Turn on thread page Beta

46% of people in England don't believe in free speech watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    They probably would engage in drive-by turning the other cheek, though. You would get forgiven SO HARD your head would spin
    :clap2::clap2:

    I shall be tittering about that for quite a while.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    Whining ?
    Yep.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    I will get banned. My time is coming. I know this. But a few things
    • I do not make fun of how whites talk or dress or look.
    Do "Whites"? Or just particular whites? Are you, in fact, tarring everyone with the same brush in the same way some whites might tar all blacks for those who -do- make fun of the way whites talk or dress or look?(I could direct you to some YouTube videos for proof, but I'm sure you understand).

    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    • I do not make fun of the food they eat or the names they give their children.

    Do "Whites"? Or just particular whites?

    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    • I do not hold up their poorest and most criminal elements (The Jeremy Kyle Type) as “what white people are like”.

    Do "Whites"? Or just particular whites?

    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    • I do not excuse violence against them saying that whites kill each other all the time.
    Do "Whites" do this? Or just particular whites?

    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    • I do not make racist jokes about them.

    Do "Whites" do this? Or just particular whites?

    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    • I do not call them racial slurs or compare them to animals.

    Do "Whites" do this or just particular whites?

    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    Whining ?

    Well what makes sense to the Wolf is not going to make sense to the sheep. Two historical enemies are never going to see eye to eye
    This sort of victim mentality is exactly what's wrong with this. You just engaged in broad-stroke generalization to condemn the broad-stroke generalization of "whites". Do you see how absurd this is?

    Take a step back... Laugh about it. Realize you're just as guilty as those whites you're condemning and be determined that your life will be better. It can be. Just stop playing the victim card.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Everything offends everyone, so how does that work?
    the law regulates issues such as libel, slander, hate speech, incitation to commit crimes, insults etc
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    For some people Freedom of Speech is synonymous to freedom to say stupid things. And that's an issue.

    Abusing and insulting demographics, creates a toxic environment which leads to a civil unrest. It's a good initiative from the government to clamp down on such morons.

    Like in my house, for example, racist statements, insulting my girlfriend (imaginary), and suggestions that Donald Trump will be the best president the US ever had will get you ridiculed or thrown out.

    Moaning you weren't afforded your freedom to be stupid won't earn you my sympathy. My pragmatic selection of inviting (and throwing out) people ensures the quality of discussion remains high quality and respectful in The House.
    The UK is not your house.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    the law regulates issues such as libel, slander, hate speech, incitation to commit crimes, insults etc
    In theory, I have no problem with laws that limit libel, slander, or speech liable to cause imminent dangerous crimes.

    I worry that hate speech laws are being used to basically strangle real dissent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    If you are a white person living in the most European nations or in the US you experience less censorship than any other demographic on this planet.

    You have easier access to more resources including paper, pens, computers and dictaphones. Not only do you have more ability to access the internet to publish online.

    White people also have the world's strongest publishing industry statistically supporting them more than any other group.

    Nobody (I repeat) NOBODY is less prevented from writing whatever the hell they want to than whites. Look at this site (TSR) - White people are allowed to RUN A MUCK on here and say what they want, no matter how racist.

    And you know what ?

    I don't have no problem with that but then when black people come on here and give counter arguments. They are banned immediately

    Yet whites love to whine on about how they can’t speak their mind about how they are restricted by political correctness.
    And what would taking away protected speech solve? It just makes people angrier and more disgruntled with multiculturalism, and in the event a minority group tries to ban protected speech for its own benefit, hatred against that minority group turns from being completely illogical to partly justified.

    That being said, I don't really see that in this article. Those 'mainstream liberals' are probably majority white, and I wonder what percentage of those not in that category have Christianity in mind as well. It's not just Muslims that are sensitive about being mocked.

    Anti-free speech is the worst meme in decades. It's like the left just thought "you know all that progress we're making on social issues, let's just completely **** it up and antagonise everyone by going against free speech. That way right-wing governments will be elected more often while we can indulge in mental masturbation while claiming we're doing the right thing!"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would be for religious people having limits on their free speech.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul56777)
    Nope.

    The West is currently on top, so nearly all the latest inventions are going to be Western. That is not surprising.

    But it says nothing about white people having any sort of special gift because if they did, they would have been on top for thousands of years, not just hundreds.

    Sure whites have invented good stuff but at the same 99.999% of whites have invented nothing.

