We really are in a world of shit
Tis the way of the Cuntocracy, my friend.
1 Like
But surely by denying it you are intentional.
You might be basing your (intentional) denial on a belief in âfactsâ which arenât correct. If you genuinely donât know that they arenât correct then your mistake could be unintentional.
Thereâs a more serious problem with the whole issue of freedom of expression. In the US it is enshrined in their constitution. In England and Wales earlier this year the question of free speech in universities was analysed. When is it right for an organisation (say Facebook, or a university) to prevent people from expressing a view and when is it better for them to expose that view to critical scrutiny ? I reckon that thereâs a very good case for letting bigots have their say and then destroying their arguments in debate. As Peter Tatchell, a man whoâs opposed enough bigots in his time, says in todayâs THES
In my view, bad ideas are most soundly defeated by good ideas. Bigoted opinions should never be given a free pass. They should always be protested and countered. But the best way to do this is usually by subjecting them to open debate, to show why they are factually and morally wrong.
Bans do not make intolerance go away or dissuade its supporters. Strong counterarguments backed by evidence and research are much more effective and reach a far wider audience.
I was living in America when Margaret Thatcher banned the British broadcast media from airing the views of Sinn Fein and others (âdenying them the oxygen of publicityâ as she put it). This failed spectacularly across the pond, which at the time was where much of the terroristsâ money was coming from. Of course the policy wasnât really aimed at solving the problem. It was aimed squarely at looking tough in the eyes of the Daily Mail readers at home.
VB
1 Like
The US Constitution only goes as far as stating that the government (at federal and state levels) cannot restrict a personâs right to free speech. It does not mean that Facebook or Twitter have to give you a platform to put forward your ideas.
But if they do give you a platform are they permitted to restrict your right to free speech?
Yes, the legislation is specifically only about Government restriction, private enterprise isnât covered by it.
Bloody capitalism.
1 Like
Yes. But itâs easier for a big organisation to resist calls for censorship if they can point to the words of the (still much-respected) Founding Fathers.
VB
The text is more clear than I realised actually. It reads as follows:
âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.â
So itâs really not something that a company can hide behind in any meaningful way (I am sure many try though)
Tatchell speaks wise words. The problem, though, is that the bigots donât listen to debate
They donât keep their views to themselves just because we tell them to either. Neither policy will eradicate bigotry completely. So we have to try to pick the one that keeps it to the minimum.
I know the satirists do their best, but I think we should still be encouraging a lot more laughing at the stupid and the hateful.
VB
1 Like
There was an interesting Twitter thread this morning from someone who regularly has to deal with Holocaust deniers on a Reddit page:
TL:DR, the only effective solution they have found is to just block them out of discussion.
Iâm pleased itâs been effective. I thought there were still holocaust deniers around but clearly I was wrong and they have all in fact withered to dust.
VB
Does it change the holocaust deniers minds? No, but then these are not people coming into the discussions with any intention of having a meaningful debate on the subject. What this policy means is that those that actually want a sane / meaningful discussion can still have one without getting swamped by batshit and hateful ideas.
If the batshit/hateful people are in a large enough majority that they can âswampâ the right-thinkers then perhaps a case can be made for giving the right-thinkers a safe space in which to get their heads together. But the real value of debate is to help people who havenât yet taken a position to pick the right one. Telling them that youâre so frightened of what the bad guys might say that youâre going to stop them saying anything sows the seed in the minds of the uncommitted that in fact you donât have a convincing counter-argument.
VB
" the researchers had one person gulp the pill twice "
âthe researchers recruited four more healthy patients to pass the pillâ
Ewwwwww! Bad enough taking it again after youâve shat it out yourself 
but after someone else 
What I donât understand with the deniers is why, in the face of all the evidence, do they still think it didnât happen? Especially as a great deal of evidence came from the Nazis who kept meticulous records. Or are these the same sort of âpeopleâ who still think the world was created in 7 days?
Because they are conspiracy nutjobs with mental issues, they often believe in things like chemtrails or contrails or whatever the fucking things are called (Iâm not googling that piece of nutjobbery on my work PC)
It isnât so much the holocaust they are denying but promoting the presence of a conspiracy, they tend to latch on to any really.
Look at that batshit crazy infowars and his denial of the Sandy Hook massacre and how it was a government false flag with actors.
2 Likes