1. I'm not a socialist. Fat Cats are real. To deny otherwise shows you are blind to reality. Try being more specific in you replies if you wish to avoid being misconstrued. Vague 6-word sly supposed-insult responses one has to assume relates to everything you are replying to unless you are clearly stating otherwise. The blame is entirely yours.

 

2. see above

 

Totally agree with that quote.

 

3. There is a world of difference between someone arguing that spouting racist and hate-filled illegal drivel is fundamental right as an excuse for hating "political correctness" as a general way of life. Making measured points about the renaming of manholes as personholes is a perfectly valid comment about "PC Gone Mad" (if it's true and not just UK rag anti-EU bullshit) making the leap into racism isn't. You need to be specific, as always. Stop making vague responses people will stop reading stuff into what you believe based on blase responses to perfectly valid points that you amy or may not agree with - it's impossible to tell one way or the other, as you love being vague and controversial when faced with reason and fact.

 

1. The very nature of capitalism creates inequality, and therefore 'fat-cats' - but only socialists seem to regard success as being inherently wrong.

 

3. IMO Freedom Of Speech trumps (no pun intended) everything - and if we have to suffer the rantings of knuckle-dragging racists morons as a consequence, that's a price worth paying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying : resisting political correctness = racist?

 

As I see it, resisting PC no more makes you a racist, than refusing to allow CCTV in your home makes you a criminal.

 

The last thing any society that *claims* to be free needs is PC 'Thought Police' monitoring every word you utter, and every letter you type. :puke:

I suppose you also think that the description of Auschwitz as "a Nazi death camp in Poland" rather than "a Polish death camp" is also an unnecessary example of political correctness. Why are you so keen to be able to use language that many people find offensive when non-offensive alternatives exist?

1. The very nature of capitalism creates inequality, and therefore 'fat-cats' - but only socialists seem to regard success as being inherently wrong.

 

3. IMO Freedom Of Speech trumps (no pun intended) everything - and if we have to suffer the rantings of knuckle-dragging racists morons as a consequence, that's a price worth paying.

 

Urgh no even going there with your Daily Mail campaign against PC culture - again, it being too extreme does not mean people should use it as an excuse for racism, etc.

 

Anyway, neoliberal capitalism, late stage right now, is GROSS. It generates wealth, but fails to distribute it. We then have a plutocracy, where there are haves, and more millionaires etc, and more have nots, with more in poverty. The middle class is squeezed out. Corporations and media conglomerates then have power, the sofking man has none and is in WOEFUL conditions due to this power/ wealth disparity - see Amazon. You brainwashed capitalists fail to recognise when SUCCESS turns into GREED. An equal society is healthy. Plutocracy is not. Society is becoming more and more like Ancient Rome ... and that's not good.

 

Wealth generates wealth in capitalism, disadvantaging anyone who is not born into it/ born with more ability in less desirable skills. But if you like being ruled by the Landed Gentry, boxed out by fixed structures and nepotism and wealth clubs, and ruled by corporations and the corporate war machine perpetuating conflict, then ok. Have at it. You keep believing the system isn't rigged for those at the top.

1. The very nature of capitalism creates inequality, and therefore 'fat-cats' - but only socialists seem to regard success as being inherently wrong.

 

3. IMO Freedom Of Speech trumps (no pun intended) everything - and if we have to suffer the rantings of knuckle-dragging racists morons as a consequence, that's a price worth paying.

 

1. Capitalism is not perfect, in many many ways. I dont have the time and space to get into a lengthy discussion on it, but one key feature of it, and non-capitalist regimes, is that the powerful are rich. The two are interchangeable, In some democracies you may elect a leader who isn't rich and from the rich elite, but they are battling against powerful rich people with self-interest at heart, cough, Tories, cough, splutter. Why else do they get shitloads of cash from other rich people and powerful organisations? Feel free to demonstrate any country any regime that doesn't (some are worse than others, of course, some are middlingly good at distributing and innovating a bit more of the national wealth). Feel free to show me any part of the UK that isn't governed by rich and powerful. Trade Unions have their own internal power plays going on, and aren't above self-interest and cashing-in (see Private Eye), but by and large they exist to give the powerless a voice against the powerful. By that I mean the rich.

 

You seem to think shrugging your shoulders at the way things are means there is no point in trying to improve things. If you don't think that then say so.

