist"? Some people thought Resident Evil 5 was racist because most of the enemies were black (they ignored the fact that the game was set in the heart of Africa).
Let's say someone set up a website that allows users to submit jokes. A few users submit jokes that most people would consider racist in some way. Does the website owner face charges if they don't delete the jokes?
How far are they willing to take this? Does it include stand up comedy (there are several black comedians who tell jokes about white people btw)? How about music? Pink Floyd was protesting this kind of shit 40 years ago, going as far to say that Mary Whitehouse would be "good fun with a handgun." Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears with the UK government.


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 28, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Still who defines what's considered "racist"? Some people thought Resident Evil 5 was racist because most of the enemies were black (they ignored the fact that the game was set in the heart of Africa).
> Let's say someone set up a website that allows users to submit jokes. A few users submit jokes that most people would consider racist in some way. Does the website owner face charges if they don't delete the jokes?
> How far are they willing to take this? Does it include stand up comedy (there are several black comedians who tell jokes about white people btw)? How about music? Pink Floyd was protesting this kind of shit 40 years ago, going as far to say that Mary Whitehouse would be "good fun with a handgun." Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears with the UK government.


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.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Still who defines what's considered "racist"? Some people thought Resident Evil 5 was racist because most of the enemies were black (they ignored the fact that the game was set in the heart of Africa).
> Let's say someone set up a website that allows users to submit jokes. A few users submit jokes that most people would consider racist in some way. Does the website owner face charges if they don't delete the jokes?
> How far are they willing to take this? Does it include stand up comedy (there are several black comedians who tell jokes about white people btw)? How about music? Pink Floyd was protesting this kind of shit 40 years ago, going as far to say that Mary Whitehouse would be "good fun with a handgun." Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears with the UK government.


Legally speaking, it's when someone is deliberately doing something to harm another person based on ethnic background


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Legally speaking, it's when someone is deliberately doing something to harm another person based on ethnic background



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


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Maybe all was too general, "all" first world countries. And if they don't then we'll just have hate speech in the world.
> Anyway, we should focus on laws of our own countries rather than the laws of other because at least that way those within our borders are punished.


Right. Ultimately this whole thing is about the UK, but my point is still related. You can stop the hate speech in the UK, sure. They are clearly trying, but I'm saying people need thicker skin because people will always be jerks. Even if its banned in the UK, its still gonna come from elsewhere, and you're still gonna see it. People have been racists / jerks / whatever since the dawn of man. They always have been, and they always will be. Learning to deal with it has always, and will always, be part of life. Maybe in the very distant future, we can find a way to create a true utopia, but honestly, I don't see humans as creatures capable of sustaining that sort of thing. Ever. Its just not in our nature.



Blue Sun said:


> "I have a severe case of tunnel vision"?
> 
> "Somewhat harsh"? Pfft. You don't harsh to me at all, more so self-righteous. If you "literally" had no interest in harassing me, you'd have not posted anything to whatever I said to whoever else (and I don't recall ever speaking to you), let alone "I would still challenge you to answer my question…" etc. Doing nothing online does not solve the issue. The online exists whether you're specifically in it or not. I could have never touched a digital device and went on the internet but that's no different than an ostrich sticking its head in the muck. You can ignore it all you want, but that doesn't make it go away; it's there and it'll be there with or without you. You say I'm offended, but what about you? There's something in your head that is keeping you here until you "go to work", and I know it's because something on this thread bothers you (which is ironically what you told me to stop being; bothered by something someone said). You know what? I think I will take your advice unlike you. And to your last question, I've already answered the question as seriously as possible, outside of literal human genocide or rewiring of the human brain for everyone (both of which are virtually unlikely to happen unless our world leaders push the nuke button and push for a heavy search every door with all occupants willing), it won't happen. In light of this, any advice to get a problem to stop is utterly useless which I somewhat hope you've recognized at some point in this thread. Have fun at work if you can.


What is this insane ramble? lmao. I don't even.... okay, let's take a shot at this...
I said something to you about a comment directed at someone else because this is a PUBLIC FORUM and that's how these things work. Its not just you and one other person. You suggested that the problem can't be solved online, and that it needed to be dealt with in the real world, at the "root of the problem." I'm asking how you think we could accomplish that? I think its impossible.

As far as being offended, lol. I honestly just find this sort of thing entertaining. That's literally it. I jump into all sorts of debates like this. Believe what you will, though. I will have fun at work, trust me. I literally get paid to play games most of the day, or anything else I want. Literally the easiest job ever. Decent pay and benefits too.

