Religion The Fucking Left

[Tom]

Banning anonymous accounts just removes an avenue for vulnerable individuals to express themselves. To talk about abuses of authority. To release information those in power would rather keep private.

If Priti Patel supports it, you can bet your arse it's a bad idea.

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/FindingDore/status/1451643838318190598

 

[Raven]

Oh for fucks sake. Don't they get bored of this shit? Original message and reason, absolutely nuked by fuckwittery.

 

[Bodhi]

Fairly safe to say I have very little time for Novara Media in the slightest, however this morning it appears Youtube decided to delete their channel.


View: https://twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1452948347438911490?s=20


Not seen any reasoning behind it, but we're going down a very dubious road if the Tech giants can arbitrarily shut down news channels - no matter how unhinged.

 

[Ormorof]

Im not a fan either but hasn't this kind of thing been going on already with billionaire ownership of news and media companies anyway? They push their own agenda either way

 

[Aoami]

Fairly safe to say I have very little time for Novara Media in the slightest, however this morning it appears Youtube decided to delete their channel.


View: https://twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1452948347438911490?s=20


Not seen any reasoning behind it, but we're going down a very dubious road if the Tech giants can arbitrarily shut down news channels - no matter how unhinged.

Probably just a "bug in the algorithm" type situation, but they're happening a lot...

 

[Aoami]

View: https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1452892180301889538

 

[Scouse]

View: https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1452892180301889538

Wow. I wish Youtube would delete talk radio. What a thick fat cunt.

I guess he's playing to their demographics tho. People who believe you can "grow concrete".

 

[Bodhi]

Im not a fan either but hasn't this kind of thing been going on already with billionaire ownership of news and media companies anyway? They push their own agenda either way

I think the difference there is that the "legacy" media companies are defined as publishers by law, the social media companies are supposed to be more democratic.

Looks as if Novara have been reinstated anyway, after complaints from those notorious Left Wing mouthpieces, The Spectator and unherd, amongst others.

 

[Tom]

I fucking love that interview. He's the first to call people lefty snowflakes, the first to criticise people whose lifestyle he doesn't like. And the instant he gets someone on who puts him in his place with very simple facts, he loses the plot. Says something that's utter bollocks. The guest leaves him to flail for a few seconds, and the stupid moron gets out of it by cutting him off.

It's an amazing reveal of exactly how stupid he is.

 

[Raven]

Wow. I wish Youtube would delete talk radio. What a thick fat cunt.

I guess he's playing to their demographics tho. People who believe you can "grow concrete".

You see what a difference it makes not having a chancer as your spokesman? The fatty got destroyed.

 

[DaGaffer]

View: https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1452892180301889538

What the fuck was that?

 

[ECA]

just in case anyone didn't know, good old rupe owns talkradio and is using them to pump right wing garbage out in the uk because he can't do it via a tv channel. ( alongside his paper based disinformation practices ).

 

[Raven]

Open letter signed by 16,000 calls for BBC apology over trans article

The letter, which takes issue with a BBC News online story, is signed by more than 16,000 people.

www.bbc.co.uk

Shark, jumped.

 

[Gwadien]

Open letter signed by 16,000 calls for BBC apology over trans article

The letter, which takes issue with a BBC News online story, is signed by more than 16,000 people.

www.bbc.co.uk

Shark, jumped.

16,000 people.

Nothing.

 

[Ormorof]

16,000 people.

Nothing.

16k people with too much spare time

 

[Raven]

16,000 people.

Nothing.

Enough for the BBC to write an article where they attempt to defend themselves against nutters. Tip, it won't work.

 

[Scouse]

OK - moving this from the football thread (because, you know, football).

West Ham condemns video of fans’ antisemitic chant at Jewish man

Club says it's 'appalled' by a clip circulating on social media and commits to ban anyone identified as taking part in the chant

jewishnews.timesofisrael.com

Oh, god...

I'm not condoning but I'm not willing to condemn this lot either. Hear me out whilst I make the argument:


I want to ask a question: Given ridicule is a proven method of shaming people into looking at their idiotic religious practices - one that the organised religions have pushed back against (including through lobbying of governments to pass laws against "religious hate") - Exactly how are you supposed to ridicule the Jewish community into ending their barbaric practice of the genital mutilation of male babies if you're actually banned from ridiculing them?