 

2. No it isn't. We have had this discussion at length several times. You still have no answer to the theoretical death threats to you ("Free speech") and hypothetical massed armies demanding your immediate removal from the country and attacking your family ("free speech") and continuing to say you would support everyone's right to do that, including turning up at your house with a noose. Still not actually hung you, just getting ready to do it.. (free speech, freedom of going where you want to) and you would only actually disagree with that principle if they actually followed through with it (as many nutters do). But hey never mind, a price worth paying I think we can all agree for the principle of free speech.....?

Power of free speech over all - tell that to the bullied suicide victims

On a lighter note, Rees-Mogg has warned May that the Uk must continue to hold a veto over new EU laws that we must abide by while remaining in a transition period. It's a red line she can't cross or else.

 

So he wants to stay a member of the EU then until we leave totally? Members can do that, as Brian Cox has pointed out.

 

Or, as I suspect, is it actually one law in particular that bothers him? The one about tax and tax havens that threatens his future enormous wealth....

 

I mean, presumably Parliament can go along with any law for a year or two and then retract it on leaving. Could it be...gasp!...that he's frightened once we see how much tax dodging goes on with him and his cronies we will want to actually KEEP the law because it makes sense and generates shitloads of tax to help the country?

 

I can't think of any other logical reason to make such a fuss about it....

He is ODIOUS, just like the rest of that self-serving Landed Gentry lot.

I suppose you also think that the description of Auschwitz as "a Nazi death camp in Poland" rather than "a Polish death camp" is also an unnecessary example of political correctness. Why are you so keen to be able to use language that many people find offensive when non-offensive alternatives exist?

 

I've never claimed to be keen on people using offensive language, only that Free Speech dies if they don't have the *right* to be offensive - the difference is subtle, but IMO important.

 

In any case, surely you don't believe that prosecuting someone for using racist language, cures them of their racism? If anything, it's likely to reinforce their beliefs.

 

You seem to think shrugging your shoulders at the way things are means there is no point in trying to improve things. If you don't think that then say so.

 

I merely point out that, on the two main occasions eliminating the rich have been tried, e.g. French & Russian revolutions, it made conditions for the people at the bottom of the ladder a whole lot worse, in the long run.

 

2. No it isn't. We have had this discussion at length several times. You still have no answer to the theoretical death threats to you ("Free speech") and hypothetical massed armies demanding your immediate removal from the country and attacking your family ("free speech") and continuing to say you would support everyone's right to do that, including turning up at your house with a noose.

Free expression has never included the right to harm others, here or even in America.

 

Power of free speech over all - tell that to the bullied suicide victims

 

Are you talking in general terms here, since most victims of bulling have nothing to do with politics.

 

As you've been told repeatedly, free speech does not protect you from prosecution when you start spouting hate speech. See Britain First and their leaders criminal record.

Free expression has never included the right to harm others, here or even in America.

 

 

As you've been told repeatedly, free speech does not protect you from prosecution when you start spouting hate speech. See Britain First and their leaders criminal record.

 

Which I acknowledge in the post I quote above - did you miss that?

 

No, just thought you needed reminding as the rest of your post seemed to have forgotten about it

He is ODIOUS, just like the rest of that self-serving Landed Gentry lot.

 

Sometimes I wonder who is closer to living in the 19th century, those you rail against, or you yourself... :rolleyes:

On a lighter note, Rees-Mogg has warned May that the Uk must continue to hold a veto over new EU laws that we must abide by while remaining in a transition period. It's a red line she can't cross or else.

 

He is ODIOUS, just like the rest of that self-serving Landed Gentry lot.

 

You're not the only ones who feel that way about him. :P

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/f...iversity-campus

 

And the Mail's version :

 

'No one seemed likely to hit me but I am a weed': Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg tells of moment he split up fight when protesters calling him a 'nazi','fascist' and 'racist' stormed his speech to students in Bristol

 

Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg filmed trying to split up fighting students

The backbencher had been scheduled to speak at Bristol's UWE university

Mr Rees-Mogg told MailOnline he was not injured and continued his speech

He said he was not 'surprised' by the protests as similar happened in Manchester

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-53...HT-Bristol.html

Jack Mogg is an odious little squit but he still has a right to speak - just in case there are people who need further evidence that he is an odious little squit.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-threa...onomy-2vhdrv8nx

 

Sanctions are being threatened by the European Union to prevent Britain undermining the bloc’s economy after Brexit.

