SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

Its not political at all

Yes it is.

We can't continue to live and think like that if we want to survive as a species.

 

[Gwadien]

Yes it is.

We can't continue to live and think like that if we want to survive as a species.

Couldn't one argue that you are trying to restrict people's freedoms?

 

[Scouse]

Couldn't one argue that you are trying to restrict people's freedoms?

Yes. But tough shit.

We restrict peoples freedom of action for lots of different things.

You kill people with your smoking? You can't do it indoors any more. This is no different from that.

It's very different to the argument on freedom of speech, which I hold a strong principled stance on. Freedom of action can be - and must be - curbed in certain circumstances.

That's why we have democratic political oversight. It's the whole fucking point.



But *buh* freeeeeeeeeeedom!!!!!!!!!! seems to be the idiots argument when you need to stop people acting in a way we cannot afford. (And I'm sympathetic to a lot of it - but if we want to survive as a species*** then we need to do things differently)



***we won't. We die out. Because we're so dumb that we argue over the obviously stupid - so how are we supposed to fix the much more marginal cases that are necessary to fix for our survival?

 

[Gwadien]

But when I argue for the exact same things over brain washing people over posting utter bullshit over social media etc and you seem to have a problem putting an end to that?

I think the divide and conquer of our society through spreading lies is far more damaging in the short-term of our species/planet than global warming.

 

[Scouse]

But when I argue for the exact same things over brain washing people over posting utter bullshit over social media etc and you seem to have a problem putting an end to that?

That's clearly a freedom of speech issue and completely separate.

I was very clearly explicit about that in my post because I knew where you were going to go next - and you went there anyway.

 

[Gwadien]

That's clearly a freedom of speech issue and completely separate.

I was very clearly explicit about that in my post because I knew where you were going to go next - and you went there anyway.

No it's not, they're all under 'freedoms' just because you want to make it a separate issue doesn't mean it is.

I still don't understand how you think there's a disconnect between speech and action.

 

[MYstIC G]

You kill people with your smoking? You can't do it indoors any more.

Only in public, no?

 

[Scouse]

Are you

Only in public, no?

Yep. Or in your car when you have passengers under the age of 18.

 

[Scouse]

I still don't understand how you think there's a disconnect between speech and action.

Been through it a million times and you've willfully refused to get it.

Censoring speech is censoring thought. If you censor thought then you hand power to arbitrary authorities to make decisions on what is permissable - and entrench potential injustices (like the Church's edicts on the treatment of women and homosexuals throughout the ages). It enables "heresey" as a crime - and it's just as dangerous with governments as it is with the Church.

Prohibiting actions on the other hand is necessary - we prohibit murder, smoking in cars with kids, speeding, building extensions where bats are present without obeying licencing rules, underage drinking etc. etc. There is political oversight of this - and *FREE SPEECH* enables the challenging of these prohibitions.


If you don't have free speech, you can't challenge the prohibitions in a democractic fashion.


The twattish thing is - you don't believe in free speech - so when I talk about prohibition of action, you want to turn it to an argument on free speech. But if I want to talk to you about free speech you're like "no man, whatever - we've been through this before".

This is because you want to ban what YOU feel should be banned - and YOU want to be able to proclaim "heresey" because, to you, some things are intrinsically wrong and should always be banned. That is why you, like the church, and authoritarian governments, despots and all-round twats worldwide and throughout history want to fetter and put limits on freedom of speech.

It's the single greatest thing in the American Constitution - an acknowledgement that you can't be criminalised simply for stating what you believe. It enables all sorts of twats to say horrible racist things - but it also protects minorities from (criminal) accusations of heresy. (Of course, if you say the wrong thing you get hounded out of twitter, facebook, your job and public life by these wankers, but you don't automatically receive a jail term for it).

Funny that anti-free speech milennials think arguments on twitter and facebook are more important than the destruction of the natural world. Well, sad, really, rather than funny. But whatever.

