PC is the *enemy* of equality - that's why it need to be resisted. It is intolerance masquerading as tolerance.

 

Just watch what happens when a public figure makes a non-PC remark, even accidentally : social media goes into overdrive to castigate them - that is intolerance personified!

 

OMG, someone worries about hurting someone's feelings - hang the bast*rds!

 

Or, let's say, make a non-PC remark now as an example and watch the Brexit brigade go into full throttle:

 

How can you tell when a Brexit-supporter is lying?

 

The mouth's open.

 

How can you make a Brexit supporter confused?

 

Ask them to walk and talk at the same time.

 

See, offending people is piss easy, anyone can do it. It's also piss-easy not to do it.

 

PS, I'm not PC in real life, I'm very tolerant of everyone, even those mouthing racist, homophobic "jokes" etc, and I'm inclined to make observations which some might see as offensive (I see them as being overly sensitive for observations that are not inaccurate and not meant with any malice whatsoever). That, however, doesn't mean I would dream of hurting anyone's feelings, and those in public have a responsibility. It's not the fault of considerate people that twats like Boris Johnson have no consideration for other people. So stop trying to blame others for pointing out their faults. As I demonstrated above, it's very easy to lump anyone you don't agree with into a blanket joke reference.

You can really tell that you've never faced any actual oppression or discrimination in your life.

 

I see you haven't bothered to comment on the link I posted before - any thoughts?

 

Does bullying at school count?

 

There was a *lot* of into at that link - did you seriously expect me to plough through it all?

 

 

PS, I'm not PC in real life, I'm very tolerant of everyone, even those mouthing racist, homophobic "jokes" etc, and I'm inclined to make observations which some might see as offensive (I see them as being overly sensitive for observations that are not inaccurate and not meant with any malice whatsoever). That, however, doesn't mean I would dream of hurting anyone's feelings, and those in public have a responsibility. It's not the fault of considerate people that twats like Boris Johnson have no consideration for other people. So stop trying to blame others for pointing out their faults. As I demonstrated above, it's very easy to lump anyone you don't agree with into a blanket joke reference.

 

This leads to another issue.

 

As you know, many older people were raised at a time when attitudes that would be considered racist now, were nothing out of the ordinary then. Even if they do retain such beliefs, most are too polite to express them openly.

 

What tends to annoy people most though is being told what to believe. Show me someone who claims to like being told what they should believe, and you'll be showing me a liar. Either way, surely its better for people to decide on their own to change their attitudes, rather than being intimidated into concealing them by laws. It's like forced religious conversions - people may put up an appearance of conversion to save themselves from persecution, but they haven't really changed.

 

The point is - does this make them as racist as someone who, say firebombs a gay bar, or beats up an immigrant?

We are all constantly being told how much we love the royal family. I never have, and never will.

We are all constantly being told how much we love the royal family. I never have, and never will.

 

You're not a fan of The Smiths, by any chance? :P

 

Seriously though, the alternative of an elected head of state is not appealing, especially given who this thread is about!

Edited November 28, 20177 yr by vidcapper

As you know, many older people were raised at a time when attitudes that would be considered racist now, were nothing out of the ordinary then. Even if they do retain such beliefs, most are too polite to express them openly.

 

What tends to annoy people most though is being told what to believe. Show me someone who claims to like being told what they should believe, and you'll be showing me a liar. Either way, surely its better for people to decide on their own to change their attitudes, rather than being intimidated into concealing them by laws. It's like forced religious conversions - people may put up an appearance of conversion to save themselves from persecution, but they haven't really changed.

 

The point is - does this make them as racist as someone who, say firebombs a gay bar, or beats up an immigrant?

 

The point actually is, no-one is forcing anyone to believe anything. What we are doing is pointing out blatant lies and discrimination (and yes illegal actions). Believing something is fine as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Do snowflake liberal namby pambys actually hurt or harm you in any way whatsoever? No.

 

Does inflammatory race hatred nazi, KKK activists who want to actually murder all black people from the face of the USA harm people? Yes.

 

Your choosing to focus on some oddball moans about trivia rather misses the vital point entirely, and you still never say "well I know it's wrong to slur people due to the colour of their skin, and I totally support equality, but this tweet/news item/whatever is a little bit OTT don't you agree?" At which point we prob would agree.

 

It's the attempt to ignore serious issues under one blanket condemnation of PC as something bad (it isn't) that is everybody's ongoing problems with your comments. The only bad side of PC is where some people choose to mouth off at trivial matters of little consequence, or perhaps misunderstand the purpose of humour.

The point actually is, no-one is forcing anyone to believe anything. What we are doing is pointing out blatant lies and discrimination (and yes illegal actions).

 

But by passing laws to criminalise the expression of certain (unpleasant) opinions, free speech is being undermined, as it must include the freedom to be offensive, or why even bother?

 

 

Does inflammatory race hatred nazi, KKK activists who want to actually murder all black people from the face of the USA harm people? Yes.

