Freedom of speech and the right to offend

[Northern Monkey]

Fm3__LMnXR0

[Brillopad]

Fm3__LMnXR0

I think it is an issue we all need to be rationale about.

Whilst i don't think it would be a good idea for people to be able to be offensive for the sake of being offensive, I do think people should be able to openly criticize practices/beliefs considered wrong by the majority. To simply shut people down, as often happens here, because their view is not popular with a given group is unacceptable in the free world.

Some groups, by just about anyone's standards, are far too easily offended, although I also believe an element of that is theatrics to cause drama and put pressure on government bodies to close down any opposition. Complete manipulation.

[Withano]

Wait, his only example for offensive things today was lads mags? And "student leaders" who are accidentally offending? Which is worse than purposely offending? Not sure how well that point came off. The entire video just seemed like a piece of homework but he forgot to read the paragraph with the point in it tbh.

I think if you actively want to offend groups of people you're a bit of a ****, theres no need, its easier to not do that. Sure you have freedom of speech, it doesnt mean anybody wants to hear your ill-informed whine.
Ive Noticed a lot of people go on a rant, include their mindless insults to their least favourite communities, and calling it freedom of speech, but then crying about it when somebody criticises it.. but if you want freedom of speech then you need to accept criticism.. Thats kind of the point.

[user104658]

Whilst i don't think it would be a good idea for people to be able to be offensive for the sake of being offensive, I do think people should be able to openly criticize practices/beliefs considered wrong by the majority. To simply shut people down, as often happens here, because their view is not popular with a given group is unacceptable in the free world.

"By the majority"? So mob rule? No thanks... "The majority" are loud-mouthed simpletons who couldn't cobble together an original opinion if they were given an instruction manual and a litre of gorilla glue.

I do agree with the rest... Not a good idea for people to just be offensive for the sake of it, but people should be able to openly criticise beliefs and practices that they do not agree with, without fear of persecution. But that applies whether it is an opinion of a minority group OR the opinion of the masses. The public, and the human race, en masse, hold endless beliefs and opinions that are in full need of extreme criticism. In my opinion :hee:.

[user104658]

but if you want freedom of speech then you need to accept criticism.

This is also very true. A lot of people tend to confuse the freedom to say what you want, with the freedom to say whatever you want and not have anyone call you out or criticise you for what you have to say. Usually with bull**** soundbites like "I'm entitled to my opinion!" Etc. Etc... Etc.

Everyone should be entitled to their opinion, yes, and this includes being entitled to form an opinion OF another person, based on the opinions that they have expressed.

And that's really what it comes down to. If you want to be an opinionated person, you HAVE to accept that some (or many, depending on the opinion) people will not like you for it. Anyone who can't handle that should learn to keep their opinions to themselves... Or prepare for a life of often feeling hard-done-by :joker:.

[Brillopad]

This is also very true. A lot of people tend to confuse the freedom to say what you want, with the freedom to say whatever you want and not have anyone call you out or criticise you for what you have to say. Usually with bull**** soundbites like "I'm entitled to my opinion!" Etc. Etc... Etc.

Everyone should be entitled to their opinion, yes, and this includes being entitled to form an opinion OF another person, based on the opinions that they have expressed.

And that's really what it comes down to. If you want to be an opinionated person, you HAVE to accept that some (or many, depending on the opinion) people will not like you for it. Anyone who can't handle that should learn to keep their opinions to themselves... Or prepare for a life of often feeling hard-done-by :joker:.

That very much works both ways!

[user104658]

That very much works both ways!
It works every way, yes, and anyone pretending that either "side" (there are in reality dozens of sides of course, not two) is less guilty of anything than the other is full of ****. There are individuals in any setting who A) can't accept that people hold differing opinions, B) can't handle people not liking them for their debatably horrible opinions, or C) (and worst) both of these.

[Tom4784]

I often find that people who pretend to care about Free Speech and believe that political correctness is the devil are often the most likely to take offence at everything that doesn't match their own viewpoints.

Just look at the 'news stories' that pop up every Christmas about how 'liberals and muslims are trying to get rid of Christmas' or the furore over the Starbucks cup not being Christmassy enough. It's all basically bait for the types of people that would normally screech about Free Speech to get their knickers in a twist over.

Those kinds of people will only endorse and defend Free Speech for as long as it works for them. They have little interest in Free Speech when it comes to thoughts and opinions that don't match their own.

[Brillopad]

I often find that people who pretend to care about Free Speech and believe that political correctness is the devil are often the most likely to take offence at everything that doesn't match their own viewpoints.

Just look at the 'news stories' that pop up every Christmas about how 'liberals and muslims are trying to get rid of Christmas' or the furore over the Starbucks cup not being Christmassy enough. It's all basically bait for the types of people that would normally screech about Free Speech to get their knickers in a twist over.

Those kinds of people will only endorse and defend Free Speech for as long as it works for them. They have little interest in Free Speech when it comes to thoughts and opinions that don't match their own.

You are nearly always one of the first to get offended and insulting and calling those with opinions you don't share on immigration, for example, as bigots and racists.

Hardly in a position to act as though you are above such behaviour and attempt to imply it is always those with opposing opinions to you that do. Getting your knickers in a twist is a right only reserved for those who care so deeply about different types of people hey!

As usual, opinions on that will be varied!

[Withano]

I do think people should be able to openly criticize practices/beliefs considered wrong by the majority. To simply shut people down, as often happens here

Some groups, by just about anyone's standards, are far too easily offended, although I also believe an element of that is theatrics to cause drama and put pressure on government bodies to close down any opposition. Complete manipulation.

You are nearly always one of the first to get offended and insulting and calling those with opinions you don't share on immigration, for example, as bigots and racists.

Hardly in a position to act as though you are above such behaviour and attempt to imply it is always those with opposing opinions to you that do. Getting your knickers in a twist is a right only reserved for those who care so deeply about different types of people

Do you not think these two posts directly contradict each other and you just completely proved the 'freedom of speech until it doesnt go their way' / 'offence at everything that doesn't match their own viewpoints.' entirely correct

[Tom4784]

You are nearly always one of the first to get offended and insulting and calling those with opinions you don't share on immigration, for example, as bigots and racists.

Hardly in a position to act as though you are above such behaviour and attempt to imply it is always those with opposing opinions to you that do. Getting your knickers in a twist is a right only reserved for those who care so deeply about different types of people hey!

As usual, opinions on that will be varied!

Where the the receipts on your claims? I won't hold my breath on you actually backing them up because you can't and it's just basically baseless slander on your part.

Even if someone did call you a bigot for your opinions then is it not Freedom of Speech? Or does that only apply to you? You taking offense to my opnions is basically proving what I'm saying to be correct. You can't handle opinions that don't allign with your own.

I've never tried to silence your opinions on subjects, I'd rather question it then suppress it. It seems like you consider someone questioning your opinion to be the same as trying to censor it. Freedom of Speech is a two way street, if you're going to speak out about people taking offense to what you have to say then you can't suddenly act like a victim if someone questions your own opinions.

You are allowed an opinion and everyone else is allowed to question it. I've lost count of how many times I've said that in Serious Debates.

[Brillopad]

Where the the receipts on your claims? I won't hold my breath on you actually backing them up because you can't and it's just basically baseless slander on your part.

Even if someone did call you a bigot for your opinions then is it not Freedom of Speech? Or does that only apply to you? You taking offense to my opnions is basically proving what I'm saying to be correct. You can't handle opinions that don't allign with your own.