 

Penalties against companies that receive state subsidies and putting Britain on a tax blacklist of unco-operative jurisdictions are among proposals contained in a strategy paper published this week by the European Commission.

 

The plans are designed to maintain a “level playing field” and counter the risk of the UK slashing taxes or cutting red tape to attract business and investment after leaving the bloc.

 

[Rest stuck behind paywall]

 

That is the biggest problem I have with the EU - its neoliberal economics. However, that is how the world is right now - and it's gonna be a shitstorm for a small country like 5he UK to tey and navegate a neoliberal globalised world by itself.

I've never claimed to be keen on people using offensive language, only that Free Speech dies if they don't have the *right* to be offensive - the difference is subtle, but IMO important.

 

In any case, surely you don't believe that prosecuting someone for using racist language, cures them of their racism? If anything, it's likely to reinforce their beliefs.

I merely point out that, on the two main occasions eliminating the rich have been tried, e.g. French & Russian revolutions, it made conditions for the people at the bottom of the ladder a whole lot worse, in the long run.

 

Free expression has never included the right to harm others, here or even in America.

Are you talking in general terms here, since most victims of bulling have nothing to do with politics.

 

1. Presumably you already feel free speech has died, as others have pointed out, due to it being illegal. presumably you wish Hate Speech weren't illegal.

 

2. No racism isn't cured by prosecuting them. What it does is stop it spreading and protects the objects of the Hate Speech. What part of that do you not understand?

 

3. Who's talking about chopping people's heads off? All we are talking about is they pay their taxes and state exactly where their money is going when they get involved in politics supporting people that support them. Complaining that they are powerful and wishing to change the balance of power to a fairer version is not revolutionary. You are blinkered to reality and consistently an apologist for the rich and powerful as if the poor dears need all the help they can get. They don't. They don't know about you, nor care about you or your situation, whatever that is. They care about money and power. Rich people with a social conscience (as in wanting to pay more tax, and help the poor) who argue and fight for that show that greed is not necessarily a default position, nor is an excuse to argue that they are in some way terrible people for believing in fairness while being successful. They are not mutually contradictive.

 

4. Yet people continue to get harmed by people arguing for the freedom of hate speech to be a right. "Friendly Fire" is not an acceptable unfortunate by-product of a necessary evil. If you believe in genocide and promote it as an ideology chances are that's what you are trying to cause in every way you can, either by spreading propaganda and sneakily behind the scenes in illegal ways. As Ive said before stupid people can be fired up so smart evil people don't have to do the nastiness themselves. That's why it is illegal. That you can't recognise that is a result of your blinkered and flexible "whatever suits me" attitude. Hate speech causing someone else to kill someone is no different from killing someone directly. Just having gullible lackeys to allow them to stay free to carry on spreading it.

 

5. I believe we are talking Hate Speech in general, which is political by its very nature. If you bully someone, there is no justifiable reason for doing it, so it's Hate-based.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-threa...onomy-2vhdrv8nx

 

Sanctions are being threatened by the European Union to prevent Britain undermining the bloc’s economy after Brexit.

 

Penalties against companies that receive state subsidies and putting Britain on a tax blacklist of unco-operative jurisdictions are among proposals contained in a strategy paper published this week by the European Commission.

 

The plans are designed to maintain a “level playing field” and counter the risk of the UK slashing taxes or cutting red tape to attract business and investment after leaving the bloc.

 

[Rest stuck behind paywall]

It does that now. Name a British Overseas Territory and you'll find it's probably on that Tax Blacklist already. The EU acts to protect the internal economy. It has been doing this for as long as the single market has been a thing. It originated as a Coal and Steel union ffs. This cannot be news to you?

 

 

EU warns UK it will continue to behave as normal following Brexit. UK shocked and dismayed at this and claim it is an attempt to undermine Brexit.

 

In other news, the UK calls for EU to act against cheap Chinese steel imports without irony.

That is the biggest problem I have with the EU - its neoliberal economics.

 

In short 'Capitalism'?

 

IMO the only reason Corbyn doesn't openly endorse Brexit, is because of what happened to Labour in the 1983 GE, when they last had a Brexit policy.