I am glad you took my advice though, and I honestly mean that. It means I accomplished something with all of this and got my point across to you. Use what you learned here today, lol.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Maybe in the very distant future, we can find a way to create a true utopia, but honestly, I don't see humans as creatures capable of sustaining that sort of thing. Ever. Its just not in our nature.



*If we don't try how the fuck are we ever going to know?
*
Honestly, it's this kind of thinking that grinds my gears, I'd rather try something and watch it burn to ashes than never try at all.
Because when it does finally work the reward will be that much greater.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> *If we don't try how the fuck are we ever going to know?
> *
> Honestly, it's this kind of thinking that grinds my gears, I'd rather try something and watch it burn to ashes than never try at all.
> Because when it does finally work the reward will be that much greater.


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.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

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 (Jul 28, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

okay, Bye-bye cyberbullies....


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

Blue Sun said:


> 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?


TheDarkGreninja said:


> (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 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> 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 ---------------------------



Subtle Demise said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm trying to think of one of those times.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


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


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> ...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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


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


All the ones that matter are, though.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> All the ones that matter are, though.


Lol, kind of a dick thing to say. Isn't saying an entire nationality of people don't matter kinda racist? I'd think that would probably offend some people. Ironic, given your stance on this. Anyway, with the case of online it would take EVERYONE with online access. Not gonna happen.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

It obviously can if a significant portion of Europe and America actually start chasing cyber crimes in their jurisdictions, though


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It obviously can if a significant portion of Europe and America actually start chasing cyber crimes in their jurisdictions, though


What is a cyber crime? Like, saying youre gonna kill someone in an argument? Saying that all (ethnic group here) are scum and should die in a post? It would reduce the amount for sure, but not stop it. No way. There are always places where it won't be illegal that we cant touch in a legal sense, and there are always ways for people here to hide themselves. Make that sort of thing illegal and those techniques will become more widely known, just like people keep finding new ways to pirate, or get drugs, or anything illegal.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Lol, kind of a dick thing to say. Isn't saying an entire nationality of people don't matter kinda racist? I'd think that would probably offend some people. Ironic, given your stance on this. Anyway, with the case of online it would take EVERYONE with online access. Not gonna happen.



Oh I'm not saying the people matter, but it's the money that matters and all the biggest economies are part of the UN.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Oh I'm not saying the people matter, but it's the money that matters and all the biggest economies are part of the UN.


Tiwan is the 5th biggest economy in Asia, and they aren't in the UN.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Tiwan is the 5th biggest economy in Asia, and they aren't in the UN.


That's because china won't let them.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's because china won't let them.


Soooo.... Another case of people that can't agree on stuff?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Soooo.... Another case of people that can't agree on stuff?



Nah, just a country that doesnt want another country to exist.
You do know how oppressive china, is right? Here's a primer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34729538


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nah, just a country that doesnt want another country to exist.
> You do know how oppressive china, is right? Here's a primer:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34729538


Oh, I know. Still kinda serves to prove my point, though. Never has the entire world all agreed on one thing and this idea won't be the first. Plus, like I said before, even if by some miracle it is made illegal world-wide, that still won't stop it. People will still need to learn how to deal with it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Oh, I know. Still kinda serves to prove my point, though. Never has the entire world all agreed on one thing and this idea won't be the first. Plus, like I said before, even if by some miracle it is made illegal world-wide, that still won't stop it. People will still need to learn how to deal with it.



I don't think you can blame the world for an oppressive regime.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I don't think you can blame the world for an oppressive regime.


....you're still missing the point. Plus, there are other nations also not in the UN. Oh right... They "don't matter." My point remains. This will not work. If you think it will feel free to help it along, and then when we live in the mean person free utopia you seem to think is possible, you can say "haha, I was right." Until then, history and plain human nature is proof enough that this idea wont work and it won't solve anything. Lessen it at best.

Little detail tho, notice how we disagree on this? Case in point. Do you think I'm the only person in the world with this opinion?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> What is a cyber crime? Like, saying youre gonna kill someone in an argument? Saying that all (ethnic group here) are scum and should die in a post? It would reduce the amount for sure, but not stop it. No way. There are always places where it won't be illegal that we cant touch in a legal sense, and there are always ways for people here to hide themselves. Make that sort of thing illegal and those techniques will become more widely known, just like people keep finding new ways to pirate, or get drugs, or anything illegal.


So... because there's the possibility it won't matter, we shouldn't even try?...


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... because there's the possibility it won't matter, we shouldn't even try?...


If it means giving any government any more sort of control to police the internet, its not worth it. There is too much room there for that to be misused.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> If it means giving any government any more sort of control to police the internet, its not worth it. There is too much room there for that to be misused.