I've never tried to silence your opinions on subjects, I'd rather question it then suppress it. It seems like you consider someone questioning your opinion to be the same as trying to censor it. Freedom of Speech is a two way street, if you're going to speak out about people taking offense to what you have to say then you can't suddenly act like a victim if someone questions your own opinions.

You are allowed an opinion and everyone else is allowed to question it. I've lost count of how many times I've said that in Serious Debates.

The are many can testify to your tendency to calling others bigots and racists. Remember once put out there it stays out there so good luck with your further baseless allegations on slander.

Your opinion is simply that, an opinion, nothing more, so whilst no-one is likely to be too bothered about that, it is the principle and hypocrisy of people like you that is what is really offensive. You clearly don't take criticism well, nobody does if honest about it. However some will desperately attempt to suggest they are above all that despite it being out there for all to see. All bluster.

Of course everyone is allowed an opinion, in theory, however being a mod enables some to shut down those not in agreement with their own.

[Tom4784]

The are many can testify to your tendency to calling others bigots and racists. Remember once put out there it stays out there so good luck with your further baseless allegations on slander.

Your opinion is simply that, an opinion, nothing more, so whilst no-one is likely to be too bothered about that, it is the principle and hypocrisy of people like you that is what is really offensive. You clearly don't take criticism well, nobody does if honest about it. However some will desperately attempt to suggest they are above all that despite it being out there for all to see. All bluster.

Of course everyone is allowed an opinion, in theory, however being a mod enables some to shut down those not in agreement with their own.

So no proof, as usual. Just the typical 'I know you are but what am I' response.

I take criticism well and it's hilarious that you should say that when you and yours have led a campaign of bullying against me just because I happen to have a different opinion.

The truth is that you can't argue against, not because the fact that I'm a mod but because your opinion is often hypocritical like it is in this thread and you trip yourself up. It's always been that way, Wombai.

[Brillopad]

Do you not think these two posts directly contradict each other and you just completely proved the 'freedom of speech until it doesnt go their way' / 'offence at everything that doesn't match their own viewpoints.' entirely correct

Clearly not seeing the same thing. They are intended to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who constantly take offence at any opposition to mass migration into Europe.

[Brillopad]

So no proof, as usual. Just the typical 'I know you are but what am I' response.

I take criticism well and it's hilarious that you should say that when you and yours have led a campaign of bullying against me just because I happen to have a different opinion.

The truth is that you can't argue against, not because the fact that I'm a mod but because your opinion is often hypocritical like it is in this thread and you trip yourself up. It's always been that way, Wombai.

Can you give a straight answer to a straight question? Are you denying ever calling anyone on here a bigot/racist?

As for the absolutely hilarious 'bullying' accusation, you really are getting desperate now, as I know several on here have felt bullied by you in your dubious position as a mod.

That last remark a very good case in point.

[Jack_]

It's always been that way, Wombai.

Damn, you beat me to it :fist:

Glad to know my suspicions weren't unfounded

[Tom4784]

Can you give a straight answer to a straight question? Are you denying ever calling anyone on here a bigot/racist?

As for the absolutely hilarious 'bullying' accusation, you really are getting desperate now, as I know several on here have felt bullied by you in your dubious position as a mod.

That last remark a very good case in point.

If I did then, according to this thread it wouldn't be an issue or am I once again correct with my assertions that people only care about Freedom of Speech when it suits them?

I can't recall calling anyone a bigot, if you have evidence to the contrary then go right ahead, if not then it's just a baseless attack in place of a valid argument.

You and yours have literally posted a thread a few weeks that lasted five or more pages pretty much attacking me constantly, You constantly attack me in threads and try to silence my opinion by mentioning that I'm a mod and making out that I'm somehow abusing mod privileges simply because you can't win an argument against me. I have been bullied by you guys because you've convinced yourselves that I'm somehow abusing my position when I'm not. I simply have a different opinion to you and you can't handle that or the fact that I'm willing to question you on your opinion which is hilariously against what this thread is all about. You can't handle my opinion so a group of you have been trying to bully me into silence for weeks but it will not work. I promise you that.

Pointing out hypocrisy is apart of the debating process, to accuse me of bullying because I've pointed out the holes in your logic is silly.

[Brillopad]

If I did then, according to this thread it wouldn't be an issue or am I once again correct with my assertions that people only care about Freedom of Speech when it suits them?

I can't recall calling anyone a bigot, if you have evidence to the contrary then go right ahead, if not then it's just a baseless attack in place of a valid argument.

You and yours have literally posted a thread a few weeks that lasted five or more pages pretty much attacking me constantly, You constantly attack me in threads and try to silence my opinion by mentioning that I'm a mod and making out that I'm somehow abusing mod privileges simply because you can't win an argument against me. I have been bullied by you guys because you've convinced yourselves that I'm somehow abusing my position when I'm not. I simply have a different opinion to you and you can't handle that or the fact that I'm willing to question you on your opinion which is hilariously against what this thread is all about. You can't handle my opinion so a group of you have been trying to bully me into silence for weeks but it will not work. I promise you that.

Pointing out hypocrisy is apart of the debating process, to accuse me of bullying because I've pointed out the holes in your logic is silly.

As usual you know most are not going to trawl through hundreds of threads - proving a point to you simply isn't worth the effort - but you know, I know and so do others.

You also over estimate your abilities as you haven't pointed out any holes in anything, all you ever do is constantly deny your actions and hope no one will be bothered to call your bluff. Whatever.

At the end of the day to accuse others of bullying you because they call you out on your hypocrisy when you are the one who is able to infract/ban those that do is what is silly. You are in a no lose situation, and you know it, which gives you the courage to play the 'superior' one. Good luck with that!

[Cherie]

If I did then, according to this thread it wouldn't be an issue or am I once again correct with my assertions that people only care about Freedom of Speech when it suits them?

I can't recall calling anyone a bigot, if you have evidence to the contrary then go right ahead, if not then it's just a baseless attack in place of a valid argument.

You and yours have literally posted a thread a few weeks that lasted five or more pages pretty much attacking me constantly, You constantly attack me in threads and try to silence my opinion by mentioning that I'm a mod and making out that I'm somehow abusing mod privileges simply because you can't win an argument against me. I have been bullied by you guys because you've convinced yourselves that I'm somehow abusing my position when I'm not. I simply have a different opinion to you and you can't handle that or the fact that I'm willing to question you on your opinion which is hilariously against what this thread is all about. You can't handle my opinion so a group of you have been trying to bully me into silence for weeks but it will not work. I promise you that.

Pointing out hypocrisy is apart of the debating process, to accuse me of bullying because I've pointed out the holes in your logic is silly.


Who are the "you and yours" you are referring to, I posted a thread asking for transparency when a post is deleted for no apparent reason is that the thread you are referring to? if you were the only mod mentioned in the thread then maybe you need to examine your approach ..as for you and yours I post independently as does Brillo I don't see that we are connected in any way

[Withano]

Clearly not seeing the same thing. They are intended to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who constantly take offence at any opposition to mass migration into Europe.

In summary what you have said in this thread is the following

I love freedom of speech cos I get to say what I want, however people cant say what they want about my thoughts, freedom of speech only applies to me.

Youve embarrassed yourself on this one matey boy.

[Brillopad]

In summary what you have said in this thread is the following

I love freedom of speech cos I get to say what I want, however people say what they want about my thoughts, freedom of speech only applies to me.

Youve embarrassed yourself on this one matey boy.

Not half as much as you matey boy. :wavey:

[Withano]

You need to reread your words or have a rest, its actually quite humerous how many times you contradicted yourself / proved a point you were fighting against in this thread

[Brillopad]

You need to reread your words or have a rest, its actually quite humerous how many times you contradicted yourself / proved a point you were fighting against in this thread

Seriously, you really think I take your opinion very seriously.

