Political Correctness has lost all meaning.

[Pannonian]

Courts really frown on when vulnerable populations are abused as it is, and elderly in nursing home care would definitely qualify. Point in fact, we regularly make numerous ethical rules and regulations for those who are in positions of power over such vulnerable members of our society.

In my country you can choose to either go (back then) 8 months to the army, or work 12 months for the government (firefighters, ambulance, etc.) - I got assigned to a care center for old/sick people. On one of the stations there were a lot of people in coma, and they basically were cared for until they die. They didn't respond to any interaction. Still we had a seminar about how we have to behave around them, not to make any rude jokes and treat them respectfully. Now of course i could argue it was forbidden for us to be offensive... if you want to use these words, be my guest. But using these words in a legal sense is stupid, as this is not what the law is about.

[Jeezy911]

So who gets to decide what is considered hate? This is the whole problem with this argument, saying "White Privilege" could be considered hate as well so probably should just ban that. Are you allowed to hate a country? So many rules.

[szechuan]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...blic-order-act

IMO Freedom of Speech > the Political Correctness

Logical Reasonable Law that protects people from being Harassed by others > Freedom of Speech.

[Xecks]

i would point you to one of sargon of akkad's recent videos where he goes into details about what is happening in england but you would dismiss it as you probably think hes an alt right scumbag.

the jist of it is people are getting arrested for trolling on the internet.

trolling. not hate speech not violent threats just trolling.

[Pannonian]

Again notice I said "Damn Near" ... or you just so inclined to argue?

Anyhow one quick internet search, although it is a opinion piece. It does enforce what Xecks said



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...blic-order-act

Ok, i'm sorry - damn near. So you do agree it is not forbidden to offend people? Glad we agree! Or do you know support Xecks narrative?

You are aware that this article undermines your own point about legislation? I mean, read the first sentence of it:

"Sometimes you have to feel sorry for the police. Beyond already dealing with a raft of ill-considered laws, politicians also want them to act against "insulting" behaviour. Section five of the Public Order Act is so broad that almost any protester on any subject can be arrested and fined for harassment, causing "alarm or distress"."

So, this section 5 is about harrasment, causing "alarm or distress" - where is this about offending people? And as the article points out, if police oversteps this it gets dropped by courts, because it is not illegal.


Still waiting for a source of someone being arrested for being offensive, take your time.

[szechuan]

i would point you to one of sargon of akkad's recent videos where he goes into details about what is happening in england but you would dismiss it as you probably think hes an alt right scumbag.

the jist of it is people are getting arrested for trolling on the internet.

trolling. not hate speech not violent threats just trolling.

It's just trolling guys it's just trolling.

Until the troll becomes a person in power.

"the jist of it is people are getting arrested for trolling on the internet."

Guess what, some of them should.

"trolling. not hate speech not violent threats just trolling."

Or people like Nazi's hiding behind saying it's only Trolling.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Still we had a seminar about how we have to behave around them, not to make any rude jokes and treat them respectfully. Now of course i could argue it was forbidden for us to be offensive... if you want to use these words, be my guest. But using these words in a legal sense is stupid, as this is not what the law is about.

Therein lies the basis of this all. I'm a public school teacher myself, and I'm transgender. I'm not out to my students, but I won't lie to them if the subject is broached. I take my responsibilities very seriously in relation to not disrupting their learning environment, and that supersedes my both "flying the flag" even if I wanted to as well as their freedom to speak their opinion regarding my life.

It's the same reason I send disruptions out of class. My students right to learn is more important than another student's freedom to disrupt or be disrespectful.

[Maneo]

Logical Reasonable Law that protects people from being Harassed by others > Freedom of Speech.

From the article

One example is Harry Hammond, a 69-year-old evangelist street preacher. Hammond believed homosexuality was a sin and wanted everyone to know this. So he stood in the streets of Brighton proselytising against homosexuality with a sign proclaiming the catchy slogan: "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord."

Instead of ignoring an old bigoted man, a crowd gathered. At one point he fell to the ground in a tussle over his placard, and soil and water were thrown over him. While Hammond was charged under section five, no one in the crowd was charged for assaulting him. He was fined £300 by a magistrate and ordered to pay costs of £395. The court also ordered the forfeiture of his sign. He died shortly after his conviction. Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell described Hammond's prosecution as "an outrageous assault on civil liberties".