What do you think of, for example, police going after the host of a Red Room on the dark web?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> ....you're still missing the point. Plus, there are other nations also not in the UN. Oh right... They "don't matter." My point remains. This will not work. If you think it will feel free to help it along, and then when we live in the mean person free utopia you seem to think is possible, you can say "haha, I was right." Until then, history and plain human nature is proof enough that this idea wont work and it won't solve anything. Lessen it at best.
> 
> Little detail tho, notice how we disagree on this? Case in point. Do you think I'm the only person in the world with this opinion?




This is just denial.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Nah, just a country that doesnt want another country to exist.
> You do know how oppressive china, is right? Here's a primer:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34729538


If Petoria can get into the UN then I think any country can:


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jul 28, 2017)

Plstic said:


> Screw you if you think privacy is moot. Also the nothing the hide is not an excuse. Most people break 3 or 4 laws a day without even knowing.


Aaaaand the people looking for things like terrorists and their plots will actually care about those 3 or 4 laws, i'm not saying it's moot, i'm saying people should quit whining about the governments trying to save lives.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> This is just denial.


Lmao, okay.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> What do you think of, for example, police going after the host of a Red Room on the dark web?


Not sure what that is. If it was planning to commit a real-world crime or something, sure, but if they are just talking racist shit about people together, well as much as I don't agree with it, I agree with giving the government the ability to silence it even less. Whats next? Wires in everyones homes so you can't say racist things there either?


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 28, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Lmao, okay.
> 
> 
> Not sure what that is. If it was planning to commit a real-world crime or something, sure, but if they are just talking racist shit about people together, well as much as I don't agree with it, I agree with giving the government the ability to silence it even less. Whats next? Wires in everyones homes so you can't say racist things there either?


Well, the NSA is already listening to everything through our phones, TV's, and whatnot. So they already have the wires ready...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

A Red Room is online interactive torture

So then, if that's not ok with you, how do you feel about police going after webhosts dedicated to giving advice for suicide? (Locations, door combos, drug suggestions, injection/cutting sites, etc.)


----------



## MadMageKefka (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> A Red Room is online interactive torture
> 
> So then, if that's not ok with you, how do you feel about police going after webhosts dedicated to giving advice for suicide? (Locations, door combos, drug suggestions, injection/cutting sites, etc.)


What the fuck. Obviously thats not ok. There is a very large difference between saying racist bullshit, and strait up fucking torture. 

Not sure how suicide help relates to this, but idk if its all that bad. If someone decides to do it, they're gonna do it with or without help. Hopefully the "help" at least gives ways to die peacefully? Id rather know a person didn't suffer, I guess. I had a neighbor kill herself by overdosing on Tylonol. Very painful way to go. Even if those sites didn't exist, you could easily find out how to kill yourself with a google search. I've never seen a site like that myself though, so its hard to have a solid opinion.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

Plstic said:


> Screw you if you think privacy is moot. Also the nothing the hide is not an excuse. Most people break 3 or 4 laws a day without even knowing.


To paraphrase Edward Snowden: Saying we don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying we don't need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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


There is no such thing as free healthcare.  And just because the "rest of the world" does something, it does not make it the ideal solution.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> There is no such thing as free healthcare.  And just because the "rest of the world" does something, it does not make it the ideal solution.


Exhibit A of the point I was trying to prove

And I guess I should call it "healthcare as a right" or "government subsidized healthcare," if you insist on splitting that hair


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Exhibit A of the point I was trying to prove
> 
> And I guess I should call it "healthcare as a right" or "government subsidized healthcare," if you insist on splitting that hair


It's a massive hair.  The government's money comes from you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes.  The cost of individual things like healthcare are just hidden from us when it's paid through us paying more taxes rather than when it comes out of our bank accounts.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> It's a massive hair.  The government's money comes from you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes.  The cost of individual things like healthcare are just hidden from us when it's paid through us paying more taxes rather than when it comes out of our bank accounts.


It's also something that unless you're incredibly lucky, you're going to use. There's no reason not to pay into a system that's going to a) lower costs nationally on healthcare and b) make sure private hospitals aren't capitalizing on your condition. Plus, it's not unheard of to have a single-payer system coexist with private hospitals that receive government funding for equipment and base salary but use profits to raise pay for doctors and add, say, better furnishings


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's also something that unless you're incredibly lucky, you're going to use. There's no reason not to pay into a system that's going to a) lower costs nationally on healthcare and b) make sure private hospitals aren't capitalizing on your condition. Plus, it's not unheard of to have a single-payer system coexist with private hospitals that receive government funding for equipment and base salary but use profits to raise pay for doctors and add, say, better furnishings


Look, I'm not here to discuss healthcare.  That's a complex topic for another thread.  It's easy to make claims on why something should be better, but the reality is much more complicated.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> It's a massive hair.  The government's money comes from you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes.  The cost of individual things like healthcare are just hidden from us when it's paid through us paying more taxes rather than when it comes out of our bank accounts.