Whilst undoubtedly unpleasant for the Jewish guy on the plane his practice of cutting off babies foreskins should be challenged in the plain light of day IMO. Especially since ultra-orthodox Jewsish practice is to suck the baby's dick clean* once they've cut the foreskin off - a practice that is not only wholely disgusting - it's one that is still carried out in the western world and apart from cruelly depriving children of body parts it's one that spreads painful and life-changing sexually transmitted diseases to them too.

Now, I know it's just a bunch of morons singing chants on a plane to a Jew. They're hardly having an intellectual stab at shaming disgusting religious practices. But every one of those lads would also stand up and stop someone dressed as a Nazi trying to remove him from the plane to burn him. So saying "chanting anti jewish slogans = deep seated antisemitism" is not true. And I'd argue that sort of oversimplification is dangerous.

We must be able to criticise religious practices. That includes this sort of exertion of everyday social pressure. It's not supposed to be pleasant to bear - otherwise it's not pressure. And with no pressure comes no reason for people to change.


Apologists for freedom of speech laws will say that there are different forums and different methodologies that can be applied to ban these practices. But that completely misses the point. We need that sort of religious thinking to die - and the only way to do that is through everyday pressure through free speech and ridicule. Not through physical beatings and violence - but taking the piss out of people in a way that makes them feel bad. Just in the way these retards are doing it.

Our oversimplistic anti-hate laws actively support continued barbarity.

Before anyone jumps up and down on me for making this argument - if you don't like it can you please (pretty please! I'm asking nicely!) describe a solid alternative mechanism for social change that we know works - if you continue to hold to the opinion that this stuff should be banned.




*that's actually hogwash. They chew it off. They've previously said that they make an initial cut with a scalpel before "removing" the rest with the mouth. But whichever way you cut it (sorry) the end result is that a rabbi ends up sucking on a crying baby's mutilated cock in full view of the parents and wider congregation.

 

[Aoami]

What's a load of pissed up football fans on a plane singing a football song got to do with legitimate criticism of religious practices? I'm sure they were all really thinking of the nuances of the situation rather than "oh look a Jew better take the piss here". I understand your point to some degree, but it's a really weird way to make it.

 

[Scouse]

Already addressed that in my post @Aoami. But I will expand on that specific point to make it clearer - although I suspect it may upset you.

This is the normal distribution curve of IQ:


I highlighted a yellow bit to make this argument: This is the IQ of people and percentage of the population who can usefully contribute to a discussion on a qualitative analysis of religious practices.

Red is the IQ and porportion of population of people who we actually need involved to bring about social change. On any subject. Not just chewing babies penises. But a significant proportion of red (especially the sub-average IQ) aren't capable of that useful qualitative analysis.

I think so far, so not incredibly controversial. We all know some thick people who will just never "get it" because it's not within their ken - and that's not their fault.


Moving on, you said this:

legitimate criticism of religious practices

I'd like you to define legitimate criticism please m8. (And I'd like, again, to point out I'd said this in my original post: "if you don't like it can you please (pretty please! I'm asking nicely!) describe a solid alternative mechanism for social change that we know works - if you continue to hold to the opinion that this stuff should be banned")

If you're restricting criticism of religious practices to the portion of people who can usefully contribute to an intellectual discussion then what you're actually doing is prohibiting the entirety of the population who *must* be involved to bring around social change. Change *has* to happen at a grassroots level.

So how do you involve the people who know that chewing off baby's foreskins, giving them herpes and mutilating them for life is bad - but can't articulate it in a way that you find socially acceptable? Especially in the day-to-day encounters that drive actual social change - pressure *must* be applied *everywhere* to drive social change.

If you're a guy with an IQ of 80 trying to bring about change in a guy with an IQ of 80. Then you're not going to be holding intellectual discussions. Hell, if you're a guy with an IQ of 80 you're probably not even cogniscant of the requirement to change. You're just going along with singing songs about genital mutilation because you enjoy singing and you're having a great time.

If you asked a guy with an IQ of 80 why he was singing songs about Jews cutting foreskins off - he'd go, and quite rightly, "well, they fucking do, don't they!".


Yes. Yes they do. And if that's the level of social pressure that he can apply then he should be allowed to express himself at the level he can express himself.

