In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm again being blocked from posting on certain threads.........because I am not following the COMMON view of events
And some comments show such an astounding lack of humanity and maturity in dealing with something that they simply do not illicit a reasoned and mature response.
That could be right......but it ain't Another person here gets similar treatment.....Hemsworth Tyke I very much appreciate his/her view But I sometimes don't agree with it Us scientists tend to think outside of the box
It's strange you thought I was referring to you?!? Obviously not studied the Psychology element of the Sciences.
Context. there is a big difference between allowing people to have different views and saying that all views are permissable. I doubt very much Hall for example had the likes of Islamic Jihadists (who's views are to kill people who wont accept their way of thinking) in mind when he said that. This board doesnt ban debate or different views - unless they are either illegal - for example racist or offensive posts. If you want your free speech to extend to those topics find another forum
Therein lies the problem. Define racist. Some people on here try to close down debate as their view of what is racist is quite prescriptive and fits their own agenda. For example whilst I agree with migration and movement of labour and also genuine asylum seekers who are in danger through war, religious persecution etc I am strongly oppose free open borders and economic migrants arriving illegally en masse who are totally reliant on the receiving state for food clothing shelter and subsistence. Because I have stated that view in the past to stimulate debate I have been called everything from "a vile human being" to a "bitter, racist". IMHO, and it is only my view which, I agree, puts me 'out of step' with the attitudes of many in the UK, only actions and words inciting physical action should be censured and controlled. People take offence far too easily especially on behalf of others who are more than capable of looking after themselves. I stress that words from people like Abu Hamza inciting people to harm or kill others, or people who encourage or incite violence against paedophiles,people of different beliefs or religions should be punished and punished severely, but removing free speech is a slippery slope we should avoid.
i'm in agreement with you on this one, ive had the same said to me, all I said was something along the lines of " as soon as Syrian refugees reach turkey they're in a safe country any ILLEGAL movement after that makes them illegal economic migrants" and I got ripped into like a chimp on a cup cake. everyone has the right their own opinion and its just as valid as anyone elses ( whether its footy, politics, beer,.... etc) but the people, and it always seems to be the same " trendy p.c., I get upset on somebody elses behalf brigade because its fashionable" don't see the irony of abusing someone and calling them a facist for having a different opinion to them, that's one of the reasons a lot of old posters don't use the board as much 'cos of the "yah, yah, right on clique"
Chimp on a cupcake Not heard that one before. The indignation by proxy (getting upset on other people behalf) I totally disagree with and it seems to be more prevalent in the UK than here in Italy where they are nmore direct and cakll a spade a spade! (although those same people would probably call Italians racist ). As an example,we met up with a couple we had't seen for two or three years although emailed regularly. The wife around our age is a local Italian and she greeted me with..." I hardley recognised you, you used to be fat! " SImilarly, a friend of ours was told at the hospital she had agressive cancer, no sugar pill approach they tell it like it is. They are not insernsitive it is just how they are. No-one takes offence and discussions and debate in bars etc to outsiders look like they are going to come to blows, but in fact they are just discussing things and the arm waving and raised voices is all part of the debate. There are about half a dozen of the people you describe who post on this BB I would describe as Left wing fascists. Trouble is 30's Germany, Stalinist USSR, North Korea, it makes no difference, remove freedom of speech and control the media and the results is the same a Totalitarian State . They, to me are far more dangerous than people like Young Nudger accused of trolling, and who they want banning. You can either try to counter his argument or ignore him. Removing his freedom of speech is the wrong option and I am with Voltaire on that one.
Isn't 'getting upset on other people behalf' just being empathetic? First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Only if: You are certain you know how that person is feeling. It is highly presumptive and arrogant to assume you know what an individual finds upsetting and offensive unless you have experienced the same situation yourself. Don't see how going on social media ranting about something is being empathic. Showing empathy is a one to one relationship or at the very least joining self help victim groups Assuming you have experience, knowledge training in specific fields. Samaritans deal with individuals and specific problems based on what they hear and do NOT assume they have the answers. People sitting in front of a keyboard ranting with self -righteous indignation are NOT showing empathy. In many instances the people they are ranting at may, themselves have certain personal issues arising from their own experiences. That is the problem with PC. people who are so sure of themselves that they are right and anyone else who disagrees with them is 100% wrong. That is something that is all to prevalent on this BB As for the poem I am very familiar with that being trotted out. However, there is a major difference between the late night knock on the door in Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany than some troll who comes out with a load of misinformed tosh on a BB. If some of the PC brigade on here had there way some posters would have a lifetime ban. That is Fascism at its worst. i.e. Agree with me or I will shut you up! Can you not see that?
I think you get some stick because you post about how your arsehole puckers when you see a Muslim wearing a rucksack.
I don't get this 'freedom of speech' restriction argument of some. It appears that you can say whatever you like (provided it doesn't breach the Forum Rules everyone agrees to when signing up) and if challenged, claim restriction on freedom of speech. So, in other words, "I'm entitled to my view, but you aren't entitled to yours". This also applies when people are attacked for 'faux outrage' and 'speaking on someone else's behalf'. All of a sudden, people who are accused of these things aren't allowed their 'freedom of speech' by the very people who are advocating said freedom. Perhaps 'freedom of speech' sometimes actually means 'avoidance of criticism'?