Does that sound reasonable to you?

if so we have very different definitions

I may not agree with what you say but I am willing to die, for you to have the right to say it.

Ok, i'm sorry - damn near. So you do agree it is not forbidden to offend people? Glad we agree! Or do you know support Xecks narrative?

You are aware that this article undermines your own point about legislation? I mean, read the first sentence of it:

"Sometimes you have to feel sorry for the police. Beyond already dealing with a raft of ill-considered laws, politicians also want them to act against "insulting" behaviour. Section five of the Public Order Act is so broad that almost any protester on any subject can be arrested and fined for harassment, causing "alarm or distress"."

So, this section 5 is about harrasment, causing "alarm or distress" - where is this about offending people? And as the article points out, if police oversteps this it gets dropped by courts, because it is not illegal.


Still waiting for a source of someone being arrested for being offensive, take your time.

take it you didn't read the whole article huh?.. some real good examples are given. Like the one above.

Didn't take anytime at all thanks

[Pannonian]

i would point you to one of sargon of akkad's recent videos where he goes into details about what is happening in england but you would dismiss it as you probably think hes an alt right scumbag.

the jist of it is people are getting arrested for trolling on the internet.

trolling. not hate speech not violent threats just trolling.

Yeah, i don't like Sargon, but not because he is right, there are a lot of right wing opinion people i actually like, but because he misinterprets articles, selectively uses data, etc. If we want to exchange youtube channels, i could point you to a youtuber named shaun who likes to debunk Sargons liberal and dishonest use of statistics and data. But, to use one of your lines, "you would dismiss it as you probably think he is an antifa scumbag". Actually, the article i linked above about the scottish guy, was made into a video by Sargon (which is the reason i know about this) and other youtubers - they all used the article of Breitbart, while completely ignoring what the person actually said (though in Sargons defense, when he made the video it was recent, and the actual content was only known for 2 days - so i would even let him off the hock for it).

So if its so obvious, it should be easy to point me to a case, which you failed to deliver up until now.

[szechuan]

From the article

One example is Harry Hammond, a 69-year-old evangelist street preacher. Hammond believed homosexuality was a sin and wanted everyone to know this. So he stood in the streets of Brighton proselytising against homosexuality with a sign proclaiming the catchy slogan: "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord."

Instead of ignoring an old bigoted man, a crowd gathered. At one point he fell to the ground in a tussle over his placard, and soil and water were thrown over him. While Hammond was charged under section five, no one in the crowd was charged for assaulting him. He was fined £300 by a magistrate and ordered to pay costs of £395. The court also ordered the forfeiture of his sign. He died shortly after his conviction. Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell described Hammond's prosecution as "an outrageous assault on civil liberties".

Does that sound reasonable to you?

if so we have very different definitions

I may not agree with what you say but I am willing to die, for you to have the right to say it.

Those are holes in the Legal system and Law in England which happens in plenty of Countries. I'm still for Sensible Law over Freedom of Speech.

[Kronik85]

i would point you to one of sargon of akkad's recent videos where he goes into details about what is happening in england but you would dismiss it as you probably think hes an alt right scumbag.

the jist of it is people are getting arrested for trolling on the internet.

trolling. not hate speech not violent threats just trolling.

He was never arrested for starters and when you make a video where you repeatedly yell "gas the jews" then you're walking into hate speech and violent threats territory.

So no.

[Pannonian]

So who gets to decide what is considered hate?

1. The legislators - the people you vote into office.
2. The judges - appointed by the people you vote into office.

Wow, that was an easy one to answer

[Xecks]

He was never arrested for starters and when you make a video where you repeatedly yell "gas the jews" then you're walking into hate speech and violent threats territory.

So no.

wrong video. it was about people getting arrested for trolling people "causing distress" i believe it was that people can get arrested and charged with. im not gonna look it up.

[Jeezy911]

1. The legislators - the people you vote into office.
2. The judges - appointed by the people you vote into office.

Wow, that was an easy one to answer

So legislators and judges are in charge of what the people can say? It is pretty easy to admit Marxism sometimes.

[Pannonian]

Therein lies the basis of this all. I'm a public school teacher myself, and I'm transgender. I'm not out to my students, but I won't lie to them if the subject is broached. I take my responsibilities very seriously in relation to not disrupting their learning environment, and that supersedes my both "flying the flag" even if I wanted to as well as their freedom to speak their opinion regarding my life.