 

[Gwadien]

Funny that anti-free speech milennials think arguments on twitter and facebook are more important than the destruction of the natural world. Well, sad, really, rather than funny. But whatever.

I would do a proper response, but I'll let you stick to your Trumpisms and I'malrightjackisms.

 

[Scouse]

I would do a proper response, but I'm actually incapable of providing a cogent counter-argument and realise that every time you take the time to type a good-faith response I cop out...

FTFY.

Sucks to be wrong, but you hold on to your faith Gwad. Still love ta :wub:

 

[Gwadien]

FTFY.

Sucks to be wrong, but you hold on to your faith Gwad. Still love ta :wub:

I just don't see the point in communicating with someone that loves to apply labels (incorrectly, as I am not millienial).

Ive come to realise that your opinions are formed around how things effect you hence why you're happy to tax everything you disagree with but when things like asking cyclists to pay for damage they cause in accidents you're dismissive because youre a cyclist.

What I'm suggesting protects people that are easily influenced into extremist politics which means that we'll perpetually be in a state of politics being about the truth and alternative truths, but obviously you're too clever to fall for that so why do anything about it?

The idea that we stop people spreading lies is one step closer to living in an Orwelian society is complete bullshit and you know it, thats the kind of fear mongering that the likes of Trump spread but it just isn't true.

Do you really think banning people from doing environmentally damaging things is going to be more effective than stopping people spreading lies about what damaging the environment means and the consequences of it is?

 

[Scouse]

*sigh*

But:

Do you really think banning people from doing environmentally damaging things is going to be more effective than stopping people spreading lies about what damaging the environment means and the consequences of it is?

So, you think banning people from talking shit (how!!) is more important than banning people from *doing* shit.

Wowzers.

 

[Lamp]

I went to my sisters house last night
I farted and the dog barked

Well I thought it was funny

 

[Ctuchik]

At 1:22 there's a sign that says "Scan this QR code with your NHS COVID-19 app to check in"..

What's that about? That just a fancy counter to better help limit the number of people in a room or what?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUAyPdMGI9I

 

[Raven]

No, if you check in somewhere and then it turns out someone that was there when you were there get's the rona, you have to get tested. It's part of track and trace.

 

[Embattle]

Hut Group CEO to get £830m in shares in one of UK's biggest payouts

Matthew Moulding’s windfall after rise in share price prompts calls for higher taxes on wealthy

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ctuchik]

No, if you check in somewhere and then it turns out someone that was there when you were there get's the rona, you have to get tested. It's part of track and trace.

Ooooooooh, smart!

 

[Job]

The throwaway cliched comment for freedom of speech is 'with consequences'.
We tend to treat that as benign, passing on the responsibility for the speaker not to say anything that breaches societal norms or calling for violence, endangering lives etc.

But its actually the core of the problem...the consequences are being ramped up to the point we all just shut up and the subjects and opinions that are deemed unsayable are being extended exponentially, not by society itself, but by emboldened focus groups and activists.

The vast majority of the people in this country lie in public about how they actually feel and Im not entirely convinced this is a sustainable situation.
Increasingly reddit is introducing approved commenters and the list of words not allowed in posts is growing daily.
Many subs will auto delete posts or threads if they have keywords in them and send you a message saying these words are troublesome.
'Can you say that?' is a response you will hear everytime someone slighly strays off message.

It will go two ways, either we all get with the program and live a public life thats a pr version of our inner thoughts or we have a world war.

My money is on the latter.

 

[Gwadien]

The throwaway cliched comment for freedom of speech is 'with consequences'.
We tend to treat that as benign, passing on the responsibility for the speaker not to say anything that breaches societal norms or calling for violence, endangering lives etc.

But its actually the core of the problem...the consequences are being ramped up to the point we all just shut up and the subjects and opinions that are deemed unsayable are being extended exponentially, not by society itself, but by emboldened focus groups and activists.