Healthcare should be a human right, it is crazy to believe that someone should die of a treatable or preventable illness because they can't afford it. It's a similar sort of outrage you'd feel if there are no public schools, and the only children to be educated were those of rich families. And because of no choice to go the public route, the schools cost hundreds of times what an equivalent school would cost in another country. This is what is actually happening to you in healthcare and higher education - the same surgery or drug or degree can cost hundreds of times what the same thing would cost in another country, purely because of the way it is set up with little to no regulation - companies can charge whatever they want and people are forced to pay, since you can't really choose to go without healthcare, and if you don't want a poor life you're forced to have higher education as well. Every time I hear any mention of it I am surprised again about how few Americans are outraged about the situation. The ones that are rich and can afford all the necessities don't want to part with any of their money (even though doing so would keep prices down, possibly resulting it them ending up with the same or more disposable income) either because they are greedy and don't care if other Americans suffer or they genuinely have no idea what it's like for the non-rich. The ones that are poor have been brainwashed into thinking it's a priviledge to have to go bankrupt to pay for life-saving treatment and to have to repeat the cycle of poorness due to not being able to afford higher education because they have something intangible called FREEDOM (when really all they have is the freedom to suffer in ways the "poor" of other countries do not have to) and they are from the greatest country on earth 'MURICA when they have no idea what other countries are like and the true injustices they are facing compared to elsewhere.


----------



## rileysrjay (Jul 28, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Healthcare should be a human right, it is crazy to believe that someone should die of a treatable or preventable illness because they can't afford it. It's a similar sort of outrage you'd feel if there are no public schools, and the only children to be educated were those of rich families. And because of no choice to go the public route, the schools cost hundreds of times what an equivalent school would cost in another country. This is what is actually happening to you in healthcare and higher education - the same surgery or drug or degree can cost hundreds of times what the same thing would cost in another country, purely because of the way it is set up with little to no regulation - companies can charge whatever they want and people are forced to pay, since you can't really choose to go without healthcare, and if you don't want a poor life you're forced to have higher education as well. Every time I hear any mention of it I am surprised again about how few Americans are outraged about the situation. The ones that are rich and can afford all the necessities don't want to part with any of their money (even though doing so would keep prices down, possibly resulting it them ending up with the same or more disposable income) either because they are greedy and don't care if other Americans suffer or they genuinely have no idea what it's like for the non-rich. The ones that are poor have been brainwashed into thinking it's a priviledge to have to go bankrupt to pay for life-saving treatment and to have to repeat the cycle of poorness due to not being able to afford higher education because they have something intangible called FREEDOM (when really all they have is the freedom to suffer in ways the "poor" of other countries do not have to) and they are from the greatest country on earth 'MURICA when they have no idea what other countries are like and the true injustices they are facing compared to elsewhere.


Everytime they pass any healthcare laws it only gets worse here. I'm just ready for this crap to end but it's going to be years before they finally iron something out that works.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

By the way the national insurance (The benefits a UK citizen gets such as the NHS) is 12% of a persons income per month iirc


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Everytime they pass any healthcare laws it only gets worse here. I'm just ready for this crap to end but it's going to be years before they finally iron something out that works.


Ironically enough, the best commentary I've heard about this came from Rush Limbaugh. He said something like "notice that every healthcare system that's failed exempts Congress from having to use it. If they drafted a bill that they would be comfortable putting THEMSELVES on, America would be set!"

Paraphrased, of course


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 28, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well no, this is what comes from a lack of knowledge of the law in the UK.
> There's a pretty detailed description of what constitutes hate speech, what you've been trying to do is finding loopholes which can be simply explained. So, before I just show you the description I'll discuss some flaws in your argument.
> 
> Criticism is not hate speech. Just compare the definitions:
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit wary because of the current state of things on some college campuses here in the US, including my own. There's been an awful tendency to conflate "hate speech" and "criticism," with certain groups denouncing all criticism as hate speech and actually having actions taken against "offending parties" who were never actually offensive. Many of these campuses have very loose definitions of what they deem "hate speech," and therefore some student groups have successfully exploited it. That's the perspective I'm coming from, and why I'm extremely wary of "hate speech" laws and what can come of them. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual UK laws, I'm just reacting to what I'm hearing on this thread.

