Double Dutch gets in Dutch

[Wage Slave]

but yes, the police arresting idiots who can't resist using violence against even shitty people is a good thing.

I looked at what was written, then I looked at who wrote it, then looked back at what was written, and then looked back at who wrote it,...

Dear oh dear.

[matsuki]

Exception #1: said shitty person uses violence first!

[Russell]

If I remind you of your right-wing Japanese friend who told others to go back to their country to fix things there, then I am surprised you behave in exactly the same way as that guy.

That was the point.

OK, so you have been trolling me...

No, I was pointing out how ridiculous you sound.

You're telling me that you spout that logically inconsistent nonsense in the sincere belief it makes sense?

[Samurai_Jerk]

If I remind you of your right-wing Japanese friend who told others to go back to their country to fix things there, then I am surprised you behave in exactly the same way as that guy.

That was the point.

OK, so you have been trolling me...

No, I was pointing out how ridiculous you sound.

You're telling me that you spout that logically inconsistent nonsense in the sincere belief it makes sense?

You're a lot dumber than I thought.

[Takechanpoo]

in every countries, polices dont try to protect those neo-nazi or uyoku fellows themselves. they just try to prevent causing riot in the central area of the city. this is a needless-to-say thing, right?

[Russell]

If I remind you of your right-wing Japanese friend who told others to go back to their country to fix things there, then I am surprised you behave in exactly the same way as that guy.

That was the point.

OK, so you have been trolling me...

No, I was pointing out how ridiculous you sound.

You're telling me that you spout that logically inconsistent nonsense in the sincere belief it makes sense?

You're a lot dumber than I thought.

Great that you included the phrase "I thought"...

[Wage Slave]

in every countries, polices dont try to protect those neo-nazi or uyoku fellows themselves. they just try to prevent causing riot in the central area of the city.

And that amounts to protection. If you are going to grant rights you have to defend and enforce those rights. And that costs money and police time. A lot of money and a lot of time in some cases.

In most cases that is just the cost of living in a democracy - we have to just suck it up whether we agree with the people campaigning or not. However, if someone is inciting hatred and violence against people on the basis of their ethnicity or religious beliefs then I don't agree that's a legitimate part of democracy and I don't agree we should have to pay for it.

And there is public nuisance and people's legitimate business being disrupted. More costs imposed on people. Why is it so hard to grasp that freedom always has limits, most obviously to the extent actions impinge on the freedoms of others?

[Russell]

Why is it so hard so see grasp that freedom always has limits, most obviously to the extent actions impinge on the freedoms of others?

Yes, WS, your argument makes perfect sense.

[Wage Slave]

Why is it so hard to grasp that freedom always has limits, most obviously to the extent actions impinge on the freedoms of others?

Yes, WS, your argument makes perfect sense.

Well thanks but shame about the typo! I seem to be creating them at an ever increasing rate. Anyway, it's really basic stuff, isn't it? I seem to remember meeting it in about grade 10 or so.

[Russell]

Why is it so hard to grasp that freedom always has limits, most obviously to the extent actions impinge on the freedoms of others?

Yes, WS, your argument makes perfect sense.

Well thanks but shame about the typo! I seem to be creating them at an ever increasing rate. Anyway, it's really basic stuff, isn't it? I seem to remember meeting it in about grade 10 or so.

I am pretty sensitive to typos and have some automaton in my head that catches them virtually all, but this one escaped me, I must admit. Somehow your typo seemed to fit in in the logical flow of the sentence.

[Grumpy Gramps]

I seem to remember meeting it in about grade 10 or so.

Not everyone makes it that far

[Coligny]

I seem to remember meeting it in about grade 10 or so.

Not everyone makes it that far

Uphill bothways and in the snow even during summer...
And chased by wolves too I guess...

[Samurai_Jerk]

I seem to remember meeting it in about grade 10 or so.

Not everyone makes it that far

I made it halfway through grade 11 but I don't think they cover that till grade 12 where I'm from.

[wangta]

The laws against hate speech in some European countries have a reason, and it is to stop people like Hitler to come to power. Personally, I think these laws are not necessary, because most people can nowadays clearly see when a person who wants to get elected is a nutcase. And the average citizen is extremely unlikely to get prosecuted due to these laws, so your worries about a "thought police" sound ridiculous. When I see the media manipulation in the U.S., I would be more worried about a thought police there.

What you pointed out is one specific aspect of freedom, without considering that freedom is more than that.

There is widespread ignorance (not calling YOU ignorant, man) of why Hitler came to power. He became Chancellor of the pre-Nazi controlled German state because the old Prussian style leaders thought they could control him and because he was a nationalist who was against left wing subversion. The Nazis won some seats in that election but they did not win a majority and did not do so well.

Germans were frightened by the idea of anarchy from international socialists and communists. They had seen so many pitched battles in the streets between the left and the right. The Bolsheviks had won in Russia and the common cause of the communists and socialists in Europe included the objective of destroying old institutions and religion. That is one of the main reasons why the Nazis got seats in the Reichstag BEFORE they gained control and started implementing their genocidal and eugenics programs.

I believe there can't be absolute free speech in public as it will allow threats of violence, harassment and other serious abuse. But making laws against 'Holocaust Denial' is completely anti democratic and an abuse of power in itself. It sucks and it shows just how fucked up the German politicians were post WW2 by ever agreeing to such mind 'crimes'.