The vast majority of the people in this country lie in public about how they actually feel and Im not entirely convinced this is a sustainable situation.
Increasingly reddit is introducing approved commenters and the list of words not allowed in posts is growing daily.
Many subs will auto delete posts or threads if they have keywords in them and send you a message saying these words are troublesome.
'Can you say that?' is a response you will hear everytime someone slighly strays off message.

It will go two ways, either we all get with the program and live a public life thats a pr version of our inner thoughts or we have a world war.

My money is on the latter.

From the man radicalised by the Internet.

 

[Raven]

It reads like the introduction of a movement, detailed on a flyer given out by a shouty mental bloke on a town centre high street.

Lots of words used to describe paranoia but with no actual point to make. Utter twaddle.

 

[Gwadien]

It reads like the introduction of a movement, detailed on a flyer given out by a shouty mental bloke on a town centre high street.

Lots of words used to describe paranoia but with no actual point to make. Utter twaddle.

Prob is that he repeats his message until its true.

Imagine you're a vulnerable kid who comes here looking for right wing extremisism and you see Job spouting his message and pretty much the rest of the forum telling him he's and idiot and he's wrong and in return Job calls us all liberals.

Perfect storm as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DaGaffer]

From the man radicalised by the Internet.

Ignoring all the world war stuff, which he only wrote because it makes his wee-wee hard; @Job isn't actually wrong about self-censorship; we all do it routinely, and the number of social taboos is broadening all the time, often with lite or no discussion beforehand and off the back of often very dodgy reasoning.

 

[Raven]

Yes, but @Job takes umbrage at not being able to call black people 'them filthy darkies' rather than some grey area.

 

[Overdriven]

I've been facepalming @Gwadien for the last week, it's no longer entertaining for me.

You're free

 

[Embattle]

I've been facepalming @Gwadien for the last week, it's no longer entertaining for me.

You're free

Don't worry, he probably thought it was me

 

[Scouse]

@Job isn't actually wrong about self-censorship; we all do it routinely, and the number of social taboos is broadening all the time, often with lite or no discussion beforehand and off the back of often very dodgy reasoning.

That.

 

[Gwadien]

Ignoring all the world war stuff, which he only wrote because it makes his wee-wee hard; @Job isn't actually wrong about self-censorship; we all do it routinely, and the number of social taboos is broadening all the time, often with lite or no discussion beforehand and off the back of often very dodgy reasoning.

I think you need to be more specific on what social taboos.

I'm all for debates contrary to what Scouse may think of me, but there's some things Job supports and wants to be debated like that white people are superior to non white people. Which is obviously nonsense and drives home a dangerous rhetoric.

I don't think we're self censoring it's private businesses such as facebook, twitter etc that are doing it and I still stand by that it's their decision what to do with their platform. But its dangerous for them to give oxygen to far flung extremist ideologies as it will mean a reduced number of users and investors.

 

[Scouse]

I think you need to be more specific on what social taboos

Where's the "approved thoughts" list.
Who keeps it?
Who decides what is allowable or not?
What are the consequences if you go off message, even if you feel strongly another way?

Your way is the way of religious oppression of heretics - apart from at least the church had the good grace to write down what was blasphemous.

As it is - people self-censor all the time. Even in front of seemingly benign questions from pollsters like "will you vote for trump?"

"Oh no. Not me. He's a cunt, clearly. I don't identify with anything he says. Look at my twitter and facebook feeds - I'm clearly anti Trump. I don't need to be on "the list" the Dems are keeping. Nosiree!!"

*votes Trump*

 

[Job]

The more you invent things I have said or think, the more Im becoming convinced a quick freudian analysis will find youre covering up your own desires.

Everything you say about me is just a subset of , Ive won... called them a racist.
Im not going to bother writing why you are wrong because you'll just post.
'Yes you are'.
You are basing this entire assumption on the fact that I discuss these subjects and that pretty well proves my point.