The Student Room Group

Hate Crime laws - your guilt is whatever we say it is

The central point of the Orwellian state is the “hate crime law” where you are guilty for voicing “hate”, whatever that means (its undefined and means whatever we say it means) and the law is written to say that being perceived to hate makes you guilty.

So when the state ignored Asian grooming gangs out of fear of being racist, refuses to acknowledge South African oppression against whites, tells you that you need to criticise whites / males and Christians but can go to jail for criticising females, Muslims or blacks, you have to brainwash yourself even if you are haven’t been brainwashed by the state yet because if you tell them what you really think (you’re going to be angry) and you might be prosecuted for a “hate crime”.

Most people are too afraid to discuss hate crime laws with any sense of realism because they instinctively know it is just like witchcraft laws.

(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
this is a student site
not the retard room - please leave
Original post by shkreli
this is a student site
not the retard room - please leave


Are you in denial of the political reality?
Hey, could u pls explain further. I’m acc pretty inepterested.
Original post by RoselineP
Hey, could u pls explain further. I’m acc pretty inepterested.


There is a new political reality now which is simply telling the truth. However many people are still in denial. The state has pushed an ideological doctrine whereby people must accept certain things and uses the concept of “hate” to attack people who attack the ideology.
Original post by RoselineP
Hey, could u pls explain further. I’m acc pretty inepterested.


Lmaaaao nice one


Seriously OP, go away.
Original post by shoethetabs
Lmaaaao nice one


Seriously OP, go away.


Why because you’ve been consuming the BBC and the Guardian and you’re too much of a coward to face reality in this country?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by shoethetabs
Lmaaaao nice one


Seriously OP, go away.


Rip my keyboard takes a year to catch up with what I type and glitches. Imma chuck it out soon.
Original post by Airplanebee2
Why because you’ve been consuming the BBC and the Guardian and you’re too much of a coward to face reality in this country?


Woooh! Calm down!

Ps can I talk about this for an epq I’m doing,
Original post by shkreli
this is a student site
not the retard room - please leave


A student site where one posts in hope of getting a worthwhile response. Not a toddlers response
Original post by Airplanebee2
Why because you’re too much of a coward to face reality in this country?


Nope, because whether a person intends by words or behaviour to stir up hatred is a question for a jury or magistrate - hatred against any race or ethnicity would fall under the same prohibition. I think the problem is more with you and your seeming distaste for the 'blacks'. Note: not being allowed to pigeonhole entire races by the conduct of their worst members is not an unreasonable, 'Orwellian' restriction on freedom of speech. It's a sensitive balance between your right to freedom of expression and others' rights not to be the object of your scorn.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 11
Original post by Kaffee_1998
A student site where one posts in hope of getting a worthwhile response. Not a toddlers response


hard to give a worthwhile response to a waste of time statement
Original post by shoethetabs
Nope, because whether a person intends by words or behaviour to stir up hatred is a question for a jury - hatred against any race or ethnicity would fall under the same prohibition. I think the problem is more with you and your seeming distaste for the 'blacks'. Note: not being allowed to pigeonhole entire races by the conduct of their worst members is not an unreasonable, 'Orwellian' restriction on freedom of speech. It's a sensitive balance between your right to freedom of expression and others' rights not to be the object of your scorn.


Sorry but it doesn’t fly. The state doesn’t care about so called “hate” to whites, males and Christians. Because it’s about the cultural Marxist ideology and nothing else.
Original post by shkreli
hard to give a worthwhile response to a waste of time statement


Then why waste your time on this forum then? Fool
Original post by Airplanebee2
Sorry but it doesn’t fly. The state doesn’t care about so called “hate” to whites, males and Christians. Because it’s about the cultural Marxist ideology and nothing else.


Evidence?
Original post by shoethetabs
Evidence?


The establishment takes its views from the Frankfurt School / 60s student radicals - deconstructing western culture (Even if they are not aware of this or in denial of this). These are the views all people speak in public space even though they might not believe it (unless they are deemed mentally unfit by society) - or like me understand the architectural construct of cultural Marxism and are able to navigate it. This view holds that there is no such thing as sexism towards men or racist toward blacks because of “prejudge plus power”.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9221047/Black-people-cannot-be-racist-says-former-Ken-Livingstone-aide.html
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 16
Original post by Kaffee_1998
Then why waste your time on this forum then? Fool


holysh*t you are retarded
Original post by Airplanebee2
The establishment takes its views from the Frankfurt School / 60s student radicals. (Even if they are not aware of this or in denial of this). This are the views all people speak in public space (unless they are deemed mentally unfit by society) - or like me understand the architectural construct of cultural Marxism and are able to navigate it. This view holds that there is no such thing as sexism towards men or racist toward blacks because of “prejudge plus power”.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power


But the very legislation of which you (presumably) speak (offences in the Public Order Act 1986) makes no mention of a dominant position - are you suggesting it is inherent in prosecutorial practice?
Original post by shkreli
holysh*t you are retarded


You and you response, which is so typical, is all the proof you could want about the sort of society we live in.
Original post by shoethetabs
But the very legislation of which you (presumably) speak (offences in the Public Order Act 1986) makes no mention of a dominant position - are you suggesting it is inherent in prosecutorial practice?


The bias is not in the letter of the law, it’s inherent in common conversation, interpretation of comments, arrests, prosecution and determination of guilt. It’s part of what Jung would call the Collective Unconscious.

A brainwashed person who is trained to always hear bias because he is trained to hate white British group identification will always here bias and racism if someone identifies with a white British group. The same dynamic exists in a different way across race, gender, sexuality.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4196447/Arrest-for-gay-horse-jibe-is-absurd-says-Tatchell.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410150/Schoolgirl-arrested-refusing-study-non-English-pupils.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103175/Boy-7-branded-racist-asking-schoolmate-Are-brown-come-Africa.html
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest