[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

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.

[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]

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

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]

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.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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


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.]

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

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.

[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.

[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'.