Like I said in my previous post, and to reiterate my stance, today it could be hate speech, tomorrow it could be general dissent. Hence, freedom of speech should never be restricted. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, to properly combat abusive individuals, you have to change their minds on a social level. Creating laws doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it underground where it can be left to fester and boil out of sight, and likely rear its ugly head later in an ugly way. Basically: I think banning speech, however dastardly it may be, sets a bad precedent, and is ultimately ineffective at solving the root issue of hateful language, because the sentiment will continue to exist.

I come from India, where political imprisonment is all too common because of politicians stretching laws and setting up nefarious practices from dangerous precedents. That's why I'm against any banning of free expression, even if it's hate, the only exception being threats and calls to imminent violence, which are actionable. Hateful speech needs to be dealt with in another way, not through laws.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit wary because of the current state of things on some college campuses here in the US, including my own. There's been an awful tendency to conflate "hate speech" and "criticism," with certain groups denouncing all criticism as hate speech and actually having actions taken against "offending parties" who were never actually offensive. Many of these campuses have very loose definitions of what they deem "hate speech," and therefore some student groups have successfully exploited it. That's the perspective I'm coming from, and why I'm extremely wary of "hate speech" laws and what can come of them. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual UK laws, I'm just reacting to what I'm hearing on this thread.
> 
> Like I said in my previous post, and to reiterate my stance, today it could be hate speech, tomorrow it could be general dissent. Hence, freedom of speech should never be restricted. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, to properly combat abusive individuals, you have to change their minds on a social level. Creating laws doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it underground where it can be left to fester and boil out of sight, and likely rear its ugly head later in an ugly way. Basically: I think banning speech, however dastardly it may be, sets a bad precedent, and is ultimately ineffective at solving the root issue of hateful language, because the sentiment will continue to exist.
> 
> I come from India, where political imprisonment is all too common because of politicians stretching laws and setting up nefarious practices from dangerous precedents. That's why I'm against any banning of free expression, even if it's hate, the only exception being threats and calls to imminent violence, which are actionable. Hateful speech needs to be dealt with in another way, not through laws.


If you're referring to the Milo Yinnanoplis thing, a) he's a pedophile apologist, but b) the student body were exercising their right both to free speech and protest against him


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 28, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit wary because of the current state of things on some college campuses here in the US, including my own. There's been an awful tendency to conflate "hate speech" and "criticism," with certain groups denouncing all criticism as hate speech and actually having actions taken against "offending parties" who were never actually offensive. Many of these campuses have very loose definitions of what they deem "hate speech," and therefore some student groups have successfully exploited it. That's the perspective I'm coming from, and why I'm extremely wary of "hate speech" laws and what can come of them. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual UK laws, I'm just reacting to what I'm hearing on this thread.
> 
> Like I said in my previous post, and to reiterate my stance, today it could be hate speech, tomorrow it could be general dissent. Hence, freedom of speech should never be restricted. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, to properly combat abusive individuals, you have to change their minds on a social level. Creating laws doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it underground where it can be left to fester and boil out of sight, and likely rear its ugly head later in an ugly way. Basically: I think banning speech, however dastardly it may be, sets a bad precedent, and is ultimately ineffective at solving the root issue of hateful language, because the sentiment will continue to exist.
> 
> I come from India, where political imprisonment is all too common because of politicians stretching laws and setting up nefarious practices from dangerous precedents. That's why I'm against any banning of free expression, even if it's hate, the only exception being threats and calls to imminent violence, which are actionable. Hateful speech needs to be dealt with in another way, not through laws.



Please don't take this the wrong way, I am completely for criticism, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing right now


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you're referring to the Milo Yinnanoplis thing, a) he's a pedophile apologist, but b) the student body were exercising their right both to free speech and protest against him


If you're wondering about the University issues regarding free speech stifling, I'd start with looking at the fiasco at Evergreen State College.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> If you're wondering about the University issues regarding free speech stifling, I'd start with looking at the fiasco at Evergreen State College.


I just looked it up, this is the 3rd result: http://socialistworker.org/2017/07/26/what-happened-at-evergreen-state


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I just looked it up, this is the 3rd result: http://socialistworker.org/2017/07/26/what-happened-at-evergreen-state


Before I even begin to read that, might I point out you linked a website called "socialistworker"?  I suspect I already know their opinion on the events.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 28, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Before I even begin to read that, might I point out you linked a website called "socialistworker"?  I suspect I already know their opinion on the events.


