Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2019 Report Posted April 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Argus said: 1. Are you sad about the Christian children gunned down in Nigeria last month? What about the Christian children blown up in Egypt or the Philippines? Are you sad about the Muslim children blown up in Syria last week or in Yemen? What about the Muslim children who died in Sudan? Are you sad about the people who died in the cyclone in Mozambique or the chemical plant explosion in China? What about the ferry sinking in Iraq last week? 2. I don't want to seem cold but just how sad can we get over the deaths of people we never met? Especially when we get this continuing parade of disaster on our TV screens? 3. So anyone who believes in freedom of speech is someone who favours hate speech? 4. ...address the only real issue likely to grant them that wider support. 1. Yes. And for sure I don't blame the victims of the crime. 2. Not what they are doing. I don't think you yourself are aware of the effects of scapegoating. At some point, you may realize that there are impacts of such things. Certainly Jews know this is so. 3. Seems to be what you're saying. I don't know. You seem to say conservatives are going to be targeted by hate speech laws. 4. If there is a real issue, then I would think you could address it without hate speech. And please don't say that somebody was "accused" of hate speech, that's not the same as an official sanction. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted April 1, 2019 Author Report Posted April 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: 3. Seems to be what you're saying. I don't know. You seem to say conservatives are going to be targeted by hate speech laws. Yes. Because the Left makes little distinction between the alt-right and the right. I've already pointed out that simply my criticism of Islam could get me arrested in the UK. And any time anyone, be they Jews or Asians, decide to protest against something related to immigration in Canada, the leftist mob shows up screaming abuse and calling then Nazis. 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: 4. If there is a real issue, then I would think you could address it without hate speech. And please don't say that somebody was "accused" of hate speech, that's not the same as an official sanction. That depends on how hate speech is defined. It can be an extremely broad term. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted April 1, 2019 Report Posted April 1, 2019 8 hours ago, eyeball said: Stop hiding the unpleasant truth that we bear responsibility for fomenting much of the terrorism that's wracking our world. I doubt that will do much to ease the polarization but I guess that's what makes it so unpleasant. Its pretty obvious why politicians don't want to go there. Bullshit, no one but terrorists bare responsibilty for the choices they make. Quote
eyeball Posted April 1, 2019 Report Posted April 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Argus said: Who cares? The alt-right is a very small collection of people. The only reason you and some others get the idea it's larger is because of the habit of so many people on the Left to attach that moniker to almost anyone more than mildly conservative. Seems like an apropos retort to the mindless mass that regards the right of center as the moderate (barely) left. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2019 Report Posted April 1, 2019 9 hours ago, Argus said: 1. Because the Left makes little distinction between the alt-right and the right. 2. That depends on how hate speech is defined. It can be an extremely broad term. 1. The "the Left" doesn't make or enforce the law, nor does it define private corporate spaces. 2. Well, I'm all in favour of having a wider discussion on that. How about calling them "inhuman" "dogs" a "disease" ... is that ok ? How about the MLW rule of "play the argument, not the man" ? Allow the religion to be criticized but do not characterize it as lower than human ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted April 1, 2019 Author Report Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. The "the Left" doesn't make or enforce the law, nor does it define private corporate spaces. Right. So the Left in corporations, makes little distinction between the alt-right and conservatives. Thus you see people who politely question transgender activism being insta-banned from Twitter and Facebook as if they were guilty of 'hate speech'. Well you know what, when the Left thinks people who question the fairness of having muscular men with long hair compete against women in sports 'hate speech' that's more than sufficient for me to realize we do not want hate speech laws. Quote 2. Well, I'm all in favour of having a wider discussion on that. How about calling them "inhuman" "dogs" a "disease" ... is that ok ? How about the MLW rule of "play the argument, not the man" ? Allow the religion to be criticized but do not characterize it as lower than human ? How about we just ridicule stupid arguments? I mean, I'd do that to our local Nazi but I'm not allowed to on MLW. For that matter, I've been suspended all kinds of times at MLW - including by you - for merely being mildly rude to crazy people. So you'll forgive me if I don't trust you to design a hate speech code that could put me in prison. Edited April 1, 2019 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.