This "legititmate" criticism argument is an argument to STOP criticism of religious practices across the board. And since across the board criticism and ridicule - at all tiers of society - is necessary to bring about social change - then the "legitimate" criticism argument, wittingly or unwittingly, plays into the hands of the status quo.

If you stop these people laughing at jews because they cut babies foreskins off you make it significantly less likely for this abhorrent practice to ever stop. Because the pressure has to happen *everywhere* - not just at the level of people who can "legitimately" criticise child-abuse.



So yep. If you can define A) what you mean by legitimate criticism and B) if you refute the above - please give a mechanism by which we can bring about social change and pressure across all strata of society.

B) is the important question to answer. We have a proven method - free speech - it's upsetting and it's messy but it works and, enables everyone to take part to the level they're able (whether wittingly or unwittingly) and is based in reality - how the messy world actually works, rather than how some "offended" person thinks the world should work. - if you've got a workable alternative I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise, in this case alone, we're simply locking-in continued child abuse just so we don't have to hear distasteful things we don't like.

 

[Raven]

Why tho?

 

[Aoami]

Because they're not criticising anything, they're making a joke about the fact Jews don't have foreskins? Football chants are not social commentaries. Do you think United fans think all scousers are actually sat at home eating rats in their council houses? It's really not that deep.

 

[DaGaffer]

OK - moving this from the football thread (because, you know, football).




I'm not condoning but I'm not willing to condemn this lot either. Hear me out whilst I make the argument:


I want to ask a question: Given ridicule is a proven method of shaming people into looking at their idiotic religious practices - one that the organised religions have pushed back against (including through lobbying of governments to pass laws against "religious hate") - Exactly how are you supposed to ridicule the Jewish community into ending their barbaric practice of the genital mutilation of male babies if you're actually banned from ridiculing them?

Whilst undoubtedly unpleasant for the Jewish guy on the plane his practice of cutting off babies foreskins should be challenged in the plain light of day IMO. Especially since ultra-orthodox Jewsish practice is to suck the baby's dick clean* once they've cut the foreskin off - a practice that is not only wholely disgusting - it's one that is still carried out in the western world and apart from cruelly depriving children of body parts it's one that spreads painful and life-changing sexually transmitted diseases to them too.

Now, I know it's just a bunch of morons singing chants on a plane to a Jew. They're hardly having an intellectual stab at shaming disgusting religious practices. But every one of those lads would also stand up and stop someone dressed as a Nazi trying to remove him from the plane to burn him. So saying "chanting anti jewish slogans = deep seated antisemitism" is not true. And I'd argue that sort of oversimplification is dangerous.

We must be able to criticise religious practices. That includes this sort of exertion of everyday social pressure. It's not supposed to be pleasant to bear - otherwise it's not pressure. And with no pressure comes no reason for people to change.


Apologists for freedom of speech laws will say that there are different forums and different methodologies that can be applied to ban these practices. But that completely misses the point. We need that sort of religious thinking to die - and the only way to do that is through everyday pressure through free speech and ridicule. Not through physical beatings and violence - but taking the piss out of people in a way that makes them feel bad. Just in the way these retards are doing it.

Our oversimplistic anti-hate laws actively support continued barbarity.

Before anyone jumps up and down on me for making this argument - if you don't like it can you please (pretty please! I'm asking nicely!) describe a solid alternative mechanism for social change that we know works - if you continue to hold to the opinion that this stuff should be banned.




*that's actually hogwash. They chew it off. They've previously said that they make an initial cut with a scalpel before "removing" the rest with the mouth. But whichever way you cut it (sorry) the end result is that a rabbi ends up sucking on a crying baby's mutilated cock in full view of the parents and wider congregation.

Oh FFS. TLDR. They were cunts being cunts on a Ryanair flight.

I'm no fan of orthodox Judaism, but this is about manners and good behaviour, irrespective of ethnicity.

 

[Scouse]

Oh FFS. TLDR.

Have a go when you've got time. I'm making an important argument about freedom of speech here IMO. I'd like you to shoot it full of holes if you think it needs to be - and I'm fine with that. But if your TLDR means "I don't want to think about this" then... 🤷

They were cunts being cunts on a Ryanair flight.