    Your points only work during certain periods of history. In 1300 you could have made the Chinese inventor argument at the time they could have bragged that they have been the most inventive. In 1000 BC you could have made the Egyptian inventor argument.

    So called western technology is not because white people are so much smarter than everyone else but because progress in science and invention is built on what has gone before.

    The more science you know the more science you can discover. The more inventions you have at hand, the more new inventions you can come up with. That is why the progress is exponential. It comes from the nature of science and technology, not from the nature of white intelligence.

    .



    .
    So none of what you've said actually refutes the point.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    This is so vague, what does it mean when 46% of people said you shouldn't be able to say "some things" about religion. What does the "some things" constitute? Are we talking just saying you dislike the religion or are we talking about being able to level false accusations or encouraging violence against a religious group ?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    This is so vague, what does it mean when 46% of people said you shouldn't be able to say "some things" about religion. What does the "some things" constitute? Are we talking just saying you dislike the religion or are we talking about being able to level false accusations or encouraging violence against a religious group ?
    Good point. If anyone wants to buy the report for a few quid we could look at it in more detail.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Good point. If anyone wants to buy the report for a few quid we could look at it in more detail.
    http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-c...e-report-1.pdf

    Key paragraph:

    "There is growing support for restrictions on free speech toprotect racial and religious minorities. Sixty-one percent(61%) of English respondents supported legal enforceablelimits on racially intolerant speech (up from 58% in 2011) and46% supported similar limits on religiously intolerant speech(up from 40%). Support for such limits is highest among theyoung and liberal/multicultural segments."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-c...e-report-1.pdf

    Key paragraph:

    "There is growing support for restrictions on free speech toprotect racial and religious minorities. Sixty-one percent(61%) of English respondents supported legal enforceablelimits on racially intolerant speech (up from 58% in 2011) and46% supported similar limits on religiously intolerant speech(up from 40%). Support for such limits is highest among theyoung and liberal/multicultural segments."
    Right, so it's word for word. I don't think the ambiguity is an issue there, the point is to gauge attitudes.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The UK is not your house.
    There is literally a place in uk which is really -my- house!

    Regardless, I thought my post was clear that it was to be taken as an example?

    As another example, take tsr. It has its own standards of speech it wishes to foster. And standards are put in place so that the environment is less hostile, more respectful and more civil.

    In short people don't understand what Freedom of Speech is. I threw someone out of my house not because of his "opinions" but because he was downright ridiculing/abusing/ a xenophobic.

    And that boring quote of Voltaire doesn't change anything. 😒
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Right, so it's word for word. I don't think the ambiguity is an issue there, the point is to gauge attitudes.
    It would be more interesting if intolerance were defined.

    Supporting the ban on the burqa, for example, is that religiously intolerant? It could be in that it is intolerant of the way certain people wish to follow their convictions. Yet support for such a ban would not strike me as something that many people would feel needs legal restriction.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    There is literally a place in uk which is really -my- house!

    Regardless, I thought my post was clear that it was to be taken as an example?

    As another example, take tsr. It has its own standards of speech it wishes to foster. And standards are put in place so that the environment is less hostile, more respectful and more civil.

    In short people don't understand what Freedom of Speech is. I threw someone out of my house not because of his "opinions" but because he was downright ridiculing/abusing/ a xenophobic.

    And that boring quote of Voltaire doesn't change anything. 😒
    You said supporting trump will get you thrown out that doesn't fall into any of the 3 categories you have stated there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Yet your post still exits and you haven't been banned despite the obvious racism in your post.

    It seems black people (see what I've done there) just like to whine about how they don't have the same rights as white people whilst still exercising those rights.
    He joins as many threads as he can posting comments about white people(due to the massive chip on his shoulder), gets banned and then reincarnates himself.

    He's the black greatguy.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No it's not worrying if all those people think that people like Milo Flobbydobadous should have their free speech curtailed when they say nasty sexist and mean stuff then there's nothing worrying about that... It's a positive thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    No it's not worrying if all those people think that people like Milo Flobbydobadous should have their free speech curtailed when they say nasty sexist and mean stuff then there's nothing worrying about that... It's a positive thing.
    You mean hate facts?
    What has he said that is sexist which is not backed up by evidence?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You mean hate facts?
    What has he said that is sexist which is not backed up by evidence?
    Hahah if something's sexist it's sexist dunno what the hell you're on about.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2016
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.