The world doesn't revolve around you and your desires. Sometimes you just need to do the right thing.

Why would you think I want to attack you? I was having a conversation and you interjected yourself into it with a bunch of delusional bullshit. You don’t have to always attempt to be part of things you don’t even begin to understand and then when you fail to grasp an issue threaten to call the United Nations. Instead of interjecting yourself into things you know nothing about why don’t you mind your own business? I don’t go into the brexit thread and threaten you for no reason, why do you insist on talking about things you haven’t the foggiest idea about and then threatening everyone who says something negative about your opinion with legal action? It’s because you’re an authoritarian piece of ****.

Stop beating around the bush. Please tell us what you really think.

It wasn't about you and I wasn't threatening anyone with legal action.

That's a common view. One I used to be much closer to. The internet and social media have changed the equation too much to ignore imo.

I oppose hate speech legislation, but I oppose complex hate speech legislation even more.

I like it to be as simple as practicable but no simpler

Yes.

I also think it's his right to believe it and/or say it as much as he likes. I don't think it's beneficial or practical to try to ban all hate speech in all contexts.

Though I do worry about children being brainwashed into these cult-like belief systems through evangelical schooling. Beginning at 5 years old evangelicals are teaching kids to reject any beliefs that might contradict the interpretation of the bible they've been taught and to never question the authority of their religious leaders. On top of this they are obviously being taught a system of beliefs that is homophobic and extremely misogynistic.

You say, "But what about religious freedom?" So ok, we allow evangelicals to teach kids from a young age that it's a sin to be gay because it's a (rather large) part of their religion. And ok, we let them expel gay kids from their schools for the crime of being gay. Because 'religious freedom.'

Imagine religious schools were doing the same thing, but to black kids. They say, "It's a part of our religion that it's a sin to be black. Being black is a choice, and it's possible for them to change. All people are flawed, and being black is a sin like any other. We love all people, including black people."

Obviously this is nonsense. We know that being black is neither a choice nor morally objectionable. But, how can we raise any objection, if we aren't going to object to the discrimination against gay children on the exact same basis?

It's just as possible for a black person to stop being black as it is for a gay person to stop being gay. It's possible for someone to try to hide their race just as someone can try to hide their sexuality.

If we're going to let religious institutions discriminate on the basis of one's sexuality then we have to let religious institutions discriminate based on race. In some sense this is already the case; many evangelical churches don't allow women to hold any positions of leadership because females have been designated by god to be 'the submissive sex.'

Just thought this is an interesting caveat to consider before one comes to the conclusion that we should let religions say and/or teach whatever they want because it's a religion.

I agree it wasn’t about me. And I care about your welfare. Unfortunately there are things called laws . My dad was a high ranking executive at British petroleum before founding his own chemical company and had contact and friendships with many lawmakers in the uk. I’ll have them fax you the definitions of the laws you’ve broken.

Chezlaw, In case I can’t get on , this post isn’t about you and I’m not threatening legal action.

Ok. Not sure there's enough fax paper left in the world anyway.

One thing I don’t think you’ve thought about is that lgbt youth are already going to read this forum as biased against them, and you guys shouldn’t be shutting down conversations they have with open reactionary and/or conservative types. I shouldn’t have to only speak to a small subset of people who are masking their opinions instead of just being allowed to have a real conversation.

It would be very incorrect to say I haven't though about that. I try to walk the line and no doubt get it wrong at times. Not least because it's a difficult line to walk. Also becaue I'm not one of the perfect people.

Others are far more ban happy and you wouldn't get the conversations at all.

No worries, I’m not mad.

This reminds me of when I was about 13 and my grandmother asked me how a fax machine worked. I explained that when the paper disappears into the feeder, it's rolling it up real tight and sending it down "the tube". Hilarity ensued.

True story.

In the spirit of Trumpian democracy, we can take all the people who voted "no" and have their families threatened with violence until they change their mind.

In the spirit of liberal tolerance we can take all the people who voted "no" and have their families threatened with violence until they change their mind.

I have no idea what "liberal tolerance" is - I have never been described by anyone who knows me as either "liberal" or "tolerant" - so, maybe you could explain what "liberal tolerance" means in this context?

It's a nice idea in theory, but the discussion is rooted in a time when technological, financial and physical limitations put a severe brake on how much speech you could do and how efficiently it was possible to spread.

The reality these days is that you can make scripts that automatically Frankenstein together extremist hate speech, feed said garbage into into enormous human networks where you use automated bots as a catalyst. In a technological hamster wheel of hate, your scripts will the collect the responses and use it churn out renewed hate.

In the old days these delays in the process gave you a chance to disseminate and respond. In this new world, response is meaningless. You won't even have the time to drum up a tweet on the fly before tens of thousands of new variations have been injected into the eco-system. All your response will achieve is to strengthen the value of the hateful message, because it exists in a social media reality that rewards controversy far, far higher than fact, reason or truth.

And on the other side of the story, it requires so much draconian effort and orgaisation for the state to surpress free speech that free speech laws make a minimal, if any, difference to the states ability to silence dissentful ideas in practice.

It's not a slow expensive printing press churning out hand delivered leaflets anymore.

Or, to put it another way - it takes orders of magnitude more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spew it.

I hope you also understand that I dont take my postions on PC and hate speech laws based entirely on my personal opinion and in opposition to the protected groups. Sure there's a range of views but PC/hate laws are widely supported by these groups (At least in the UK and much of Europe). It's not me choosing what is hate speech and what language is offensive.

But I fully acknowledge the difficulties. Peter Tatchall is a bit of a hero for me and many people of my age but he is out of step with more recent views on free speech:


Among much else (not least the Outrage movement): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ights-activist

Note: I would always strongly argue in favour of welcoming Thatchell to the platform. People dont have to agree about everything and we should be easily able to recognise there is genuine disagreement about free speech/etc

Chezlaw , I agree with that guy and believe strongly in freedom of speech. In truth I’m somewhat politically homeless. If you peel back my random temper tantrums(sorry about some of that) over the years I’ve been pretty consistent with a mix of what in American politics might be called 60% liberal , 30% libertarian, 10% conservative. It is also true I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Obama twice enthusiastically, and also voted for Hillary and Biden. I agree with a lot of the conservative framing of freedom, states rights , and what might be called “judeochristian” thought. But things I strongly disagree with conservatives on in practice , like drug laws, lgbt rights , Guantanamo make it hard for me to really make a switch. But if their was a Republican Party genuinely for decarceration, pro drug rights, pro lgbt rights, pro gun rights, freedom of expression, and that protected minorities and their interests I’d be happy to vote for that party. As it is I’m just a random guy with opinions and the gop needs to stop treating cops like gods and African Americans and Transgender people like ****, which they have done in practice.

Gallup:


Ideologically at least, there's a home in the Democratic Party for you. The progressive and far left wing of the party is overrepresented in online political discussions, which can make the actual center of the party appear further to the left than it really is.

This hurt my feelings.