[Withano]

Seriously, you really think I take your opinion very seriously.

You contradicting yourself in this thread is more of a fact than my opinion. I dont know you enough to understand whether you take facts seriously or not. Perhaps not if youre disregarding this one.

[Brillopad]

You contradicting yourself in this thread is more of a fact than my opinion. I dont know you enough to understand whether you take facts seriously or not. Perhaps not if youre disregarding this one.

No it isn't you just misunderstand what you read. That's your problem not mine.

[the truth]

I often find that people who pretend to care about Free Speech and believe that political correctness is the devil are often the most likely to take offence at everything that doesn't match their own viewpoints.

Just look at the 'news stories' that pop up every Christmas about how 'liberals and muslims are trying to get rid of Christmas' or the furore over the Starbucks cup not being Christmassy enough. It's all basically bait for the types of people that would normally screech about Free Speech to get their knickers in a twist over.

Those kinds of people will only endorse and defend Free Speech for as long as it works for them. They have little interest in Free Speech when it comes to thoughts and opinions that don't match their own.

Christians often forgive, muslims usually dont. How do you solve that equation?

[Withano]

Christians often forgive, muslims usually dont. How do you solve that equation?

By educating yourself about religion

[user104658]

Christians often forgive, muslims usually dont. How do you solve that equation?
:joker: ... Yes, certainly no judgemental, pig-headed Christians out there.

[Tom4784]

The meat and potatoes of this issue is that people confuse Freedom of Speech with not having to face consequences for what they say which is wrong because ALL opinions come with consequences regardless of Free Speech.

[Brillopad]

The meat and potatoes of this issue is that people confuse Freedom of Speech with not having to face consequences for what they say which is wrong because ALL opinions come with consequences regardless of Free Speech.

Freedom of speech is about being able to criticise dubious beliefs/practice carried out in the name of religion and such criticism not being stifled to appease any particular group. No subject matter should be beyond criticism as some on here seem to suggest.

What should be the consequences for criticising female subjugation within the Muslim religion in Britain in your opinion, particularly bearing in mind we are supposed to believe in sexual equality in this country. Seriously this is an important issue and should be addressed, not ignored.

[Withano]

Freedom of speech is about being able to criticise dubious beliefs/practice carried out in the name of religion.

Why cant your criticism be critiqued though?

[Brillopad]

Why cant your criticism be critiqued though?

It can, but to just resort to namecalling is not critique, it's an attempt to shut down further discussion on the subject. That then gets peoples' backs up and, well the rest is history.

[MB.]

Personally I think this problem would be resolved if you just had better opinions in the first place

[Withano]

It can, but to just resort to namecalling is not critique, it's an attempt to shut down further discussion on the subject. That then gets peoples' backs up and, well the rest is history.

So I guess calling - for example - a racist post 'racist' is okay, but calling the poster 'racist' is not okay? Like freedom of speech aside, is this your argument?

[Brillopad]

Personally I think this problem would be resolved if you just had better opinions in the first place

Sounds rather one-sided with no real interest in discussion. Just tell people what is and is not the right opinion to have. :shrug:

[Brillopad]

So I guess calling - for example - a racist post 'racist' is okay, but calling the poster 'racist' is not okay? Like freedom of speech aside, is this your argument?

Well doesn't that depend on what was said for someone to make an allegation of racism - not every such allegation opwill necessarily be 'racist' and may just be that person's interpretation.

Just because someone cries racist doesn't make it true. If you disagree with a post you say why not just shout racist because you don't agree, for example to simply dismiss peoples' concerns on the effects of mass immigration as racist is unreasonable and incorrect.

[Withano]

Well doesn't that depend on what was said for someone to make an allegation of racism - not every such allegation opwill necessarily be 'racist' and may just be that person's interpretation.

Just because someone cries racist doesn't make it true. If you disagree with a post you say why not just shout racist because you don't agree, for example to simply dismiss peoples' concerns on the effects of mass immigration as racist is unreasonable and incorrect.

This is all hypothetical, to try and understand what your opinions on freedom of speech really are cos youve contradicted yourself a few times..

Is writing an obviously sexist post okay cos freedom of speech?
Is calling the post sexist okay cos freedom of speech?
Is calling the poster sexist okay cos freedom of speech?

Can you just reiterate what your argument is by answering these Qs.

[Brillopad]

This is all hypothetical, to try and understand what your opinions on freedom of speech really are cos youve contradicted yourself a few times..

Is writing an obviously sexist post okay cos freedom of speech?
Is calling the post sexist okay cos freedom of speech?
Is calling the poster sexist okay cos freedom of speech?

Can you just reiterate what your argument is by answering these Qs.

I have not contradicted myself. I have stated how hypocritical it is of a poster from the for immigration camp to accuse those from the against immigration camp of taking offence at criticism of their views when the person posting has previously taken offence at any criticism of their views by resorting to name-calling. What is that if not hypocritical?

If someone writes a blatant sexist/racist post it is open to both interpretation and criticism. But people should remember how they have reacted in the past before being quick to accuse others. That is my point.


.

[Withano]

I have not contradicted myself. I have stated how hypocritical it is of a poster from the for immigration camp to accuse those from the against immigration camp of taking offence at criticism of their views when the person posting has previously taken offence of any criticism of their views by resorting to name-calling. What is that if not hypocritical?



.

i dont even believe you know what youre talking about anymore either

[Brillopad]

i dont even believe you know what youre talking about anymore either

I don't believe you understand what you read, so best we leave it there.

[Tom4784]

Freedom of speech is about being able to criticise dubious beliefs/practice carried out in the name of religion and such criticism not being stifled to appease any particular group. No subject matter should be beyond criticism as some on here seem to suggest.

What should be the consequences for criticising female subjugation within the Muslim religion in Britain in your opinion, particularly bearing in mind we are supposed to believe in sexual equality in this country. Seriously this is an important issue and should be addressed, not ignored.

The problem is that you only believe in free speech when it suits you (and your idea of freedom of speech doesn't extend to people you disagree with) and this thread is proof of that.

This post of yours is just a desperate attempt to move the goalposts to try to gain some ground and it's (once again) hypocritical since you're all for criticising things you dislike but you cry foul the second someone criticises your views. This whole bigot stuff is proof of that. You've gone from acting like a victim, trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you to acting like you are the defender of free speech when it comes to criticising Islam.

So which is it? Freedom of Speech for all or none at all? You're trying to have your cake and eat it and you'll keep tripping up until you make your choice.

[Brillopad]

The problem is that you only believe in free speech when it suits you (and your idea of freedom of speech doesn't extend to people you disagree with) and this thread is proof of that.

This post of yours is just a desperate attempt to move the goalposts to try to gain some ground and it's (once again) hypocritical since you're all for criticising things you dislike but you cry foul the second someone criticises your views. This whole bigot stuff is proof of that. You've gone from acting like a victim, trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you to acting like you are the defender of free speech when it comes to criticising Islam.

So which is it? Freedom of Speech for all or none at all? You're trying to have your cake and eat it and you'll keep tripping up until you make your choice.

Rubbish. Me trying to silence people - pot/kettle I think. It doesn't matter what I say the two of you will twist what I say to suit your agenda. It is for others to form their own opinions. - too tired to care right now.

[Tom4784]

Rubbish. Me trying to silence people - pot/kettle I think. It doesn't matter what I say the two of you will twist what I say to suit your agenda. It is for others to form their own opinions. - too tired to care right now.