If they *act* on it, yes.

 

I've always found it ironic that they complain about the presence of blacks, when it was people just like them who brought them over in the first place!

 

Your choosing to focus on some oddball moans about trivia rather misses the vital point entirely, and you still never say "well I know it's wrong to slur people due to the colour of their skin, and I totally support equality, but this tweet/news item/whatever is a little bit OTT don't you agree?" At which point we prob would agree.

 

This goes back to what I was saying recently - you expect me to explicitly state, line by line, my views on *everything* related to race & intolerance, and if I don't you automatically assume the worst of me - which, ironically, is itself is a form of pre-judging...

 

It's the attempt to ignore serious issues under one blanket condemnation of PC as something bad (it isn't) that is everybody's ongoing problems with your comments. The only bad side of PC is where some people choose to mouth off at trivial matters of little consequence, or perhaps misunderstand the purpose of humour.

 

That's partly because I don't believe political correctness is necessary.

 

Most people behave considerately to others by default, so don't need to be told - and the few that don't, aren't going to change their opinions through 'nagging', so ISTM therefore that PC has no real purpose.

But by passing laws to criminalise the expression of certain (unpleasant) opinions, free speech is being undermined, as it must include the freedom to be offensive, or why even bother?

If they *act* on it, yes.

 

I've always found it ironic that they complain about the presence of blacks, when it was people just like them who brought them over in the first place!

This goes back to what I was saying recently - you expect me to explicitly state, line by line, my views on *everything* related to race & intolerance, and if I don't you automatically assume the worst of me - which, ironically, is itself is a form of pre-judging...

That's partly because I don't believe political correctness is necessary.

 

Most people behave considerately to others by default, so don't need to be told - and the few that don't, aren't going to change their opinions through 'nagging', so ISTM therefore that PC has no real purpose.

 

Drifitng off topic here.

 

But anyway, free speech doesnt include the right to incite violence and murder. That is evil. If you can't see that then you are condoning it. At which we go full circle to previous discussions, and it's pointless repeating it.

 

If you don't condone it, say so. It takes seconds to make your view quite plain. Literally about 10 seconds. If you can't be bothered to clarify your position why should anyone care what you think when all you do is drone endlessly on about people trying to make the planet a better place being "PC" and "snowflake" as if they are something the world needs to get rid of, and yet support the right of people to make it a worse, hate-filled place and never condemn any of them when they DO commit atrocities.

 

As I say, take seconds of your time. You can't bother, why should we assume otherwise. People draw conclusions just as you seem to draw conclusions on everyone in the world who is vaguely liberal leaning as being something you are against and look for posts (usually in vain) to try and justify your world view.

 

Basically, like most of the Trump-type-supporters, you are relentless in accusations, and light on facts and reality.

 

 

Does inflammatory race hatred nazi, KKK activists who want to actually murder all black people from the face of the USA harm people? Yes.

If they *act* on it, yes.

Threatening genocide and jeopardizing the safety of an entire race IS ACTING ON IT.

Drifitng off topic here.

 

But anyway, free speech doesnt include the right to incite violence and murder. That is evil. If you can't see that then you are condoning it. At which we go full circle to previous discussions, and it's pointless repeating it.

 

If you don't condone it, say so. It takes seconds to make your view quite plain. Literally about 10 seconds.

 

Of course I condemn violence - I'm saddened that anyone would think I wouldn't. :(

 

The thing is - I am able to separate the free-speech right to say such things, while still condemning those who actually do. A concept that seems impossible for you to grasp.

 

 

If they *act* on it, yes.Threatening genocide and jeopardizing the safety of an entire race IS ACTING ON IT.

 

*Plotting* genocide would be acting in it, merely threatening it is just posturing.

 

e.g. who hasn't casually said 'I want to beat such-and-such a person up', but if you actually hired a gang of thugs to do so, then that would be a crime, while the former wouldn't be.

Of course I condemn violence - I'm saddened that anyone would think I wouldn't. :(

 

The thing is - I am able to separate the free-speech right to say such things, while still condemning those who actually do. A concept that seems impossible for you to grasp.

*Plotting* genocide would be acting in it, merely threatening it is just posturing.

 

e.g. who hasn't casually said 'I want to beat such-and-such a person up', but if you actually hired a gang of thugs to do so, then that would be a crime, while the former wouldn't be.

 

...and the concept of a link between allowing hate speech and people acting on it is equally impossible for you to grasp because you put the ideal of unlimited freedom of speech (which doesnt exist anywhere in the world and never has in the whole of human history) ahead of your supposed (unexpressed until above) concern for the victims of violence. There is a link, blatantly obvious, 100% proven throughout history, of hate speech and violence. we see it on the news every bloody day for God's sake.