 

1. Presumably you already feel free speech has died, as others have pointed out, due to it being illegal. presumably you wish Hate Speech weren't illegal.

 

2. No racism isn't cured by prosecuting them. What it does is stop it spreading and protects the objects of the Hate Speech. What part of that do you not understand?

 

3. Who's talking about chopping people's heads off? All we are talking about is they pay their taxes and state exactly where their money is going when they get involved in politics supporting people that support them. Complaining that they are powerful and wishing to change the balance of power to a fairer version is not revolutionary. You are blinkered to reality and consistently an apologist for the rich and powerful as if the poor dears need all the help they can get. They don't. They don't know about you, nor care about you or your situation, whatever that is. They care about money and power. Rich people with a social conscience (as in wanting to pay more tax, and help the poor) who argue and fight for that show that greed is not necessarily a default position, nor is an excuse to argue that they are in some way terrible people for believing in fairness while being successful. They are not mutually contradictive.

 

4. Yet people continue to get harmed by people arguing for the freedom of hate speech to be a right. "Friendly Fire" is not an acceptable unfortunate by-product of a necessary evil. If you believe in genocide and promote it as an ideology chances are that's what you are trying to cause in every way you can, either by spreading propaganda and sneakily behind the scenes in illegal ways. As Ive said before stupid people can be fired up so smart evil people don't have to do the nastiness themselves. That's why it is illegal. That you can't recognise that is a result of your blinkered and flexible "whatever suits me" attitude. Hate speech causing someone else to kill someone is no different from killing someone directly. Just having gullible lackeys to allow them to stay free to carry on spreading it.

 

5. I believe we are talking Hate Speech in general, which is political by its very nature. If you bully someone, there is no justifiable reason for doing it, so it's Hate-based.

 

1. I wouldn't say it was dead, but it does seem to be on life-support...

 

2. There's no part of that I don't understand. But what is currently happening is that the law is merely treating the symptoms, rather than attempting a cure.

 

3. I think Iget it now - you are talking about a small proportion of corrupt individuals, rather than wealthy people in general?

 

4. You actually imagine I support 'evil by proxy'? :o

 

5. Or jealousy based.

 

In short 'Capitalism'?

 

IMO the only reason Corbyn doesn't openly endorse Brexit, is because of what happened to Labour in the 1983 GE, when they last had a Brexit policy.

1. I wouldn't say it was dead, but it does seem to be on life-support...

 

2. There's no part of that I don't understand. But what is currently happening is that the law is merely treating the symptoms, rather than attempting a cure.

 

3. I think Iget it now - you are talking about a small proportion of corrupt individuals, rather than wealthy people in general?

 

4. You actually imagine I support 'evil by proxy'? :o

 

5. Or jealousy based.

 

1. I disagree

 

2. There is no cure for Hate and Racism. It's not something with a miracle pill that can be cured. You can only stop it spreading with reducing the lies ("free speech"). Your morality prefers the evil of bigotry over the necessary "evil" of stopping Hate Speech. Mine doesn't because we have all seen where it inevitably ends. Do some research on Nazi Germany and the gradual creep into mass genocide. Or Myanmar last year. Once lies and hate become "facts" then terror happens. It's perfectly reasonable not to try and harm others. Still waiting for your response to my theoretical series of events that leads to your demise. You are 100% fine with it until the point at which some clod takes Hate Speech to the logical conclusion of stringing you from a lamp-post and you only condemn the clod, the Hate-spreader is entirely innocent in your world because he has a "right" to incite people to kill you. That is free speech as you claim it to be.

 

3. Not a small proportion. Anyone who bungs riches into tax havens and manipulates politics using money and power. Those who live in the UK, have no offshore wealth and pay their taxes, and declare all vested interests in politics I'm fine with.

 

4. I imagine you are OK with it over a stupid principle that no country in history has ever tolerated nor ever will.

 

5. If you are jealous of someone and bully them then you cross the line into Hate whatever the original motive. "I torture people because I'm jealous of their looks/wealth/nice personality/poilitical views/race/religion/sexuality/support of Spongebob Squarepants/want to appear hard to my peers/want to instill fear" is still hate. The act turns it into hate. Claiming they are doing it out of love for their own good or any other excuse doesn't change that.