When have I ever tried to silence you? I'd ask for receipts but I'm guessing you'd just respond with something non factual like 'there's plenty of people to back me up!' in lieu of actual proof. Any unfounded attacks on me will be disregarded for the lies they are unless you can actually back it up.

I've always questioned you on things, when you've accused me of things I've always given you the chance to back your claims up. When we're discussing things I question you so you can expand your thoughts. I don't silence anyone, I give you opportunities to back up your thoughts and to explain them further but you waste them because you believe your own opinion is untouchable.

I don't believe that about my own opinion as can be seen in plenty of threads in this section. If someone questions me on my opinion, I answer them and explain my position. I encourage discussion, you encourage insults and discourage actual debates.

You seem to be accusing me of things that you alone are guilty of. Projection?

[Northern Monkey]

To add to the freedom of speech debate.I read about this recently in Canada.
This university is trying to force everyone on campus to use these made up 'gender pronouns'.They're not even real words.Instead of 'he' or 'she' they want the students and staff to start calling people 'ze' and 'zir' among a whole list of other made up words.One proffessor is standing up against this and he says that forcing people to use these made up words to address people goes against freedom of speech.
'A raging debate over political correctness, gender identity rights and free speech led to a tense forum at the University of Toronto Saturday.
Professor Jordan Peterson, who has said he will not use ‘made up’ gender neutral pronouns like ze and hir instead of he and her, argued that rubbish science is being used to falsely claim that virtually all differences between males and females is essentially an invention of society.
His position has earned him two reprimand letters from his employer, the University of Toronto, and led to Saturday’s debate where he went up against two professors who vehemently disagreed with him.
Professor Mary Bryson, from the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia, said scientists have no way of accurately looking at gender in the absence of sexism and misogyny.
“We can’t actually reach conclusions about what we take to be gender differences,” Bryson said. “A lot of what we’ve been hearing here is hate propaganda.”
Peterson said that kind of ‘social justice warrior’ thinking is behind the Ontario Human Rights Code and the new federal law Bill C-16, that protects gender identity and expression.
The laws make it very dangerous to speak one’s mind on gender issues, and has stifled free speech on university campuses, he said.
One lawyer he consulted told him that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is a “kangaroo court” that should be abolished, Peterson said.'

http://m.torontosun.com/2016/11/19/intense-debate-over-free-expression-at-u-of-t

[Kizzy]

To add to the freedom of speech debate.I read about this recently in Canada.
This university is trying to force everyone on campus to use these made up 'gender pronouns'.They're not even real words.Instead of 'he' or 'she' they want the students and staff to start calling people 'ze' and 'zir' among a whole list of other made up words.One proffessor is standing up against this and he says that forcing people to use these made up words to address people goes against freedom of speech.
'A raging debate over political correctness, gender identity rights and free speech led to a tense forum at the University of Toronto Saturday.
Professor Jordan Peterson, who has said he will not use ‘made up’ gender neutral pronouns like ze and hir instead of he and her, argued that rubbish science is being used to falsely claim that virtually all differences between males and females is essentially an invention of society.
His position has earned him two reprimand letters from his employer, the University of Toronto, and led to Saturday’s debate where he went up against two professors who vehemently disagreed with him.
Professor Mary Bryson, from the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia, said scientists have no way of accurately looking at gender in the absence of sexism and misogyny.
“We can’t actually reach conclusions about what we take to be gender differences,” Bryson said. “A lot of what we’ve been hearing here is hate propaganda.”
Peterson said that kind of ‘social justice warrior’ thinking is behind the Ontario Human Rights Code and the new federal law Bill C-16, that protects gender identity and expression.
The laws make it very dangerous to speak one’s mind on gender issues, and has stifled free speech on university campuses, he said.
One lawyer he consulted told him that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is a “kangaroo court” that should be abolished, Peterson said.'

http://m.torontosun.com/2016/11/19/intense-debate-over-free-expression-at-u-of-t

Here is a perfect example of freedom of speech and debate being shot down by narrow minded individuals using a derogatory umbrella term to denigrate the views of a sub section of society.
Another is 'political correctness gone mad', I have yet to have this term explained to me in any rational understandable fashion, for me it appears to be a blanket term for those who believe the policies which are in place to provide protections against any abuses of either persons, society or the wider environment do not fit in with the political ideology being advocated at the time.

Laws are there to protect the views of everyone not just the majority or those susceptible to groupthink.

However, this reminds me of the opinion of Germaine Greer as she accepted Caitlyn Jenner as a woman but not female, that wasn't against any law and was simply her opinion and yet the backlash was intense, I happened to agree with her on that issue.
The important thing is to separate the things which truly aresimply a differing of opinion and those which go against specific laws and/or human rights.

[DemolitionRed]

Freedom of speech does include the right to offend and the right to be offended by someone’s opinion on a topic. Unfortunately, that offence often resorts to personal name calling and of course, name calling isn’t protected as a ‘right’ under ‘freedom of speech’.

I use quite a few forum groups where politeness is seen as a weakness and rudeness is seen as a strength. Good manners aren’t mandatory, even on this site and this site has to be the strictest site I use when it comes to using correct protocol of the written word. Then again, this site is the most Right wing site I use (at least in serious debate) and a place where the use of language within a discussion seems to so often lack the ability to feel for others. I often leave here wondering what happened to compassion and I’m regularly astounded by the lack of diplomacy in this faux social setting.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with picking someone out and questioning them, disagreeing with them and even patronizing them. Hate is is an interesting one…. We can hate an opinion and we can hate a person who constantly has differing opinions to our own. Hating an opinion is what leads to or at least should lead to a good discussion; hating the person who carries that opinion leads to a cluster **** of nonsense that is neither eloquent or intellectual.

I worked out some years ago that its extremely difficult to have civilized political communication online with a bunch of strangers.

[Brillopad]

When have I ever tried to silence you? I'd ask for receipts but I'm guessing you'd just respond with something non factual like 'there's plenty of people to back me up!' in lieu of actual proof. Any unfounded attacks on me will be disregarded for the lies they are unless you can actually back it up.

I've always questioned you on things, when you've accused me of things I've always given you the chance to back your claims up. When we're discussing things I question you so you can expand your thoughts. I don't silence anyone, I give you opportunities to back up your thoughts and to explain them further but you waste them because you believe your own opinion is untouchable.

I don't believe that about my own opinion as can be seen in plenty of threads in this section. If someone questions me on my opinion, I answer them and explain my position. I encourage discussion, you encourage insults and discourage actual debates.

You seem to be accusing me of things that you alone are guilty of. Projection?

You have tried to silence people by dismissing their opinions as racist in previous threads, that is fact. Automatically accusing people of that because their views are not agreeable to you is a way of attempting to shut people down.

Disapproving of certain religious practice and not wanting such practice to be tolerated in this country when it is completely contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the modern world is not racist - it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with opposing tolerance of religious oppression and abuse for the sake of political correctness.

Telling people to produce 'evidence' that you have said this in the past is simply diversion tactics as who is going to waste their time going through endless old threads. If you forget you have said this, which personally I find hard to believe, that is your responsibility not that of others who point it out.

I don't believe my opinions are untouchable - I simply defend them like everyone else. Using adjectives such as racist or bigot is hardly productive and does not encourage discussion, it only serves to undermine opinions and set the tone of the post/thread. As for accusing me of projection, like everything else that is simply an allegation based on your own opinion, not fact.

[Kizzy]

You have tried to silence people by dismissing their opinions as racist in previous threads, that is fact. Automatically accusing people of that because their views are not agreeable to you is a way of attempting to shut people down.