I thought so too, but the commentary actually appears to be just stating the events as they unfolded. Give it a read


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you're referring to the Milo Yinnanoplis thing, a) he's a pedophile apologist, but b) the student body were exercising their right both to free speech and protest against him


Nah, not the Milo stuff. I'm talking about other incidents, and a lot of more localized incidents. For example, right-of-center articles in the university newspaper being reported as "hate speech" (when they're clearly not) by certain student groups and then being removed. Or the Evergreen State College fiasco. These are incidents where people have labeled things that others have said as "hate speech" when it clearly was not and gotten away with it (had some kind of action taken against the falsely accused).



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, I am completely for criticism, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing right now


Oh no, I never thought that! You're perfectly fine!


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jul 29, 2017)

you guys are really getting your panties in a bunch over this.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I thought so too, but the commentary actually appears to be just stating the events as they unfolded. Give it a read


You should watch Philip Defranco's segment on it in these two videos:



Philip Defranco is pretty moderate and overall has trustworthy reporting. Plus, he includes video footage from bystanders at Evergreen State College so you can see for yourself some of the things that went down.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I thought so too, but the commentary actually appears to be just stating the events as they unfolded. Give it a read


So far, I'm seeing a narrative being pushed with careful framing.  I'd recommend trying to find a more reliable source.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 29, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> So far, I'm seeing a narrative being pushed with careful framing.  I'd recommend trying to find a more reliable source.


I'm going to second that. The article is selectively ignoring things, downplaying incidents, and focusing far too much on ancillary concerns. At the very least, it won't give you the whole picture and seems to be manufactured to make "their side" look "better."


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 29, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


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





TheDarkGreninja said:


> deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
> 
> distributing racist material to the public
> 
> ...


Under distributing racist material, does that include music like Skrewdriver or Death in June? What about movies? A public showing of 1915's Birth of a Nation could possibly cause a riot. There's riots in the streets every time someone thinks the police are only targeting black people. Do we ban police from arresting minorities, because you see, some people find that racist; and that's my point, what people find racist is different from person to person. And just how the hell do you prove intent to spread racial discontent? Yet again, just another thing that has a meaning that changes with opinion.
Free speech is free speech. I think someone should be allowed to say they want to kill the president, and until the police find a sniper rifle in the trunk or some physical object that proves intent, no crime has been committed.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> It obviously can if a significant portion of Europe and America actually start chasing cyber crimes in their jurisdictions, though


Governments need to stay out of the internet unless there's a real crime involved like murder or child abuse.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 29, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Governments need to stay out of the internet unless there's a real crime involved like murder or child abuse.



All I can say is QFMFT.  Unless there's a serious crime being committed, the government has no right to monitor its citizens, like the NSA and CIA bullshit. Knowing that however, I find it cathartic to tell them eff off on the internet. Free speech, right?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Governments need to stay out of the internet unless there's a real crime involved like murder or child abuse.


Hacking? Doxxing?


grossaffe said:


> So far, I'm seeing a narrative being pushed with careful framing.  I'd recommend trying to find a more reliable source.


What do you recommend? Genuinely curious, I hadn't heard about Evergreen until today


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Hacking? Doxxing?


Well I did say real crimes, although those could really be civil matters depending on the extent of the damage caused.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Well I did say real crimes, although those could really be civil matters depending on the extent of the damage caused.


Death threats?


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What do you recommend? Genuinely curious, I hadn't heard about Evergreen until today



Look a few posts back, I posted two videos that I think will offer you a good perspective on what went down.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Look a few posts back, I posted two videos that I think will offer you a good perspective on what went down.


Saw them, I'll watch them when I can lol


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Saw them, I'll watch them when I can lol


haha kay


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Saw them, I'll watch them when I can lol


I'll try to find something that seems to be reasonable coverage.  In the mean time, when you watch the videos, know that the relevant part for each of them is only the first few minutes before he goes off into other subjects.  No need to stick around after he goes into another subject as he doesn't circle back around.  At the very least, those videos contain clips of events, so it should give you a window into what's happening there without having to rely on someone else's narrative.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 29, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Under distributing racist material, does that include music like Skrewdriver or Death in June? What about movies? A public showing of 1915's Birth of a Nation could possibly cause a riot. There's riots in the streets every time someone thinks the police are only targeting black people. Do we ban police from arresting minorities, because you see, some people find that racist; and that's my point, what people find racist is different from person to person. And just how the hell do you prove intent to spread racial discontent? Yet again, just another thing that has a meaning that changes with opinion.
> Free speech is free speech. I think someone should be allowed to say they want to kill the president, and until the police find a sniper rifle in the trunk or some physical object that proves intent, no crime has been committed.



