You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hate Speech
September 20 2019 9.07am

Hate Speech

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View dreamwaverider's Profile dreamwaverider Flag Chelsea 04 Sep 19 5.59am Send a Private Message to dreamwaverider Add dreamwaverider as a friend

Real venom in PM speech yesterday. Was that considered a hate speech?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View tome's Profile tome Flag Inner Tantalus Time. 04 Sep 19 10.21am Send a Private Message to tome Add tome as a friend

[Link]

Might be of interest

 


A one and a two...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 04 Sep 19 10.35am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by tome

[Link]

Might be of interest

A frigging Guardian article?

In the interests of free speech I resolved to read it.

I could only make it to nearly half way.....Yuk....I imagined it carried on in much the same tone.

That she has the freedom to write it is the only thing I can defend.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Sep 2019 10.36am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 05 Sep 19 2.29pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

A frigging Guardian article?

In the interests of free speech I resolved to read it.

I could only make it to nearly half way.....Yuk....I imagined it carried on in much the same tone.

That she has the freedom to write it is the only thing I can defend.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Sep 2019 10.36am)

I stopped reading at 'it's harder if not white and male'. Because that is not stereotyping is it.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View tome's Profile tome Flag Inner Tantalus Time. 06 Sep 19 12.24am Send a Private Message to tome Add tome as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I stopped reading at 'it's harder if not white and male'. Because that is not stereotyping is it.

Not really, she uses evidence to back up her claim.

I think the point about there being 'more speech' is worth exploration. Seems to me that the internet has increased the number of people who broadcast their views, and the visibility of people's reactions. So whichever side of any debate going can always select the particularly moronic examples from the other side because there are more of them from which to choose.

Perhaps the mods here can feel something of this...

 


A one and a two...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 06 Sep 19 3.18am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by tome

Not really, she uses evidence to back up her claim.

I think the point about there being 'more speech' is worth exploration. Seems to me that the internet has increased the number of people who broadcast their views, and the visibility of people's reactions. So whichever side of any debate going can always select the particularly moronic examples from the other side because there are more of them from which to choose.

Perhaps the mods here can feel something of this...

'Evidence'? What evidence is that?

As for 'more speech'? What's that got to do with anything? There is probably a billion online in China...can they talk freely? What's the relevance of 'more speech'? No one has ever needed laws to protect inoffensive speech.

Last year we had thousands of people contacted and warned by the Police in this country over Internet comments and many went to cases.....some of these may be justified due to incitement....however we have many examples that weren't.

[Link]

And of course we had the absurdity of the Nazi pug trial in Scotland that actually resulted in a conviction where a commentary was made that 'context doesn't matter'.

However, the BBC...as we know, a publicly funded institution.... found that with Jo Brand's joke...and quite correctly I might add...context mattered.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2019 3.23am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 07 Sep 19 10.57pm Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

Chandrayaan-2: Modi proud despite Moon landing setback - [Link]

That sucks. Close but no cigar.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 07 Sep 19 11.02pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

Chandrayaan-2: Modi proud despite Moon landing setback - [Link]

That sucks. Close but no cigar.

Maybe pakistan hit it with a marsala.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 07 Sep 19 11.12pm Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Maybe pakistan hit it with a marsala.

I'm pretty sure some of the bodily reactions to Masalas I've had have disrupted flights and radio signals, so it's a distinct possibility.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 07 Sep 19 11.14pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

I've heard that there are already plans for Bollywood to make a movie about it...the lander landed but was just so stuck by the beauty of some Moon aliens that they just had to sign off and have a song and dance about it.....Things are going well but they are already having issues fitting the cows and elephants into the space suits.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 08 Sep 19 1.33am Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

Yes very expensive to get a cow or elephant there. Maybe the Mormons will make a stab at it instead, as they would just need to get Magic Underwear on the surface of the moon.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View tome's Profile tome Flag Inner Tantalus Time. 08 Sep 19 5.25am Send a Private Message to tome Add tome as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

'Evidence'? What evidence is that?

As for 'more speech'? What's that got to do with anything? There is probably a billion online in China...can they talk freely? What's the relevance of 'more speech'? No one has ever needed laws to protect inoffensive speech.

Last year we had thousands of people contacted and warned by the Police in this country over Internet comments and many went to cases.....some of these may be justified due to incitement....however we have many examples that weren't.

[Link]

And of course we had the absurdity of the Nazi pug trial in Scotland that actually resulted in a conviction where a commentary was made that 'context doesn't matter'.

However, the BBC...as we know, a publicly funded institution.... found that with Jo Brand's joke...and quite correctly I might add...context mattered.


Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2019 3.23am)

If you'd read the article, you'd have seen - she cites Pew research on the people who are targeted by online abuse. I don't have a view on the evidence, but she did cite some.

As for 'more speech', again it's something she touches on in the article. Worth exploring more, I figured.

Eseentially my rumination is that the availability of moronic acts and commentary has increased. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the number of moronic acts and commentary has increased, just how available it is.

That means it's become much easier for papers and other fora to write screeds about various idiotic acts because they are plastered all over social media. In the past, perhaps these were more easily ignored.

Instead, because publications know that idiocy attracts controversy, which means more attention, advertising and so on. In turn, it would seem that people get angrier because idiocy is presented to them regularly.
That can create the impression of PC gone mad / bigots or whatever side of whichever debate is currently run.

Also, many organisations whose idiots would have previously been ignored are not sure how to deal with the new attention, and so launch various crackdowns or similar which are usually ill-conceived. And lo the cycle continues.

So perhaps all this stuff is not about free speech being under attach, but about people not handling new forms of attention well. Just a thought.

 


A one and a two...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hate Speech