Disapproving of certain religious practice and not wanting such practice to be tolerated in this country when it is completely contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the modern world is not racist - it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with opposing tolerance of religious abuse for the sake of political correctness.

Telling people to produce 'evidence' that you have said this in the past is simply diversion tactics as who is going to waste their time going through endless old threads. If you forget you have said this, which personally I find hard to believe, that is your responsibility not that of others who point it out.

I don't believe my opinions are untouchable - I simply defend them like everyone else. Using adjectives such as racist or bigot is hardly productive and does not encourage discussion, it only serves to undermine opinions and set the tone of the post/thread. As for accusing me of projection, like everything else that is simply an allegation based on your own opinion, not fact.

Well there we have it, who has the right to offend?... Which is kind of what the thread is about however you haven't been accused of being a racist or bigot in this thread have you?

If you criticise the right leaning views of certain UK tabloids then you are accused of being 'red' a ' marxist' or maybe the worst slur a 'corbynista'...and if you agree with them you run the risk of being accused of being a bigot or a fascist due to their bigoted fascistic content.

Should you subscribe to one very narrow narrative then you can't be surprised when you are judged on that, as you have in essence nailed your colours to the mast.

[Cherie]

If I did then, according to this thread it wouldn't be an issue or am I once again correct with my assertions that people only care about Freedom of Speech when it suits them?

I can't recall calling anyone a bigot, if you have evidence to the contrary then go right ahead, if not then it's just a baseless attack in place of a valid argument.

You and yours have literally posted a thread a few weeks that lasted five or more pages pretty much attacking me constantly, You constantly attack me in threads and try to silence my opinion by mentioning that I'm a mod and making out that I'm somehow abusing mod privileges simply because you can't win an argument against me. I have been bullied by you guys because you've convinced yourselves that I'm somehow abusing my position when I'm not. I simply have a different opinion to you and you can't handle that or the fact that I'm willing to question you on your opinion which is hilariously against what this thread is all about. You can't handle my opinion so a group of you have been trying to bully me into silence for weeks but it will not work. I promise you that.

Pointing out hypocrisy is apart of the debating process, to accuse me of bullying because I've pointed out the holes in your logic is silly.

I read this in full now, group bullying :laugh: nobody can win an argument against you :laugh: are you some kind of argument super hero :suspect: trying to silence you...erm deleting posts when thing don't go your way is you is one way to win an argument I guess! How on earth can you be silenced, I doubt you have ever had an infraction never mind be silenced :shrug: And finally I ask again who are you and yours?????

[Tom4784]

You have tried to silence people by dismissing their opinions as racist in previous threads, that is fact. Automatically accusing people of that because their views are not agreeable to you is a way of attempting to shut people down.

Disapproving of certain religious practice and not wanting such practice to be tolerated in this country when it is completely contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the modern world is not racist - it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with opposing tolerance of religious oppression and abuse for the sake of political correctness.

Telling people to produce 'evidence' that you have said this in the past is simply diversion tactics as who is going to waste their time going through endless old threads. If you forget you have said this, which personally I find hard to believe, that is your responsibility not that of others who point it out.

I don't believe my opinions are untouchable - I simply defend them like everyone else. Using adjectives such as racist or bigot is hardly productive and does not encourage discussion, it only serves to undermine opinions and set the tone of the post/thread. As for accusing me of projection, like everything else that is simply an allegation based on your own opinion, not fact.

Accusations without proof are lies until proven otherwise.

Asking for receipts when you accuse me of things that didn't happen isn't diversionary tactics. Wild accusations are the true diversions here because you've tied yourself in knots with several hypocritical posts and you can't get out of it without admitting you are wrong.

Don't make accusations that you can't back up, it's a fairly simple concept to grasp.

Your posts in this thread speak for themselves, you've contradicted yourself repeatedly and these contradictions have been pointed out to you and you've ignored them. You are projecting everything you are guilty of onto me and that's plain as day for everyone to see.

This is pointless so if you have anything to actually add to the topic then do so. Personal attacks and made up incidents achieve nothing.

[Brillopad]

Accusations without proof are lies until proven otherwise.

Asking for receipts when you accuse me of things that didn't happen isn't diversionary tactics. Wild accusations are the true diversions here because you've tied yourself in knots with several hypocritical posts and you can't get out of it without admitting you are wrong.

Don't make accusations that you can't back up, it's a fairly simple concept to grasp.

Your posts in this thread speak for themselves, you've contradicted yourself repeatedly and these contradictions have been pointed out to you and you've ignored them. You are projecting everything you are guilty of onto me and that's plain as day for everyone to see.


This is pointless so if you have anything to actually add to the topic then do so. Personal attacks and made up incidents achieve nothing.

Point out the contradictions then as I don't see them from a clear and valid source. Just rubbish and no substance.

I see no personal attacks in that post either just an honest response to your post.

[Tom4784]

Point out the contradictions then as I don't see them from a clear and valid source. Just rubbish and no substance.

Just take a look.

I think it is an issue we all need to be rationale about.

Whilst i don't think it would be a good idea for people to be able to be offensive for the sake of being offensive, I do think people should be able to openly criticize practices/beliefs considered wrong by the majority. To simply shut people down, as often happens here, because their view is not popular with a given group is unacceptable in the free world.

Some groups, by just about anyone's standards, are far too easily offended, although I also believe an element of that is theatrics to cause drama and put pressure on government bodies to close down any opposition. Complete manipulation.

You say in the first post that you believe that people should be able to criticise things they don't believe in and you claim that opinions are shut down on here because they aren't held by a group of people and that's true because someone who doesn't hold a right wing opinion can't often go into threads without being called part of the Loony Left, a Remoaner or an SJW. You are part of the said group that attempts to repress opinions that aren't your own because you are offended by differing thoughts and opinions.

As for the point about theatrics, surely your endless baseless accusations is that in a nutshell. You've screeched about being called a bigot and a racist when no one has done anything of the sort in an attempt to shut down my opinion. You are guilty of the very things you claim to be against and that's why you are a hypocrite.

You are nearly always one of the first to get offended and insulting and calling those with opinions you don't share on immigration, for example, as bigots and racists.

Hardly in a position to act as though you are above such behaviour and attempt to imply it is always those with opposing opinions to you that do. Getting your knickers in a twist is a right only reserved for those who care so deeply about different types of people hey!

As usual, opinions on that will be varied!

Again, proof of what I was saying before. You added nothing about the actual topic at hand and instead told lies meant to shut my opinion down. The fact you accused me of being insulting when, if you look at this topic, you're the one that's throwing out the insults, is ridiculous. You are the offended party that you spoke out against in your first post.

Every other post of yours in this thread has reinforced that.

[Brillopad]

Just take a look.



You say in the first post that you believe that people should be able to criticise things they don't believe in and you claim that opinions are shut down on here because they aren't held by a group of people and that's true because someone who doesn't hold a right wing opinion can't often go into threads without being called part of the Loony Left, a Remoaner or an SJW. You are part of the said group that attempts to repress opinions that aren't your own because you are offended by differing thoughts and opinions.

As for the point about theatrics, surely your endless baseless accusations is that in a nutshell. You've screeched about being called a bigot and a racist when no one has done anything of the sort in an attempt to shut down my opinion. You are guilty of the very things you claim to be against and that's why you are a hypocrite.



Again, proof of what I was saying before. You added nothing about the actual topic at hand and instead told lies meant to shut my opinion down. The fact you accused me of being insulting when, if you look at this topic, you're the one that's throwing out the insults, is ridiculous. You are the offended party that you spoke out against in your first post.