 

Second-point, hate speech without action is just as hurtful, it's emotional distress which is being caused. You have a daughter? Presumably you would be very happy with anyone mentally abusing her, calling her a useless waste of space, someone the planet wants to be rid of, and people campaigning to have her murdered, stop her getting the best jobs, all in the name of free speech, because it doesn't matter it's better to have free speech even hate speech?

 

Now, no changing the subject. Are you or are you not in favour of everyone in Buzzjack being able to express our free views along those lines about your daughter and no matter what we say you are OK with that? (a daughter who we have never met, and you profess to hold views that do what's best for her)

 

I sincerely hope you are not OK with that, BTW, and point made.

 

 

...and the concept of a link between allowing hate speech and people acting on it is equally impossible for you to grasp because you put the ideal of unlimited freedom of speech (which doesnt exist anywhere in the world and never has in the whole of human history) ahead of your supposed (unexpressed until above) concern for the victims of violence. There is a link, blatantly obvious, 100% proven throughout history, of hate speech and violence. we see it on the news every bloody day for God's sake.

 

My belief is along the lines of the famous quotation 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'

 

 

'

Second-point, hate speech without action is just as hurtful, it's emotional distress which is being caused. You have a daughter? Presumably you would be very happy with anyone mentally abusing her, calling her a useless waste of space, someone the planet wants to be rid of, and people campaigning to have her murdered, stop her getting the best jobs, all in the name of free speech, because it doesn't matter it's better to have free speech even hate speech?

The above is why we have libel/slander laws. You can say what you want, but if it is deemed harmful, you will have to defend it in court, and if necessary, pay a high price. Remember the David Irving case.

 

Now, no changing the subject. Are you or are you not in favour of everyone in Buzzjack being able to express our free views along those lines about your daughter and no matter what we say you are OK with that? (a daughter who we have never met, and you profess to hold views that do what's best for her)

 

I sincerely hope you are not OK with that, BTW, and point made.

 

I address this in my above answer.

 

FYI, I don't have a daughter anyway.

 

In the latest episode of 'Can Donald Trump get any worse?' he's now retweeted Islamophobic videos from far-right wing party / hate group Britain First, an action that's been condemned by Downing Street.

In the latest episode of 'Can Donald Trump get any worse?' he's now retweeted Islamophobic videos from far-right wing party / hate group Britain First, an action that's been condemned by Downing Street.

 

I assume they were videos showing ISIS atrocities?

 

also, the videos are apparently fake

 

also, the videos are apparently fake

 

The last one definitely is - it's actually of a dark haired Dutch boy beating up a light haired Dutch boy.

My belief is along the lines of the famous quotation 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'

'The above is why we have libel/slander laws. You can say what you want, but if it is deemed harmful, you will have to defend it in court, and if necessary, pay a high price. Remember the David Irving case.

I address this in my above answer.

 

FYI, I don't have a daughter anyway.

 

So, you are threatening to use slander/libel laws at the same time you are saying you want no-holds-barred free speech involving incitement to murder. Make your mind up, you either believe in total utter free speech, or all you are doing is arguing about where the boundary lines are. I say paedophilia, murder, rape, racism are all pretty good boundary lines to draw. How about you? Everyone should be free to collect photos or encourage others to do the above?

 

That, BTW is what hate speech is all about. People wanting to bring it on inciting much more stupid people to do what they know they will go to prison for. So it's JUST AS BAD!

 

No daughter? Goodo, that moral dilemma isnt one you have to deal with then. Which may explain some of your opinions.

*Plotting* genocide would be acting in it, merely threatening it is just posturing.

 

e.g. who hasn't casually said 'I want to beat such-and-such a person up', but if you actually hired a gang of thugs to do so, then that would be a crime, while the former wouldn't be.

Actually threats are against the law. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

 

Racially motivated threats are also covered under hate crime statutes.

 

:magic:

 

I assume they were videos showing ISIS atrocities?

Nope! Just fake bullshit peddled by a racist skid mark on trial for hate speech next month in Belfast.

Trump set to come to UK in FEBRUARY

 

Calls for US president to be ARRESTED if he defies fury over 'racist' retweets to make low-key trip - as May minister says he is 'deeply uncomfortable' about visit

 

I know you don't like the Mail, but I thought it was worth posting this anyway...

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-51...te-spat-PM.html

In even more serious developments we can now say another of Trump's former cronies has pleaded guilty to lying about illegal Russian meetings before taking office. Trumpgate is building nicely.

 

As I said at the start of the year, they all clearly guilty from evidence already in the public domain (never mind what we don't know) and the first to plead guilty get the lighter sentences in exchange for co-operating in investigations. Very much looking forward to Jared Kushner & the Trump juniors having the opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law. I wonder if Trump will suddenly deny they are his children and that it's all their own fault, as he has with the latest guilty pleader.

 

Of course he could try giving them all Presidential pardons but errr that would look like he has something himself to hide from the American people and American justice.

Quite enjoying this from the guy who got "Masterchef Synesthesia" to #37 in the summer of 2011. Once In Trump's Lifetime...