You do know what "intention" is, right?
I've already posted this before and you clearly don't want to accept this attribute of the law.
The law clearly states that someone is only guilty of an offence if their intention was clearly aimed at causing racial hatred. And it's pretty easy to prove racial discontent due to wording.
Saying "I hate black people" would be a clear showing of intending racial discontent. Whereas saying the N word would not, as the argument would be that it is used often in pop culture and therefore cannot be used as evidence for said offence. This would therefore mean that word has lost it's original meaning and can no longer be considered extremely offensive. Now if that word were to be used in conjunction with other phrases that would suggest racial discontent it could be used. So saying "I hate (N word)'s" can be used as evidence.

Here's a much more detailed explanation:
"
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."

Please read the Wikipedia article this time, your ignorance on this is very tiring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom


You downplay the affect of words, while actions can harm a few words can affect many.
If I kill a few black people I'd just be considered a racist murderer and be locked up. Whereas if  I made other people believe my racist views I could create entire groups who hate people based on their race.
You see one of these has an effect that would last moments while the other has effects that can last for longer.
And it's completely insipid to allow those kinds of beliefs to be left unpunished in a society.

Also keep in mind we've had this law since 1986 and we haven't had any of those issues you guys have proposed, basically debunking your claims.

Edit: Just by looking at the above, by taking away some of your freedom, tell me how they could find a loophole to go further and ban other forms of speech?
Because the above makes explicit that criticism will be protected.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 29, 2017)

The fact that you think 'beliefs' need to be punished at all is the most fucking insipid thing in the entire thread.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 29, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> The fact that you think 'beliefs' need to be punished at all is the most fucking insipid thing in the entire thread.



Yeah. I never said that.

You can think whatever the hell you want, but you shouldn't be able to say things that cause harm to society.

"And it's completely insipid to allow those kinds of beliefs to be left unpunished in a society."

You should read this in context. I said that these beliefs should be punished when expressed.
"If I kill a few black people I'd just be considered a racist murderer and be locked up. Whereas if I made other people believe my racist views I could create entire groups who hate people based on their race.
You see one of these has an effect that would last moments while the other has effects that can last for longer."

Thanks for showing me you're incapable of reading.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 29, 2017)

No, I know exactly what you intended - and you make it clearer with every post



TheDarkGreninja said:


> you shouldn't be able to say things that cause harm to society



I stand corrected - this is now the most insipid statement.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 29, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> No, I know exactly what you intended - and you make it clearer with every post
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected - this is now the most insipid statement.



I'm just going to ignore you, you clearly don't want to discuss and would rather shame arguments than actually discuss flaws.

So I'll leave you with this:

A society is something that is meant to create cohesion between communities of different races, religions, nationalities etc.
By allowing hate speech, a society would allow individuals to break up this cohesion simply due to a prejudice of a certain group. This hatred can often be transferred to others creating entire sections of society to hate one another due to trivial things such as race and religion.
This would be counter-productive for a society. It is objectively better to have a cohesive society than a broken one and hate speech is one of the best/worst (Depending on one's view of society) to break society into fragmented communities rather than one integrated community.

I'll quickly touch on the argument of "the government shouldn't be allowed to control what we can and cannot say".
Well it doesn't matter if you're actively being controlled, because in the end everything is cause and effect. So what you say is based on everything else that has happened to you, so no, your never truly free to speak what you think because what you think is based on factors outside of your control. Adding an additional layer of control isn't going to change the fact that as long as you have some form of government you will always be a sheep.

Here's a primer on determinism and why you're always incapable of thinking for yourself:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/proceed-your-own-risk/201311/do-we-have-free-will

TL;DR There is no such thing as free will so how can you defend something that as a concept cannot function within our universe?


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 29, 2017)

"It's fine to have the government condition human thought because we are (apparently) only capable of creating insight based on the reality we are exposed to"

No, get fucked.

Shovel your reductive bullshit somewhere else - the majority of the west was founded on the fact that people have both said and acted on ideas that would have been deemed 'harmful to society'.


----------



## linkenski (Jul 29, 2017)

lcie nimbus said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing ?


If they administer it right it is... but that's the fear. Different people working in the police have to enforce these rights and follow whatever protocols they go by and much like America's policeforce has had a lot of bigotry inside as documented in various videos, so could whoever uses this be oversensitive and over-paranoid and we'll start to see people losing their freedom of speech over unnecessarily high levels of control.

I just worry we'll see a surge in lawsuits against really petty accusations.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 29, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> "It's fine to have the government condition human thought because we are (apparently) only capable of creating insight based on the reality we are exposed to"
> 
> No, get fucked.
> 
> Shovel your reductive bullshit somewhere else - the majority of the west was founded on the fact that people have both said and acted on ideas that would have been deemed 'harmful to society'.



