Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    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.
    AH I though his rhetoric sounded familiar

    So he makes racist posts calling others racist and then cries when he gets banned
    Offline

    18
    (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.
    The modern left, summarised in one post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    Hahah if something's sexist it's sexist dunno what the hell you're on about.
    What has he said that is sexist?
    And I meant that most of the things people say he is being sexist about he has evidence to back up his position.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    AH I though his rhetoric sounded familiar

    So he makes racist posts calling others racist and then cries when he gets banned
    Has DannyMcCoyne been banned? Those posts had a strong McCoyne vibe, I thought.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    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.
    I think it is against freedom of expression. I think the only valid argument there is from a security standpoint, since covering your face makes you difficult to identify via CCTV.
    Offline

    13
    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. 😒
    This isn't as relevant as you seem to think it is. The argument here is about whether some forms of speech should be legally sanctioned. Individual organisations can have their own code of conduct but they cannot invent their own laws.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I think it is against freedom of expression. I think the only valid argument there is from a security standpoint, since covering your face makes you difficult to identify via CCTV.
    Regardless of whether you are with it, the question I was trying to get at was whether calling for a ban would count as religiously intolerant speech. I would be disappointed if a reasonable person thought suggesting banning the burqa should be against the law. I am however in favour of actual intolerant behavior, such as harassment or hate preaching, being illegal.
    Offline

    13
    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.
    It's a massively non-constructive thing. Milo's popularity keeps blowing up as a result of every censorious thing said about him. Going against freedom of speech doesn't solve social issues, it just pisses people off.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Those who were considered to be "mainstream liberals" were the most likely of all groups to support restrictions on free speech.
    There is something wrong with our terminology if "liberals" are now the greatest threat to freedom of speech.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    yes, even the best laws can be abused, unfortunately

    so, yes : the judiciary has to move carefully : our societies have thrived on allowing dissent and criticism

    excluding religion from criticism is of course deeply wrong, because religion usually includes not only personal worship, but also political/social/economic elements which are of concern for everybody

    so, in a nutshell, freedom of speech should be defended to the limit : claiming that you are offended by a statement is not sufficient reason for obtaining its suppression. A specific ground has to be proved (and this includes, at least for defamation in the UK, that you have to prove suffering "serious harm" because of the offense)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    yes, even the best laws can be abused, unfortunately

    so, yes : the judiciary has to move carefully : our societies have thrived on allowing dissent and criticism

    excluding religion from criticism is of course deeply wrong, because religion usually includes not only personal worship, but also political/social/economic elements which are of concern for everybody

    so, in a nutshell, freedom of speech should be defended to the limit : claiming that you are offended by a statement is not sufficient reason for obtaining its suppression. A specific ground has to be proved (and this includes, at least for defamation in the UK, that you have to prove suffering "serious harm" because of the offense)

    You are my favourite atheist, by the way. So much so that I've decided you're actually Mormon.

    We can do that, you know. You're going to have to give up your card, return your book and put on a sweet suit with a nametag.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    So none of what you've said actually refutes the point.
    Depends on what you mean by refute

    If you are saying that most of the major inventions over the last 150 years have been at the hands of white people, then I would agree.

    If you are saying that the reason that most of the major inventions over the last 150 years has been at the hands of white people is because white people are superior then I would strongly disagree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanteaparty)
    I believe in free speech to a certain extent... but if someones making people upset than I think that free speech should be limited for that person.

    Have you not noticed how upset most people get on here when someone has a different opinion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Your statement has made me upset

    I now ask you edit your post and delete what you have said
    So I said I'm against freedom of speech and I assume your for freedom of speech? And by wanted me to delete my comment isn't that against freedom of speech?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanteaparty)
    So I said I'm against freedom of speech and I assume your for freedom of speech? And by wanted me to delete my comment isn't that against freedom of speech?
    I was highlighting the issue with your statement that if people find something upsetting it shouldn't be said

    and your response is perfect you believe if people find what is said upsetting it shouldn't be said unless it is you saying it
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abscend)
    Have you not noticed how upset most people get on here when someone has a different opinion.
    Yeh why do I even bother posting my opinions. Next time I'm not even going to get involved.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I believe in freedom of speech to an extent, I don't think it should be used to hate on on people of races or religions or sexualities or whatever, I feel like if someone says the n word or p word or t word even if it was just a joke, I think if their employer wants to fire them or they are publically shamed their is nothing wrong with that. I think if someone makes a rude joke on twitter like I want to kill this person, even if they didn't mean it, if they are arrested, I am fine with that.

    I don't think ideas should be protected though, I think hating Muslims is wrong but hating Islam isn't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I was highlighting the issue with your statement that if people find something upsetting it shouldn't be said

    and your response is perfect you believe if people find what is said upsetting it shouldn't be said unless it is you saying it
    Yeh what I meant to say at the start is stuff like racism, homophobia e.t.c. shouldn't be allowed to be said (hence I'm against freedom of speech). I didn't mean I'm against everything that makes people upset.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    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!"
    You don't have to be left wing to be anti-free speech. Under Tory rule, hate crimes and libel are illegal. I am fine with this and for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:

    1. (Original post by mightybis0n)
      I'm sorry but why is it we have easier access to these things? Oh that's right, because we created most of them and had the ingenuity and resources to use them.




    You didn't create anything, don't take credit for work you haven't contributed to. Whites did not innovate, innovators innovated. Same for blacks who take credit for black achievements.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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