Morons like David Irving and any number of would-be-Hitlers can be defeated in free and open debate. The fact that any politicians would see his bullshit as a threat was like a forerunner on the attacks common now on free thought and genuine free speech in the USA and other western countries. Irving's babblings about how the Wanansee Conference was simply about 'evacuating Jews to Eastern Europe' for example were laughable and easily cut down.

I respect Jewish people and the state of Israel tho I don't agree with all its actions, but other people throughout history have been savagely persecuted and their annihilation attempted or done. The Armenian genocide by Turkish military and helpers still is not discussed in the west and other countries. And there should be no 'thought crimes' in a democratic society or one that claims to be.

[Russell]

Wangta, I agree with you.

I just want to make two points.

1. The laws on hate speech in Europe can be explained by looking into the historical context.

2. Just focusing on merely "free speech" doesn't cut it. You need to consider the whole package, including how democratic elections are, what freedoms exist in society, etc.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Wangta, I agree with you.

I just want to make two points.

1. The laws on hate speech in Europe can be explained by looking into the historical context.

2. Just focusing on merely "free speech" doesn't cut it. You need to consider the whole package, including how democratic elections are, what freedoms exist in society, etc.

You're still not making any sense. Historical context explains a lot of shitty things. So what?

Bringing up red herrings to avoid addressing the topic doesn't cut it.

[Russell]

Wangta, I agree with you.

I just want to make two points.

1. The laws on hate speech in Europe can be explained by looking into the historical context.

2. Just focusing on merely "free speech" doesn't cut it. You need to consider the whole package, including how democratic elections are, what freedoms exist in society, etc.

You're still not making any sense. Historical context explains a lot of shitty things. So what?

Bringing up red herrings to avoid addressing the topic doesn't cut it.

Your illogical arguments in previous posts convinced me that you're just trolling, so sorry, I will not waste my time anymore with responding to you.

[Coligny]

Come in, sophism is not trolling.
And anyway when he goes to the "you don't make any sense" "i don't understand you" he already lost the game and one step from total white flagging by just ignoring your answers.

[Grumpy Gramps]

Even Zuckerberg had to cave in and put the titties back on that Swedish breast cancer site, even though showing titties is against free speech (in yankeestan at least )

[Samurai_Jerk]

Wangta, I agree with you.

I just want to make two points.

1. The laws on hate speech in Europe can be explained by looking into the historical context.

2. Just focusing on merely "free speech" doesn't cut it. You need to consider the whole package, including how democratic elections are, what freedoms exist in society, etc.

You're still not making any sense. Historical context explains a lot of shitty things. So what?

Bringing up red herrings to avoid addressing the topic doesn't cut it.

Your illogical arguments in previous posts convinced me that you're just trolling, so sorry, I will not waste my time anymore with responding to you.

Historical context can explain why something is but doesn't justify it. You keep mentioning historical context as if that's a winning argument. Hint: it's not.

You never really responded to my claim but rather brought up a bunch of unrelated or tangentially related points and used my nationality as a reason I can't have a valid opinion about the limits on free speech in Western Europe. Now you claim I'm trolling because you can't come up with a real argument and don't have the courage to admit you just don't like certain kinds of speech so you want it banned just because it doesn't fit your worldview and it might hurt someone's feelings. Meanwhile we're seeing a resurgence of right-wing nativism as a direct reaction to the regressive left telling people how they should think. Remember when liberal meant being open to new ideas and accepting other people's opinions?

In the US it thankfully hasn't been codified into law yet but social justice warriors are doing a good job of behaving like Big Brother and making sure that no one can ever be forgiven for the mistake of making a racist tweet that wasn't actually racist in context. And look at the mess that university campuses have become with their safe spaces, trigger warnings, and meltdowns over Halloween costumes and cafeteria menus that culturally appropriate. In Western Europe and Canada it's been taken a step further with a French comedian being jailed for satire, two Canadian comedians being fined for making fun of individuals, a Dutch political figure being fined for speaking out against a certain religion, right-wing talk show hosts from the US being banned from the UK for "hateful" opinions, and a Scottish man being arrested for teaching his girlfriend's pug to give a Nazi salute. Not to mention laws against denying historical facts. Absolute madness. Why not go after the flat earth society or creationists while you're at it for denying scientific facts? Of course I only mean Christian creationists because the-God-that-doesn't-exist forbid you criticize Muslim beliefs. Haven't those poor people suffered enough under white supremacy?

I get it. As a European from a country with a brutal colonial history you feel that collective guilty for the havoc your people have wreaked upon the world. You're from academia so everything is theoretical and you don't live in the reality. You think you know better than everyone and can socially engineer a Utopian society. History shows that effort never ends well.

[Samurai_Jerk]

total white flagging by just ignoring your answers.

Great description of Russell. Thanks.

[Russell]

total white flagging by just ignoring your answers.

Great description of Russell. Thanks.

SJ, I'll keep it at your level.

[Samurai_Jerk]

total white flagging by just ignoring your answers.

Great description of Russell. Thanks.

SJ, I'll keep it at your level.

That's a vast improvement in the rhetorical style you've displayed thus far in this thread.

[Russell]

total white flagging by just ignoring your answers.

Great description of Russell. Thanks.

SJ, I'll keep it at your level.

That's a vast improvement in the rhetorical style you've displayed thus far in this thread.

For sure when seen from your perspective...

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Don't Merkins believe Jesus gave virgin birth to the world?

[Russell]