Damn that's some serious denial. You're pretty irrational, huh?
So you think those slave owners did a great job building the US? You're meant to learn from your mistakes not repeat them.

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



linkenski said:


> If they administer it right it is... but that's the fear. Different people working in the police have to enforce these rights and follow whatever protocols they go by and much like America's policeforce has had a lot of bigotry inside as documented in various videos, so could whoever uses this be oversensitive and over-paranoid and we'll start to see people losing their freedom of speech over unnecessarily high levels of control.
> 
> I just worry we'll see a surge in lawsuits against really petty accusations.



I'd say it's been done right in the UK seeing as how it's gone without a lot of protest since 1986. The only one I can think of was when they protested to remove the word "insult" from one of the acts which I think was a good reason.


----------



## linkenski (Jul 29, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Damn that's some serious denial. You're pretty irrational, huh?
> So you think those slave owners did a great job building the US? You're meant to learn from your mistakes not repeat them.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


Oh it seems to have worked wonderfully thus far but I see this as a sign, in tandem, with the rising tensions of today's youth, growth of the internet and fascism. I am totally for some levels of control but honestly I don't like what I'm seeing in that tweet because the entire "hate speech" debate seems very disingenuous to me. There's so many Youtube activists who coin the term wrongly to slander whoever isn't with them. There's a lot of "fake" accusations of "hate speech" being thrown around these days I think. There's also a lot debatable stuff like Sargon of Akkad, which can seem a bit like covert hatespeech (I'm thinking of the "garbage human being" incident), you know, the kinds of people who dedicate entire video channels to cross-examining and dissecting what other people have said as they cherry pick everything apart to go "this must mean this person said this, ergo they're evil" etc.

In general I'm also kind of against internet banning of any kinds. If there's rules of moderation and a good warning system then fine but I dislike the idea that some voices are censored away because they have a passionate opinion. If it's done to prevent rallying of violence then fine, but take that Yiannilopulus guy or whatever his name was. We are not going to hear from him because it was decided by Twitter and powers that he should not be allowed to voice his opinions anymore because it was too radical. I don't care. As long as you don't hurt anyone and as long as you don't step up on a soapbox and say "we must kill all x" and get violent then I think we should be able to say whatever the fuck we want.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 29, 2017)

linkenski said:


> Oh it seems to have worked wonderfully thus far but I see this as a sign, in tandem, with the rising tensions of today's youth, growth of the internet and fascism. I am totally for some levels of control but honestly I don't like what I'm seeing in that tweet because the entire "hate speech" debate seems very disingenuous to me. There's so many Youtube activists who coin the term wrongly to slander whoever isn't with them. There's a lot of "fake" accusations of "hate speech" being thrown around these days I think. There's also a lot debatable stuff like Sargon of Akkad, which can seem a bit like covert hatespeech (I'm thinking of the "garbage human being" incident), you know, the kinds of people who dedicate entire video channels to cross-examining and dissecting what other people have said as they cherry pick everything apart to go "this must mean this person said this, ergo they're evil" etc.



I completely understand, what I will say though is that the law right now in the UK isn't that lenient when it comes to hate speech which is a good things as I'd rather not see criticism of people and beliefs become a thing of the past.
Such as the aforementioned Sargon who, while a disagree with a lot of his views, I feel that his opinions are important to society and advancing discussion on many important topics.
However, showing hatred for people for no other reason than to cause discord is, in my opinion, completely wrong and should not be tolerated in a egalitarian society where all people should be treated equally. (Of course, I understand the natural differences between people)


----------



## Blue Sun (Jul 29, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> 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?


Government is a mere reflection of the people it "protects"; if a government is racist, chances are very high that the rest of society that created it is just as racist if not more. If black people as a whole are more prone to violence than other ethnic groups in America, then it is simply a consequence of history with genetics thrown in for good measure (after all, humans keep the genes most likely to help them survive, and if being violent in an overtly racist world helps you get by then so be it), and should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all white people. The United States of America has always overall been afraid of minorities from its conception to this very moment and likely will be until its racist structure has been burned down, and that'll only come when the common people actually start committing to reducing societal tension (which I doubt will be very soon). Laws have never made people less racist, only hindered and limited their efforts to be so overt about it in public. It's why—despite the laws we have against discrimination—ultimately little has changed on either side of the conflict.
It's sad, but there are a lot of violent black people in America because they have more of a reason to be than anyone else, especially compared to other mistreated minority groups. That's all I'm willing to say left on this subject.


----------