It's the same reason I send disruptions out of class. My students right to learn is more important than another student's freedom to disrupt or be disrespectful.

That's what i don't get about the anti-pc crowd? Do they even interact with other people? Do they have jobs? Because, man, i would love to tell the customer on the other end of the video call what i think about his last minute change requests and his idea that his will only be a minor thing, while i have to plan 20 hours development for it. Or waiting for another 2 minutes a the checkout because the cashier went for a smoke. Or that the neighbour children obviously run around screaming at sunday 7 am.

I could be an asshole and say what i think, but does it help in our society? Sometimes i get the feeling that people who behave anti-pc can only do this in a very small bubble, like a safe-space, because in the real world, they would get the bill for their behaviour sooner or later.

- - - Updated - - -

So legislators and judges are in charge of what the people can say? It is pretty easy to admit Marxism sometimes.

Yeah- these marxist communists take you your god given right to scream "fire" in a theater. Is it really that hard to understand that living in a complex society there need to be rules about how we behave? Is the fact that you're not allowed to run around naked in public also a sinister plot by the ((marxist)) agenda?

[Jeezy911]

That's what i don't get about the anti-pc crowd? Do they even interact with other people? Do they have jobs? Because, man, i would love to tell the customer on the other end of the video call what i think about his last minute change requests and his idea that his will only be a minor thing, while i have to plan 20 hours development for it. Or waiting for another 2 minutes a the checkout because the cashier went for a smoke. Or that the neighbour children obviously run around screaming at sunday 7 am.

I could be an asshole and say what i think, but does it help in our society? Sometimes i get the feeling that people who behave anti-pc can only do this in a very small bubble, like a safe-space, because in the real world, they would get the bill for their behaviour sooner or later.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah- these marxist communists take you your god given right to scream "fire" in a theater. Is it really that hard to understand that living in a complex society there need to be rules about how we behave? Is the fact that you're not allowed to run around naked in public also a sinister plot by the ((marxist)) agenda?

What does that have to do with hate speech? Conjure up a few more brain cell before posting please.

[Pannonian]

wrong video. it was about people getting arrested for trolling people "causing distress" i believe it was that people can get arrested and charged with. im not gonna look it up.

Is this about pewdiepie? Even if its all trolling; after numerous incidents i really doubt that he is not at least a racist. He played stupid games and won a stupid prize. I mean the guy who swatted the guy who was killed was also only trolling. Trolling is not a get out of jail card, no matter how often you repeat it. Also what is hilarious about this all... the narrative is that these people should grow balls and not be offended by other people... and pewdiepie after getting a backlash for his despicable behaviour rolls out the biggest victim-complex i have ever witnessed, and all the anti-pc anti-sjw crowd on youtube joining him in his pity. These people are really entertaining.

If its not about him, could you maybe give us the example you're talking about, because right now you're just claiming without anything to back it up.

[NYC17]

What does that have to do with hate speech? Conjure up a few more brain cell before posting please.

That should be cells. Plural.

Or you could just not say it because you are definitely nobody's idea of the right messenger for it...

[Pannonian]

What does that have to do with hate speech? Conjure up a few more brain cell before posting please.

Sorry, i reduced them before, so i could answer you on a level playing field. I answered your question which was:

"So legislators and judges are in charge of what the people can say? It is pretty easy to admit Marxism sometimes. "

I answered: yes, because we need some rules in our society. If this is harmful speech (like fire in a theater) or hate speech that incites violence, doesn't really matter when answering your question. But to be more specific, yeah - the politicans you elect decide what amounts to hate speech. So... whats your point? How is this marxism? Do you even understand the words you use? I have to admit, i sometimes struggle to express myself, as english is only my third language, so a tip i can give you: Try to lay out your post in your native language, before translating it. You will be less confused.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

I could be an asshole and say what i think, but does it help in our society? Sometimes i get the feeling that people who behave anti-pc can only do this in a very small bubble, like a safe-space, because in the real world, they would get the bill for their behaviour sooner or later.

Social consequences are one of the big checks in society, and, to be honest, I'm glad there seems to be a reasserting of the necessity of those consequences within, at least, US society. The fact of the matter is that treating others like shit should isolate you until you're an agreeable person to be around.

I kind of wonder how many people are having to find this out the hard way, though.