[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?

[MB.]

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Bah HuMBug

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.

[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/i...sion-at-u-of-t

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by North Star 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/i...sion-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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by North Star 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.

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by North Star 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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 )
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.]

Originally Posted by Sleighmie

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 )
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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Merry Corbynmas

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

So you did 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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

So you did 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'.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.