Every other post of yours in this thread has reinforced that.

You are doing it again - right at the beginning of your post you are referring to those that have a different opinion to yours as being 'right-wing' whilst attempting to express concerns that you are being made to feel labelled by the people you just labelled.

That is precisely what I mean you make some feel they cannot freely express their opinion without unreasonable dismissal of their views but are quick to complain if you feel they do the same to you. In my experience people are often only responding to your actions. If you insult others first then you have to expect the same back.

You always believe you have proved something when really you haven't. Whilst I have criticised your views and your expression of them on many occasions I have never outrightly called you a liar. I am not a liar. Of course I can be wrong about something but that does not make me a liar. A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of a fact and I have not done that - that goes against the grain for me.

To summarise I don't believe you have proved anything except that you are no different to those you accuse.

[Withano]

Brillopad, if you are honestly confused, then to put it simply - in this thread you have appeared to have said that we have the right to offend, and brought up the times when your offensive words were excusable but then you went on for days about the times you didn't like to be offended by other posters.

[Brillopad]

Brillopad, if you are honestly confused, then to put it simply - in this thread you have appeared to have said that we have the right to offend, and brought up the times when your offensive words were excusable but then you went on for days about the times you didn't like to be offended by other posters.

What I have actually done is to state the only thing that offends me is the hypocrisy of those that take offence at criticism of their views by responding with words such as bigot and racist in previous threads then having the duplicity to accuse others of not being able to take criticism and becoming offended by responding with words such as loony left/lefties. If people can't handle a bit if tit for tat then don't start the process.

I don't think you and I are on the same page.

[Withano]

What I have actually done is to state the only thing that offends me is the hypocrisy of those that take offence at criticism of their views by responding with words such as bigot and racist in previous threads then having the duplicity to accuse others of not being able to take criticism and becoming offended by responding with words such as loony left/lefties. If people can't handle a bit if tit for tat then don't start the process.

I don't think you and I are on the same page.

:facepalm:

[Tom4784]

You are doing it again - right at the beginning of your post you are referring to those that have a different opinion to yours as being 'right-wing' whilst attempting to express concerns that you are being made to feel labelled by the people you just labelled.

That is precisely what I mean you make some feel they cannot freely express their opinion without unreasonable dismissal of their views but are quick to complain if you feel they do the same to you. In my experience people are often only responding to your actions. If you insult others first then you have to expect the same back.

You always believe you have proved something when really you haven't. Whilst I have criticised your views and your expression of them on many occasions I have never outrightly called you a liar. I am not a liar. Of course I can be wrong about something but that does not make me a liar. A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of a fact and I have not done that - that goes against the grain for me.

To summarise I don't believe you have proved anything except that you are no different to those you accuse.

Are you honestly comparing the term 'Right Wing' to 'Loony Left'. Remoaner and 'SJW?'

Right Wing isn't an insult, it's a descriptor of one's political stance. Serious Debates is a heavily Right Wing leaning section, this is pretty much a fact.

The terms listed above are all insults used by some Right leaning members aimed at people who happen to think differently to them. Do you deny that this happens? 'Cause it's a bit rich to accuse me of suppressing opinions when I use a valid term when you are fine and dandy with insults about the left being thrown about. One rule for you, another for people who don't hold your opinion it seems.

I've never dismissed anyone's opinions, I'm allowed to disagree with opinions, like I've said enough times in this topic alone (and countless times in other SD threads), everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone has a right to disagree with that opinion. I've never tried to repress discussion, It goes against my mantra.

As for the bolded sentence, I'll just quote your first post to me in this thread.

You are nearly always one of the first to get offended and insulting and calling those with opinions you don't share on immigration, for example, as bigots and racists.

Hardly in a position to act as though you are above such behaviour and attempt to imply it is always those with opposing opinions to you that do. Getting your knickers in a twist is a right only reserved for those who care so deeply about different types of people hey!

As usual, opinions on that will be varied!

As you can see, you attacked first. I didn't refer or acknowledge anyone in my original post yet you attacked so don't preach to me when you aren't willing to take your own advice. You set the tone for this discussion, you were the aggressor so don't pin this on me because everyone can see what happened.

You need to keep track of what you have actually said, Wombai, instead of reading what you want to read from other people's post instead of what they actually wrote.

As for your paragraph about being called a liar. You've thrown out plenty of accusations meant to silence my opinion yet you have NEVER offered up anything to back your claims which suggest that no such proof exists which means you are lying to disparage me.

Your last sentence is highly ironic considering.

[Northern Monkey]

To clarify.I don't think anyone on this forum is an SJW.Those guys really are crazy and usually inhabbit universities in the US or Canada.Although it does seem to be catching on over here but not as extreme.Point in case was that Cecil Rhodes statue and also the way speakers have been banned from speaking at Universities due to pressure from SJW's just because they hold different political opinions from them.That stuff is regressive.The shutting down of speech that you don't agree with.
Some of the crap that gets pedalled in Universities is dangerous because these young people are our future.What will they be like in the real world without their safe spaces to run back to.

[Brillopad]

To clarify.I don't think anyone on this forum is an SJW.Those guys really are crazy and usually inhabbit universities in the US or Canada.Although it does seem to be catching on over here but not as extreme.Point in case was that Cecil Rhodes statue and also the way speakers have been banned from speaking at Universities due to pressure from SJW's just because they hold different political opinions from them.That stuff is regressive.The shutting down of speech that you don't agree with.
Some of the crap that gets pedalled in Universities is dangerous because these young people are our future.What will they be like in the real world without their safe spaces to run back to.

What does SJW mean? Showing my ignorance here but have no clue.

[the truth]

the liberals and the loony left are cowards...they shut down Christians as they know they will get forgiveness, they turn a bind eye to hard line muslims purely out of fear and to try and look like the anti racist good guys ...end results 20,000 children get molested in rotherham and the entire country turns a blind eye

[Tom4784]

What does SJW mean? Showing my ignorance here but have no clue.

Social Justice Warrior, it was a term referring to people who go OTT with political correctness to an extent of using it to oppress others (I'm very passionate about Social causes but I won't deny that people like that exist). However it's a term that a lot of people who are simply interested in certain causes get painted with regardless.

Think how feminists get made out to be man haters that want to destroy mankind and that's kind of what SJW as an insult is used for. It's basically a catch all insult equivalent of 'Feminazi'.

[Brillopad]

Are you honestly comparing the term 'Right Wing' to 'Loony Left'. Remoaner and 'SJW?'

Right Wing isn't an insult, it's a descriptor of one's political stance. Serious Debates is a heavily Right Wing leaning section, this is pretty much a fact.

The terms listed above are all insults used by some Right leaning members aimed at people who happen to think differently to them. Do you deny that this happens? 'Cause it's a bit rich to accuse me of suppressing opinions when I use a valid term when you are fine and dandy with insults about the left being thrown about. One rule for you, another for people who don't hold your opinion it seems.

I've never dismissed anyone's opinions, I'm allowed to disagree with opinions, like I've said enough times in this topic alone (and countless times in other SD threads), everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone has a right to disagree with that opinion. I've never tried to repress discussion, It goes against my mantra.

As for the bolded sentence, I'll just quote your first post to me in this thread.



As you can see, you attacked first. I didn't refer or acknowledge anyone in my original post yet you attacked so don't preach to me when you aren't willing to take your own advice. You set the tone for this discussion, you were the aggressor so don't pin this on me because everyone can see what happened.

You need to keep track of what you have actually said, Wombai, instead of reading what you want to read from other people's post instead of what they actually wrote.

