FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Not sure we want this all over the weekend tbh.
Social consequences or legal consequences? If there are legal consequences then one is, by definition, not free to do it.Do you think there should be consequences for what people say? What do you think you "can't say"?
My youngest whose 13 is very into conspiracy theories, the fringes of reasonable politics including the alt-right, Jordan Peterson type people, the world of organised crime and famous villains and con artists, and the out there bits of religions. Some of the shit he comes out with is proper bonkers and he’ll try and argue black is white just for the kicks. I try to get him to think critically about stuff, but sometimes I just laugh.
Because I liked that he said bimble handled it the right way? She did fwiw.You're a fucking mug edie - you really are. PHD idiot.
It’s just exploring ideas tbh, going from one video to another. If he was only doing that with the alt-right stuff it’d be more concerning, but it’s as likely to be anything that catches his interest.Sounds like a bit of a scattergun approach. The alt-right does seem to have a certain appeal for teenage boys.
No, because you normalise his racist narrative. They are literally trying to look like humans and you help this racist by reacting in this way.Because I liked that he said bimble handled it the right way? She did fwiw.
Jesus fucking Christ he’s 13 years old, he’s not a racist. He’s just exploring the internet like every other kid his age. You think kids don’t watch alt-right and david ike and Jordan Peterson etc? Of course they do. He’s not a racist though, your dead wrong about that.No, because you normalise his racist narrative. They are literally trying to look like humans and you help this racist by reacting in this way.
Jesus fucking Christ he’s 13 years old, he’s not a racist. He’s just exploring the internet like every other kid his age. You think kids don’t watch alt-right and david ike and Jordan Peterson etc? Of course they do. He’s not a racist though, your dead wrong about that.
Wtf of course I’m not saying that. As if rsf is a 13yo they are clearly an adult. This is getting both confusing and a bit nasty so I’m out of this debate.You saying that this Rsf twat is your 13 year old son?
Maybe you should consider blocking his internet access for a while and having a chat with him...
OK, apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick or added to confusion.Crossed wires, butchers quoted one post by mistake then changed it. Regardless I think I’m better just reading.
Soft thatcher voice.
Do you think there should be consequences for what people say? What do you think you "can't say"?
Even if that were true, would that really mean that everything I said could just be disregarded without consideration and that anyone considering something I said could be called stupid or worse? That would be closed minded bigotry in my book...
In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:
You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.
You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.
You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).
The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.
This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.
And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.
So what is being said outside of these parameters that is unfairly treated and being stopped from saying what they want to say?In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:
You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.
You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.
You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).
The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.
This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.
And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.
I love a credible treat.As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.
What's you take on the right to screw up the outcome of an ongoing court proceedings?
I love a credible treat.
In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:
You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.
You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.
You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).
The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.
This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.
And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.
Just a little bit more on some of the strange alliances around the TR campaign
There's a rally today opposite New Scotland Yard organised by a number of Justice Campaigns :
The main campaign is Fighting for Justice which is the three boys who were tragically killed by a driver who the campaign alleges was a terrorist attack. For what ever reason the campaign has allied its self and been influenced by the alt right. Key activist is a pro Trump, anti Islam gobshite called James Goddard who uses a couple of White Pendragon people as 'common law' advisers.
The speakers list for the rally includes: Justice4 Ambrose whose twitter acount retweets allegations that Thomas Mair didn't murder Jo Cox,Tim Scott who was leader of Perdiga for 2 days and who actually fought against ISIS, a Speaker from the White Pendragons ,Danny Tommo another TR activist, Justice4Jack a campaign for an investigation into the death of a convicted drug smuggler in a prison in Indonesia,Amy 'Bacon lady ' an anti Islam activist who used to go on Britain First marches and attends speakers corner, Eddie Isok another Speakers Corner activist.
There's been a very recent falling out which led to Luke Nash Jones ,( a UKIP activist who runs Make Britain Great Again including merchandising and who was one of the contributors to the Free TR event) , pulling out from speaking. The video's worth a watch if only for his realisation how poisonous and volatile this section of politics is and the somewhat bizarre ending
There is a mixture of very hurt damaged people mourning the loss of loved ones convinced that there has been a cover up or that the Police and state has failed them and far right/alt right political activists who believe that the state is corrupt and is covering things up . The further there are no answers to their desperate questions the more they get drawn into conspiracy theory.
I'll have to read that.I've been recently reading 'Strange Days Indeed,' Francis Wheen's book about the 1970s. I was only 16 when the seventies ended, but I can say with confidence that the decade was definitely no stranger than the one we're living in now.
Just a little bit more on some of the strange alliances around the TR campaign
Do you have a link about the driver being a Hindu? That seems too crazy to believe, even for them.so the Main rally has been arranged because 3 boys were run over by a drunk/stoned driver and they are trying to say it was a terrorist attack
the driver was Hindu btw