• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
But you just said that anyone has the right to say anything. That opinion isn't compatible with there being any kind of line.
Click to expand...

I think the line is that when something is said which deliberately harms, offends, or causes aggressive physical situations, then it is beyond the realms of free speech.

I think the biggest issue has been the measure of what THAT all is. And to that degree, there has been an ultimately dangerous 'over-correction' which has now seen a pendulum swing back. Humour has suffered hugely, and a lot of what I would call average folk ended up being sucked into 'defending' themselves simply because they didn't 'proclaim' an issue. Social media has manipulated us into a society wildly divided, with architects on all sides 'benefitting' from sewing such seeds. I think it is tragic and dangerous, again on all sides. People are unfairly written off as 'fascists' just like people are unfairly written off as 'lefties' and both just become reactions to each other.

My biggest concern is that the whole idea and philosophy of responsible free speech is at a tipping point simply because no middle ground, or dialectic discussion, exists.
 
thfcsteff said:
I think the line is that when something is said which deliberately harms, offends, or causes aggressive physical situations, then it is beyond the realms of free speech.

I think the biggest issue has been the measure of what THAT all is. And to that degree, there has been an ultimately dangerous 'over-correction' which has now seen a pendulum swing back. Humour has suffered hugely, and a lot of what I would call average folk ended up being sucked into 'defending' themselves simply because they didn't 'proclaim' an issue. Social media has manipulated us into a society wildly divided, with architects on all sides 'benefitting' from sewing such seeds. I think it is tragic and dangerous, again on all sides. People are unfairly written off as 'fascists' just like people are unfairly written off as 'lefties' and both just become reactions to each other.

My biggest concern is that the whole idea and philosophy of responsible free speech is at a tipping point simply because no middle ground, or dialectic discussion, exists.
Click to expand...
That can't work either.

We can't use being offended as a measure, otherwise anyone can claim offence to silence anyone they want - see Islamists and blasphemy laws.

We can't use harm as a measure because words can't harm. They don't have a real, physical entity with which to do so.

We already have laws to deal with words that lead to actual, physical harm. We don't need to constrain free speech to use them.
 
So the prime minister says that it was a top priority of his government to get a man released who called for the death of police officers and says he hates white people.

No issue with that then gents?

Hmm ideology comes before what's right with you guys I guess.
 
scaramanga said:
That can't work either.

We can't use being offended as a measure, otherwise anyone can claim offence to silence anyone they want - see Islamists and blasphemy laws.

We can't use harm as a measure because words can't harm. They don't have a real, physical entity with which to do so.

We already have laws to deal with words that lead to actual, physical harm. We don't need to constrain free speech to use them.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I am assuming you read beyond my first line? Just in case, I agree that it is no longer workable as a standard. Thanks to both 'sides' of the spectrum, each having 'agitators' who amplify/denigrate/conflate and mis-state to suit their own agendas.
 
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover said:
So the prime minister says that it was a top priority of his government to get a man released who called for the death of police officers and says he hates white people.

No issue with that then gents?

Hmm ideology comes before what's right with you guys I guess.
Click to expand...
The real issue was that Starmer and other cabinet ministers made clear and definitive public statements on an issue without being anywhere near over the full facts of it, resulting in yet another sh*tshow being played out in public. Its becoming a regular theme for this government.....and why public confidence in them is so low.
 
thfcsteff said:
Yes, and I am assuming you read beyond my first line? Just in case, I agree that it is no longer workable as a standard. Thanks to both 'sides' of the spectrum, each having 'agitators' who amplify/denigrate/conflate and mis-state to suit their own agendas.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it's anything to do with the current state of public discourse.

It's an impossibility to find a workable solution where the legality of words can be defined by anyone who chooses to be offended. Far too many people are offended by things that are entirely inoffensive for that to work. Pretty much the entirety of the fun vacuum generation would be putting a stop to any form of discussion.
 
scaramanga said:
But you just said that anyone has the right to say anything. That opinion isn't compatible with there being any kind of line.
Click to expand...
Anyone has the right to say (and do) anything (not the case in genuinely 'oppressed' countries). Those words or actions then pass thru the rules/laws filter. So that's where the discussion around lines come in.

Is there a discussion around the ladies right to say it in the first place? She can say what she likes (no matter how misguided)...but live with the consequences.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Anyone has the right to say (and do) anything (not the case in genuinely 'oppressed' countries). Those words or actions then pass thru the rules/laws filter. So that's where the discussion around lines come in.

Is there a discussion around the ladies right to say it in the first place? She can say what she likes (no matter how misguided)...but live with the consequences.
Click to expand...
That doesn't pass the sense test.

Anyone in the most oppressed countries can say whatever they want and live with the consequences.

That's not free speech, it's not even close.
 
scaramanga said:
That doesn't pass the sense test.

Anyone in the most oppressed countries can say whatever they want and live with the consequences.

That's not free speech, it's not even close.
Click to expand...
Just typical hypocrasy mate as is their "you're not allowed to be against her prison sentence as its in line with the law" (i.e. played with fire = got burned) which i'm 100% sure the same people will apply to laws they disagree with in the third world....."bi*ch got stoned to death for cheating on her husband....played with fire.....got burned.....no sympathy for the cheating witch"
 
scaramanga said:
I disagree that it's anything to do with the current state of public discourse.

It's an impossibility to find a workable solution where the legality of words can be defined by anyone who chooses to be offended. Far too many people are offended by things that are entirely inoffensive for that to work. Pretty much the entirety of the fun vacuum generation would be putting a stop to any form of discussion.
Click to expand...

I believe that if modern agitators were not as influential, the balance would be far easier to find personally. But it is now very very hard to see a place where it can happen, and yes, in this era it appears (at best) utopian sadly.
 
thfcsteff said:
I believe that if modern agitators were not as influential, the balance would be far easier to find personally. But it is now very very hard to see a place where it can happen, and yes, in this era it appears (at best) utopian sadly.
Click to expand...
Its not just the agitators it is the whole set up of everything. Even down to AI algorthmns behind search engines and social media content that basically try to show you results and content you'll be happy with based on your past history (i.e. you're presented with confirmation that your views are correct all the time and views that challenge your views are buried). We increasingly live in an echo chamber of confirmation bias. One of the reasons why i spend a lot of time on here is that old school forum formats are one of the last bastions of unfiltered challenging opinions....
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Its not just the agitators it is the whole set up of everything. Even down to AI algorthmns behind search engines and social media content that basically try to show you results and content you'll be happy with based on your past history (i.e. you're presented with confirmation that your views are correct all the time and views that challenge your views are buried). We increasingly live in an echo chamber of confirmation bias. One of the reasons why i spend a lot of time on here is that old school forum formats are one of the last bastions of unfiltered challenging opinions....
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree mate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back