As for your paragraph about being called a liar. You've thrown out plenty of accusations meant to silence my opinion yet you have NEVER offered up anything to back your claims which suggest that no such proof exists which means you are lying to disparage me.

Your last sentence is highly ironic considering.

When I respond to one of your posts, or anyone's post come to that, depending on what has been said, I will include in my reply things said it previous threads if I feel it relevant to something being said in the current post, there is nothing to say a response to a post has to relate word for word to that post. We are all screwed if there is.

In my opinion you have dismissed the opinions of others with the use of certain put-down words in the past which makes you fair game for the same treatment. Such words are used to intimidate as they are generally considered offensive. Denial is fruitless.

Your initial post may not have named names but people are not stupid and can see the correlation between things said in previous posts to comments made in your post. Of course I don't remember every word I say, who does, you certainly don't as is evident by your previous denial of using the word bigot etc, in the past. I am however capable of keeping a general track of the gist of what I say.

I find it quite laughable that you don't see how we are all influenced by our opinions by how we interpret the words of others and how we respond to them and read into them what we do, you are no less guilty of that than anyone else.

Once again I do remember certain things said previously, some things stick in your mind because of their annoyance factor, but as already stated a hundred times I have no intention of spending my time trawling through previous threads to prove something to you, you would find some way of dismissing/excusing it anyway.

[Brillopad]

Social Justice Warrior, it was a term referring to people who go OTT with political correctness to an extent of using it to oppress others (I'm very passionate about Social causes but I won't deny that people like that exist). However it's a term that a lot of people who are simply interested in certain causes get painted with regardless.

Think how feminists get made out to be man haters that want to destroy mankind and that's kind of what SJW as an insult is used for. It's basically a catch all insult equivalent of 'Feminazi'.

Thanks. I can identify with that as I cannot bear people who try to dismiss a belief in female equality as man-hating. Not an expression I will be using.

[Alf]

Where the the receipts on your claims? I won't hold my breath on you actually backing them up because you can't and it's just basically baseless slander on your part.

Even if someone did call you a bigot for your opinions then is it not Freedom of Speech? Or does that only apply to you? You taking offense to my opnions is basically proving what I'm saying to be correct. You can't handle opinions that don't allign with your own.

I've never tried to silence your opinions on subjects, I'd rather question it then suppress it. It seems like you consider someone questioning your opinion to be the same as trying to censor it. Freedom of Speech is a two way street, if you're going to speak out about people taking offense to what you have to say then you can't suddenly act like a victim if someone questions your own opinions.

You are allowed an opinion and everyone else is allowed to question it. I've lost count of how many times I've said that in Serious Debates.A bit harsh accusing Brillo of slander.

[Vicky.]

This freedom of speech argument always confuses me. I do believe in freedom of speech (yes, I get the irony given I have to delete posts that break rules, which kinda goes against the whole freedom of speech thing...but still) but other people seem to think it means something different to what I believe it to mean.

I do not believe opinions should be hidden. However I also believe people can be called out on opinions.

For example. I would rather a racist person said something racist, and was pulled up on said racism by someone else. I see BOTH of these instances as freedom of speech.

Some seem to think allowing a racism to go unchallenged is freedom of speech. It isn't, it goes both ways.

Obviously if we are talking forum-wise..said racist post would be removed as racism is against the rules. In life though, I would much rather know that someone I was talking to was a raging bigot than have them censor themselves.

But yeah, freedom of speech for everyone is my preferred method. Sadly for most who cry for freedom of speech, they seem to not realise that someone else calling them racist (in their opinion) is also just the other person exercising their use of said freedom :shrug:


Edit. I am not accusing anyone of racism here, just giving an example of what free speech means to me, and racism was the first example I thought of.

[Vicky.]

To clarify.I don't think anyone on this forum is an SJW.Those guys really are crazy and usually inhabbit universities in the US or Canada.Although it does seem to be catching on over here but not as extreme.Point in case was that Cecil Rhodes statue and also the way speakers have been banned from speaking at Universities due to pressure from SJW's just because they hold different political opinions from them.That stuff is regressive.The shutting down of speech that you don't agree with.
Some of the crap that gets pedalled in Universities is dangerous because these young people are our future.What will they be like in the real world without their safe spaces to run back to.

Yes I have to agree with this. Someone I look up to a LOT has been no platformed for her views pretty recently and I find it ****ing disgraceful. Even if what she said was bigoted or whatever (which I disagree that it was) she still deserves to have a voice without a bunch of SJWs screaming about it. Challenge any views you disagree with, do not silence people. All IMO of course ;)

Edited to add..this person was Germaine Greer. Let the accusations of hairy bra-burning angry feminazi commence...

[Jamie89]

Yes I have to agree with this. Someone I look up to a LOT has been no platformed for her views pretty recently and I find it ****ing disgraceful. Even if what she said was bigoted or whatever (which I disagree that it was) she still deserves to have a voice without a bunch of SJWs screaming about it. Challenge any views you disagree with, do not silence people. All IMO of course ;)

Edited to add..this person was Germaine Greer. Let the accusations of hairy bra-burning angry feminazi commence...

I do think though that people can sometimes jump to accusations of calling people SJW's a little too quickly and that can also hamper discussion and make people feel like they can't express their views. Germaine Greer for example, she made comments that I found transphobic and offensive and I was outspoken against her because of it, but at the same time I don't agree in people like her being silenced or that she isn't entitled to her views. It's just that I wanted to express my views too and argue against her and explain why I believed her to be wrong, which I'm just as entitled to do as anyone else expressing their freedom of speech. It wasn't me or the other people who disagreed with her that no-platformed her, but it's us who would be lumped into the 'SJW' bracket in describing the reaction against her and her comments (although I think in her specific case I seem to remember it was that someone called for her to be no-platformed but it didn't actually go ahead, although I could be mistaken on that - or you could have been referring to something entirely separate :laugh:)
My point though is that sometimes, if someone shows that they are offended by something it can very often lead to that person being accused of trying to silence other people or trying to take away peoples free speech when it just isn't the case and that is also a form of shutting people down who should feel free to share their opinion but may be worried about doing so because of those accusations.

[Vicky.]

I do think though that people can sometimes jump to accusations of calling people SJW's a little too quickly and that can also hamper discussion and make people feel like they can't express their views. Germaine Greer for example, she made comments that I found transphobic and offensive and I was outspoken against her because of it, but at the same time I don't agree in people like her being silenced or that she isn't entitled to her views. It's just that I wanted to express my views too and argue against her and explain why I believed her to be wrong, which I'm just as entitled to do as anyone else expressing their freedom of speech. It wasn't me or the other people who disagreed with her that no-platformed her, but it's us who would be lumped into the 'SJW' bracket in describing the reaction against her and her comments (although I think in her specific case I seem to remember it was that someone called for her to be no-platformed but it didn't actually go ahead, although I could be mistaken on that - or you could have been referring to something entirely separate :laugh:)
My point though is that sometimes, if someone shows that they are offended by something it can very often lead to that person being accused of trying to silence other people or trying to take away peoples free speech when it just isn't the case and that is also a form of shutting people down who should feel free to share their opinion but may be worried about doing so because of those accusations.Of course, and this is how it should be. Protesting any time she is due to speak though is just wrong.

For the record I wouldn't call you a SJW, or anyone else that held your opinion. I see how some of the stuff she said could be offensive to people. SJW I take to mean the real crazies, not those who simply disagree :p

[the truth]

the real danger is those who falsely claim offence or falsely claim sexism or racism...they endanger freedom of speech and those who take their false claims seriously should be sacked

[Vicky.]

the real danger is those who falsely claim offence or falsely claim sexism or racism...they endanger freedom of speech and those who take their false claims seriously should be sacked

How would you know who falsely claims offense though? Its an entirely personal thing and something that is not offensive to many may be very offensive to one.