Absolutely they were. Don't disagree.

However, I'm making an argument that we shouldn't outlaw this cuntery.

I'm no fan of orthodox Judaism, but this is about manners and good behaviour, irrespective of ethnicity.

On one hand, absolutely it is. And I do agree.

But on the other hand - if this sort of "bad" behaviour doesn't happen because we've made it illegal - where does that pressure apply? Where does he actually get challenged on a day-to-day basis about his belief that it's OK to mutilate babies genitals - potentially a ceremony he's attended more than once where he's looked over and smiled at his wife whilst the rabbi was sucking on the baby's cock?

This is what's up for grabs in this specific case.

Try this (please): Watch the video again. This time, try to imagine it without the orthodox jew's presence. Are we that offended? Or is it the fact that we identify with the discomfort that the orthodox jewish gentleman feels and feel bad for him - and therefore want the thickies to stop.

This gentleman has heard all of the arguments about his religion, about why they shouldn't be mutilating and abusing children - yet he continues to do it and continues to support those practices.

I think we need this sort of boorish behaviour in public life. It's a demented football chant born of nothing more intellectual than a desire to have a pop at Tottenham fans whilst having a sing-song. And like all football fans they've picked on a weakness whilst making up their song. The weakness being that a lot of Tottenham fans are Jewish and Jews are institutionally involved in male genital mutilation.

I think those songs, sung on the terraces of football stadiums across the land, are not only fair game - but they're socially necessary.

We're not talking about condoning violence or genocide. We're talking about social criticism and piss-taking. If Jews weren't mutilating babies foreskins then the piss wouldn't be getting taken - but they are and it is. And that's quite right. A more nuanced argument is being made. I'd go so far to say that I don't think the song is inherently antisemitic. You ask those guys "do you hate jews" and they'll say no.

And they would very likely be telling the truth...

 

[Aoami]

But on the other hand - if this sort of "bad" behaviour doesn't happen because we've made it illegal - where does that pressure apply? Where does he actually get challenged on a day-to-day basis about his belief that it's OK to mutilate babies genitals - potentially a ceremony he's attended more than once where he's looked over and smiled at his wife whilst the rabbi was sucking on the baby's cock?

This is what's up for grabs in this specific case.

No it isn't. They're not challenging his beliefs, half of these people probably don't even know what a circumcision is. They're singing a jokey song about the fact that jews don't have foreskins, not providing some deep criticism of a religious practice.

How does it help anything? You think this bloke is going to go back to synagog and say "lads, we've got to stop giving briss now cos some west ham fans laughed at the fact jews dont have a cockhat."

 

[Scouse]

No it isn't. They're not challenging his beliefs, half of these people probably don't even know what a circumcision is. They're singing a jokey song about the fact that jews don't have foreskins, not providing some deep criticism of a religious practice.

Agree.

Addressed this very point above in my IQ curve post.

 

[JBP|]

Someone around here clearly has too much time on their hands.

 

[Wij]

Let's not get into IQs. I tested 165 when I was a student which makes me an Einstein apparently but I can be a total moron a lot of the time

 

[Aoami]

Agree.

Addressed this very point above in my IQ curve post.

Then what is the point you are trying to make? It doesn't make any sense.

Like I said earlier - Legitimate criticism of religious beliefs should, and always needs to be ok. Taking the piss out a Jew because you think it's funny is not that, and isn't really OK.

Edit - If the fans were chanting "We're West Ham and we think that the practice of briss is outdated and barbaric and should be outlawed", you might have a point. But they're singing about running around Tottenham with their nobs in their hands.

 

[Scouse]

Let's not get into IQs.

I think we have to (a little bit) if we're to have an adult discussion on this Wij. We have to accept there is a range of capabilities across society and therefore a range of interactions.

Yep, fully accept that none of those songs are born out of a deisre for social change. But without the low-level fuckwittery where is the day-to-day pressure coming from?

I've described a mechanism (used wittingly or importantly, un-wittingly) by which people who do fucking stupid things (child abuse) have the piss taken out of them in their daily lives for it. They're made to feel uncomfortable - and that's a desireable outcome whilst the stupid things (child abuse) continues.

I've said it multiple times - if people have a better alternative then shout up. All people seem capable of doing is saying "nope".