Though I tend to be of the opinion that if I take offense to something someone says thats my problem. Again, I don't expect someone to censor themselves for my benefit, but I feel I should have the right to reply also.

[arista]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBG0T06jbec


one hour
I. Hislop 2016 Orwell lecture UCL

F.Forward 5 mins or so Ian Hislop Starts

Sadly the Pathetic Engineer
only put it on speaker
so less than Stereo


Young Tibbers watch the Film : 1984
features Richard Burton
and John Hurt
just out on BluRay 1080P
https://www.umbrellaent.com.au/2062/1984-blu-ray.jpg

http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/12955_4.jpg

[Kizzy]

Yes I have to agree with this. Someone I look up to a LOT has been no platformed for her views pretty recently and I find it ****ing disgraceful. Even if what she said was bigoted or whatever (which I disagree that it was) she still deserves to have a voice without a bunch of SJWs screaming about it. Challenge any views you disagree with, do not silence people. All IMO of course ;)

Edited to add..this person was Germaine Greer. Let the accusations of hairy bra-burning angry feminazi commence...

I mentioned this on the last page and was expecting some comment to that effect :laugh:

[Vicky.]

I mentioned this on the last page and was expecting some comment to that effect :laugh:

So you did :laugh: Sorry missed that totally or would have quoted you too. Yes it was bloody ridiculous and an actual example of this 'PC gorn maaaad' thing that people talk about. Usually examples cannot be given, but I really do think this was a case of that.

[Northern Monkey]

Yes I have to agree with this. Someone I look up to a LOT has been no platformed for her views pretty recently and I find it ****ing disgraceful. Even if what she said was bigoted or whatever (which I disagree that it was) she still deserves to have a voice without a bunch of SJWs screaming about it. Challenge any views you disagree with, do not silence people. All IMO of course ;)

Edited to add..this person was Germaine Greer. Let the accusations of hairy bra-burning angry feminazi commence...Exactly.Views or stances can't be challenged if people are banned from airing them.Nothing would ever be solved or discussed if life was that way.I thought Universities were supposed to be a place for debate and free thinking and forming ones own conclusions based on information given.Not as it seems in some cases hives of single minded group think with no room for growth or forming conclusions for yourself.

[Kizzy]

So you did :laugh: Sorry missed that totally or would have quoted you too. Yes it was bloody ridiculous and an actual example of this 'PC gorn maaaad' thing that people talk about. Usually examples cannot be given, but I really do think this was a case of that.

I don't remember anyone saying that though do you?... which is odd because as you say that is an example of where that could be used in context, however what happened was many agreed she was wrong to hold the opinion she had.
The only time I see the 'PC gorn maaad' is when it's leveled at a view that is considered to be 'liberal' or 'progressive'.

[Kizzy]

Exactly.Views or stances can't be challenged if people are banned from airing them.Nothing would ever be solved or discussed if life was that way.I thought Universities were supposed to be a place for debate and free thinking and forming ones own conclusions based on information given.Not as it seems in some cases hives of single minded group think with no room for growth or forming conclusions for yourself.

Do you mean like daily mail readers? :hee:

[Tom4784]

When I respond to one of your posts, or anyone's post come to that, depending on what has been said, I will include in my reply things said it previous threads if I feel it relevant to something being said in the current post, there is nothing to say a response to a post has to relate word for word to that post. We are all screwed if there is.

In my opinion you have dismissed the opinions of others with the use of certain put-down words in the past which makes you fair game for the same treatment. Such words are used to intimidate as they are generally considered offensive. Denial is fruitless.

Your initial post may not have named names but people are not stupid and can see the correlation between things said in previous posts to comments made in your post. Of course I don't remember every word I say, who does, you certainly don't as is evident by your previous denial of using the word bigot etc, in the past. I am however capable of keeping a general track of the gist of what I say.

I find it quite laughable that you don't see how we are all influenced by our opinions by how we interpret the words of others and how we respond to them and read into them what we do, you are no less guilty of that than anyone else.

Once again I do remember certain things said previously, some things stick in your mind because of their annoyance factor, but as already stated a hundred times I have no intention of spending my time trawling through previous threads to prove something to you, you would find some way of dismissing/excusing it anyway.

So basically you've made more accusations that you aren't willing to back up and you read too much into a post that was unrelated to you and now you think it's about you. Okay, that's reasonable...

[Vicky.]

I don't remember anyone saying that though do you?... which is odd because as you say that is an example of where that could be used in context, however what happened was many agreed she was wrong to hold the opinion she had.
The only time I see the 'PC gorn maaad' is when it's leveled at a view that is considered to be 'liberal' or 'progressive'.

No...a lot of people fell over themselves to call her transphobic from what I have seen about it. I kinda understand it, but I don't at the same time...its an odd topic.

[Kizzy]

No...a lot of people fell over themselves to call her transphobic from what I have seen about it. I kinda understand it, but I don't at the same time...its an odd topic.

Well yes they did, sorry I didn't explain that very well, there was a huge backlash and accusations of being transphobic, what I was trying to make a point of is that it wasn't seen as a PC gone mad thing to admonish her for that.
Even though in essence it was...
My feeling is the PC gone mad accusation only ever goes from right to left, that is said by right leaning people to left leaning people, not from left to left or left to right.

[the truth]

How would you know who falsely claims offense though? Its an entirely personal thing and something that is not offensive to many may be very offensive to one.

Though I tend to be of the opinion that if I take offense to something someone says thats my problem. Again, I don't expect someone to censor themselves for my benefit, but I feel I should have the right to reply also.

false accusers should be imprisoned for a very very very long time....ONLY this will reduce the massive amount of false accusations of racism , sexism , discrimination , which in turn is destroying freedom of speech

[Jamie89]

Well yes they did, sorry I didn't explain that very well, there was a huge backlash and accusations of being transphobic, what I was trying to make a point of is that it wasn't seen as a PC gone mad thing to admonish her for that.
Even though in essence it was...
My feeling is the PC gone mad accusation only ever goes from right to left, that is said by right leaning people to left leaning people, not from left to left or left to right.

What makes it something that was an example of 'PC gone mad' though? Compared to other situations where people say that. Regardless of whether or not someone agrees with her views surely it can be seen that a lot of people would be understandably offended by them?

Edit:

She referred to sex reassignment surgery as an 'act of violence', she said that transgender women can't be women, she trivialised the whole process as chopping off your dick and wearing a dress, and she compared transgender people to if someone wanted to become an animal. I think it's fair enough that people (and especially transgender people) might be offended by that tbh.

[Vicky.]

false accusers should be imprisoned for a very very very long time....ONLY this will reduce the massive amount of false accusations of racism , sexism , discrimination , which in turn is destroying freedom of speech

I agree with this however it would be far too hard to put into action and extremely hard to prove. I guess the only times I can think of that it could be done is, for example, someone started a fight, lost, called the police to say it was a racist attack...but cctv proved otherwise. And I really doubt that kind of situation is common..

[Vicky.]

Well yes they did, sorry I didn't explain that very well, there was a huge backlash and accusations of being transphobic, what I was trying to make a point of is that it wasn't seen as a PC gone mad thing to admonish her for that.
Even though in essence it was...
My feeling is the PC gone mad accusation only ever goes from right to left, that is said by right leaning people to left leaning people, not from left to left or left to right.

Ahh yes I get you now.